1914-05-12

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 186, respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company, and to ratify and confirm its purchase of a portion of the property of the Carillon and Grenville Railway Company.-Mr. Guil-bault.
Bill No. 187, respecting the North Shore Power, Railway and Navigation Company, and to change the name thereof to 'Gulf Pulp and Paper Company.'-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Georgina Beatrice Boyd.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the papers brought down concerning the Canadian Northern railway, on page 14, there is a statement of the earnings of the road for the year 1913, and an estimate of the earnings for the years 1916, 1917 and 1918. It would be important if the Government could get from the company a statement of the earnings for the year 1913 up to date, and an estimate for the balance of the year. Since we have an estimate for the year 1916, perhaps it would be possible to get a similar estimate of the earnings for the year 1914.


Mr. BORDEN:: I will be very glad to ask the company for that information.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Referring to the dssuments brought down yesterday in connection with the Canadian Northern railway, at page 5, there is a letter from Sir Wm. Mackenzie to the right hon. the Prime Minister, in which he says:
S*or the reasons mentioned in the memoranda and statements respecting the Canadian Northern Railway system, submitted-
I do not see where these memoranda and statements appear in this book, as they do not appear to accompany the letter. It would be very important that we should have these.


Robert Laird Borden: Everything that accompanied the letter has been brought down, and the selection of the documents printed was made by my hon. colleague from Halifax (Mr. Maclean), and by my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen). I have not examined the blue book very carefully. The documents alluded to were placed upon the table of the House. My recollection-I am not absolutely sure of this-is that what appears on the following page 'is a memorandum setting forth certain documents and information which were required from the company. When the company handed in these documents, they placed a copy of the written requisition which 'had been made in front, and these which follow in this book were the documents alluded to in the letter. That is my impression at the moment.


William John Macdonald: Apparently that letter of Sir William Mackenzie was accompanied toy some memoranda which explained the reason and the necessity for asking aid. I cannot find in the book or in such of the papers as I have looked at any such memoranda. If there is any such it should be in possession of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: The memoranda consisted of the information which was demanded to be furnished on two separate occasions. I do not know whether the information supplied on both occasions is printed in this book because I have not had an opportunity of examining it, but I do know that the information in a somewhat extended form was supplied on two different occasions. I will make inquiry and perhaps I can inform my hon. friend privately.



ANTI-HOME RULE MEETING IN TORONTO.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. LEMIEUX:: I have just read in the Mail and Empire the report of a meeting held on Sunday in Toronto to protest against the Home Rule Bill, and I see that my hon. friend from Toronto East (Mr. Kemp), was present. I have read his remarks as reported in the Mail and Empire, and I must say that I do not find much fault with what he said. But, as a resolution much more drastic than his remarks was passed at that meeting, I would ask the hon. gentleman to state to the House whether he represented himself or the Government on that occasion.


Hon. A. E. KEMP:: I fancy that the hon. gentleman is not absolutely serious when he asks whether I represented myself or the Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am quite serious.


Albert Edward Kemp: I may say, as the hon: gentleman knows, that I represented myself on that occasion, and the Government had no knowledge whatever as to anything I intended to say at that meeting. I am glad, than my hon. friend agrees with the sentiments I expressed; I consider them very moderate sentiments indeed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. G. E. Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce), Bill No. 170, to amend the Canada Grain Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Mr. OLIVER:: 
Mr. FOSTER:: In the working of the
terminal elevators, the grain that comes in is burdened to some extent with freight and other charges, necessary to convey it to the terminal elevator. The warehouseman has, under the Act, to pay these charges when he takes the grain in, and these charges are then repaid by the shippers of the grain either before or at the time they ship out. In the course of the working of our own elevator we have had to pay out in the course of the half season's operations money for freight amounting in gross to seven or eight hundred thousand dollars, but this is almost immediately recouped and deposited to the Credit of the Receiver General. The purpose of the first section is to carry out the idea of the Auditor General, which makes it unnecessary for us to get a vote for an amount, the maximum of which we do not know, and it enables us to draw for the money that is necessary on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the money to be paid back again to that fund. When the internal storage elevators are added in operation to the terminal elevator at Fort William, the amount of these transactions will Ibe much larger. Last year I had to get an advance from the Auditor General, and the advance was repeated and repeated. By this Act we. will avoid the unnecessary loading up of the Estimates with large amounts, and do away with the necessity of asking the Auditor General for advances from time to time.


Frank Oliver: When this Act was in
Committee the minister promised us certain information with regard to the handling of grain at the proposed interior terminals, and also the rate that would be charged for the service to be Tendered, and generally to give the House an idea as to how the Government proposed to operate these interior terminals.


George Eulas Foster: The interior terminals
will be operated in very much the same way as the terminal at Fort William. These interior terminals are meant for the storage of grain. The grain before being stored has to undergo the operation of grading. It is sampled, inspected, graded and taken care of in the elevators exactly in the same manner as it is at present taken care of in the terminal elevators. This is the first and primal reason for the erection of these elevators. In the next place, each one of these elevatora is to be equipped with all necessary treating and cleaning apparatus, so that for dis-

eased or disabled grain, so to speak, in any season and more especially in seasons such as we had two years ago when there was a great quantity of that kind of grain through the Northwest, we shall have at these terminal elevators proper and adequate machinery for cleaning the grain as to drying, or any other way in which it is treated. That will be a very important office that the internal storage elevators will perform. The site of each elevator will have to be made a terminal point, and the grain stored there will break its passage. In so far as the rates of transport are concerned, these are matters which come under the general transport system; and the rates will be according to the railroad schedules over which the railway commission will have, at it has now, ultimate jurisdiction, if there is dissatisfaction with reference to the rates. Warehouse receipts will be given for the grain when stored in these terminal elevators just as they are granted at Fort William, and there will be & registration system for the receipts and cancellations when the grain is shipped out.
Grain will be inspected also for mills in the vicinity of these storage centres. We have already under the Act power to appoint an inspector for a milling concern, inspectors' fees to be paid, any deficiency to be made up by the mill itself. We inserted that provision in the Act some two years ago. If grain exchanges are established at the places where these terminal elevators are, then provisions will be made for the inspection of grain consigned to members of the exchange so as to facilitate their operations. Otherwise and beyond these matters, I do not see that any interference will be had with the general work of inspection of outward bound grain via Winnipeg and the lakes.


Frank Oliver: The usefulness of these
terminal elevators will depend partly upon the facilities that they offer, partly upon the charges for the use of such facilities and partly upon the railroad carriage. How far can the minister inform the House as to the arrangement regarding road carriage?


George Eulas Foster: So far as the charges
to be imposed and the facilities to be given by the railways are concerned, these matters have not yet been taken up by the commission. These elevators will not be ready for the receipt of grain until probably December of this year or January of next year; and in the meantime the Board of Grain Commissioners will have to take up the whole question as to the modus opex-

andi and the charges, so Jar as they rest in the hands of the board itself, which will be the charges for storage, cleaning and everything like that. 'So far as the railway rates are concerned, that matter will remain, as I have said, in the hands of the transport authorities, and the Board of Grain Commissioners will take the matter np with them. I suppose what my hon. friend has in mind is what may come to be a backhaul >at certain times, namely, grain in the vicinity going into the storage elevators, then when going out again having to traverse part of the ground which it has previously traversed to get in. There is an arrangement which the railway companies make in the United States for this class of elevators; and I presume the same arrangement will be made with our own railways, both as regards the back-haul for the grain alone and as regards the freight rates charged for what we call milling in transit. These matters have not as yet been taken up by the Board, although they are being considered; but they will be taken up in the summer and provided for by the time the elevators are ready to receive grain.


Frank Oliver: The point that I want to
get at and that I cannot imagine has been left in doubt at all np to the present time is as to whether there will be a storage-intransit rate on the grain, or a local rate for part of the haul. If there is to be a storage-in-transit Tate on an absolute equality with the rate without storage, that will make for the usefulness of the storage facilities offered. If, however, there is not an arrangement for a storagedn-transit rate which shall be on an equality with the present rate without storage, then the usefulness of the storage facilities provided will be very much minimized; and I assume that that is not a question in doubt at the present time, but that the Government and the minister know absolutely whether a storage-in-transit rate on an absolute equality with the present rate without storage will be given or not.


George Eulas Foster: So far as that is concerned, whilst I think there is no doubt at all that there will be storage-in-transit rates, these have not yet been fixed, and they will not be fixed until the Board of Grain Commissioners take the matter up with the railway authorities first and then with the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Frank Oliver: This is a rather serious matter. The Government has entered upon this policy, presumably for the benefit of the producers and through them of the country generally; and on the authority of the minister, the Government does not know to-day whether that policy is going to be efficient, not knowing what the railroad rates are to be. I can hardly imagine a Government undertaking this policy in that condition. Surely it was quite possible to know a year ago whether there was to be a storage-in-transit rate on an equality with the rate without storage or not. It was not necessary to wait until the storage was provided before the rates could be arrived at. I have hopes that the condition is better than the hon. minister has seen fit to lay it before the House; but if it is as he has actually laid it before the House, it certainly is not a fortunate condition.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Has the minister considered the question that came up when the original Bill was before the House last year in regard to elevators for treating diseased and disabled grain? I refer to the noxious weeds that are cleaned out of the grain at these elevators. It seems a remarkable state of affairs that we should have elevators for treating diseased grain, and yet that part of the material handled which offers the greatest menace to the country is scattered broadcast. I feel that I am well within the mark when I say that the spread of noxious weeds throughout Canada is costing this country, I will not say how many millions, but certainly high up in the millions every year, and presents a serious problem in every province in Canada. So I do not think this Bill will be complete until the Government sees to it that none of the noxious weefd seeds that are cleaned out of the grain in these elevators are allowed to be scattered broadcast throughout the country. I think this matter should have engaged the attention of the Government, and I hope it will engage their attention in the near future. I know that the provincial legislatures have the power to enact laws to control this matter, but I believe it would be more effective and more satisfactory if this Government were to take it in hand. What would you think of a hospital which treated people for contagious disease yet made no effort to prevent the spread of that disease? Yet we have a similar condition here, but instead of preventing the spread of its disease it is encouraged. This spread of

noxious weeds I consider a most serious menace to the farmers of Canada at the present time. We speak of the high cost of living in this country. Why, there would be a living for one-third of the people of Canada in saving the losses that take place every year through the spreading of this terrible pest of noxious weeds throughout the country.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I desire to ask the minister a question which I put on a former occasion-with regard to the architects of these buildings.


George Eulas Foster: If the hon. gentleman is going off on another branch of the subject, I should like to have opportunity first to answer my hon. friend from South Oxforfd (Mr. Sutherland).


William Erskine Knowles: I was not going to deal with the question of the screenings.


George Eulas Foster: As to the question of
noxious weeds in the screenings, I may say that for the past year that has engaged, and is now engaging, the earnest attention of the Grain Board. We have added the machinery of the chemical labatory, and we have at present two men, thoroughly equipped in their several departments, who are paying particular attention to that branch of the subject. They are working together with the officers of the Grain Board and are doing all that possibly can be done at the present time to get at a basis of facts with reference to noxious weeds in the several grades of grain, and also with reference to the values of these different seeds, mostly weed seeds, and the useful purposes to which they may be put. On that basis of fact, when it is made, there can be built up a system of taking care of these leavings of the good grain and making those leavings of economical use, for it is quite possible to make these screenings useful as feed for stock of various kinds. Of course my hon. friend is entirely right, that noxious weeds are a great detriment to the country. The ' farmer's pest ' is always with most of the farmers of the country. And, whilst we would like to see the time approach when there will be no weeds on any farm in Canada, yet, the millennium so far as that is concerned, is a good way in the distance. But that does not justify the relaxation of any effort towards restricting, diminishing and if possible eradicating this pest. The provincial governments have their parts to do in the matter, and they are moving in that direction; the Department of Agriculture of the Dominion and

the departments of agriculture of the several provinces co-operate in this work. Whatever can be done by the Grain Board, and-after they have mapped out their work in this matter, whatever can be done by Dominion legislation to diminish this pest, will be done. And I hope to be able, at the next session of Parliament, to give a fairly clear idea as to what we think can be done by the Grain Board and through Parliament in this direction.


William Erskine Knowles: The weed problem is a very important problem in the West and has been so for many years. Some of the weeds we have are so tenacious that it is almost impossible to cultivate them out of the ground. But I must say that the theories of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) with regard to the desirability of having weedless farms and how to get rid of weeds will not, I fear, carry much weight in the West. For I may tell my hon. friend that the farmers of the West take very little stock in his advice about how to farm. In fact, it is one of the jokes among our people that the hon. gentleman's remedy for the evils that afflict us is mixed farming. I suppose that panacea would cover weed evils also, according to the hon. gentleman. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong. Evidently, he has not given that problem the mature thought that he has given to the other questions on which he has laid down his doctrine. At any rate, it is a joke among our farming community, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with all his college degrees, and even with his high standing as an orator, has one way of -settling all our difficulties and that is by advising us to go into mixed farming. It is something like adequate protection-there is supposed to be something in it for everybody. But I can tell the hon. gentleman how he could have done more to keep down the weeds than in any other way, and that is by allowing us to grow such short-maturing crops as barley. There was nothing for which the open market that at one time seemed to be -so near to us was more prized by our farmers than for this very reason, that it would have given them an opportunity to clear their farms of weeds. The worst weed we have, perhaps, is wild oats. There is so much oil in the seed that even though you summer-fallow your ground for four or five years, yet the seed will not rot. It is only by some system of growing crops that will mature before the wild oats that you can compel this weed to grow itsqlf out. As I -say, there was nothing for which

the open market was more desired than to enable the farmers to clear their farms by cultivating these quickly-maturing crops.


Mr. CUBBIE:: Eeciprocity would send
more rain, too, would it not?


William Erskine Knowles: I do not know whether or not it would have sent more rain, but it would have produced better conditions than those that exist under this Government. The people of Canada had the opportunity of Choosing between a progressive, statesmanlike policy and a reactionary policy; they took the latter and we see the results. We saw the results before 1896 and we have seen them since 1911. If the people of Canada had accepted the progressive policy, I believe that there would be no such financial depression in Canada as there is today. Why is it that in England they never were so prosperous as they are now? Why is it that the city of Toronto is more prosperous than it has been? You can scarcely rent a house in the city of Toronto to-day because the policy of this Government makes Toronto prosperous and makes our farming communities not prosperous.


George Eulas Foster: Now suppose we
get back to the Bill.


William Erskine Knowles: The hon. member for
South Oxford might have been told to stay with the Bill and the hon. member for South Grey as well. I am afraid that the advice of the hon. minister on the weed question or anything else that pertains to farming, will not carry very much weight. As a farming instructor, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is a joke. When the western farmer asks for anything he is told -tq go into mixed farming; that advice is pretty well played out. We must get what is coming to us, not periodical lectures on mixed farming by a gentleman who does not know anything about farming. When the minister had his Bill before the House on a previous occasion he was in a hurry to get it through at six o'clock and he promised to give us some figures with regard to the relationship between the architect and the contractor in connection with these elevators. He informed us that the architect was a Nova Scotian, although he belonged he thought, to the firm that was constructing the elevator. Would he kindly give us such information as he can with regard to that dual capacity?


Donald Sutherland: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat stated that the remarks which I made were outside the scope of the measure now before the committee. I think I was well within the mark, because the provisions of the Bill deal with exactly those things to which I was referring. When the hon. member refers to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce as a joke in western Canada when he undertakes to enact legislation in their interest-


William Erskine Knowles: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I did not say that; I said that when he turned farming instructor we regarded that as a joke.


Donald Sutherland: Permit me to say that when the hon. gentleman endeavours to make the people of this House believe that by growing barley he can get ahea'd of the wild oats, he is a joke himself. I say that you will have difficulty in beating out the wild oats by growing barley or any other kind of grain, for the oats will germinate just as readily and mature just as quickly as the barley. Even if cut before maturity, the grain will germinate and grow, and the roots will grow as well. This talk about the western farmer being handicapped by the people of Canada because they have refused him reciprocity is getting a little stale in this House. This House is being asked, day after day, week after week, and session after session, to pass legislation in the interests of the people of Canada anfd particularly in the interests of the people of the West. We are building the Hudson Bay railway, and we are building storage elevators, and the people of the West want cars right at their doors so that they will not have to build granaries. If the people of the older provinces were to ask for favours of this kind, they would be laughed at. We find no fault with the granting of facilities to the people of the West, but I think the hon. gentleman goes to extremes when he criticises the minister, who is doing everything in his power to look after the interests of the people of western Canada.


Mr. NEELY:: I was surprised to hear the negative and noncommittal statement of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce this morning with reference to a question brought to his attention by the hon. member for Edmonton. A couple of years ago this House undertook to pass the Canada Grain Act, which we are now asked to amend by this Bill. As I understand it, the object of the Canada Grain Act was to regulate and correct certain conditions and

abuses that surrounded the marketing of the farmers' grain, particularly in western Canada. Under this Act the Board of Grain Commissioners was appointed by this Government, and are carrying on the work of making regulations in respect of the storage, handling and marketing of grain. We have been watching very closely the operations of this Board of Grain Commissioners, and, so far as I can discover, the only radical change that they have accomplished is that in certain instances they have increased the fees chargeable against the farmers' grain for handling at the terminal elevators. This Government have inaugurated a new policy; they have undertaken to establish interior terminal elevators at various points through the West. The only possible good that could come from the establishment of these interior elevators would be to relieve the conditions of congestion that have prevailed year after year because of the inability of the railroad companies to handle the farmers' grain in the marketing season, and, in some cases, the inability of the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur to receive the grain when it is brought there by the transport companies. In my judgment the very first thing, the Government, embarking on this policy, should have considered, is the question of keeping down the cost of storage and of transportation. If the effect of this policy is going to be that, in addition to the necessary extra charges for handling, that is unloading, storing and reloading of the grain at these interior terminal elevators, the grain grower will also have to pay two local rates on his wheat, to these interior elevators and from there to the final terminals, if we may use that term, at Fort William and Port Arthur, then I think that experience will prove and prove very shortly that this whole policy of interior terminal elevators will fall to the ground. In my judgment the very first duty of the minister responsible for the inauguration of this policy was to have made arrangements with the transportation companies as to the rates that would be charged for grain shipped to these interior elevators, and from them to the final terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur. The charges for handling grain at these terminals are inevitable. But if to these charges, as the minister will see, there is to be added an extra charge owing to the payment of local instead of through freight rates, the grain growers of the West will be very loath indeed to ship their grain to these interior storage elevators. The minister has absolutely failed to carry into effect the neces-fMr. Neely.]
sary measures to make these interior terminal elevators in the country a success. He now tells us that the question of rates is all in the hands of the Railway Commission. We quite appreciate that and we know that, year after year, these matters of freight rates in the West have been before the commission. In a case inaugurated something over two years ago a decision was handed down recently. Full two years had been spent on this question of rates. There is no doubt that if the farmers object to paying two local rates, and this matter is to be brought to the attention of the Board of Railway Commissioners, there will be an interminable delay before the matter can be remedied, if indeed it is ever remedied in that manner. Surely the minister does not propose to tell us that he jumped into this thing in the dark, when he decided on the policy of erecting a considerable number of more or less expensive interior storage elevators throughout the West, without working out to its final conclusion the bene. ficial effects that that policy might or might not bring to the grain growers. I say that is surely a serious admission on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, if he proposes to make it, as apparently he has made it this morning. If the minister had found it impossible to make an arrangement with the transportation companies for the continuance of a through rate 12 noon, in connection with these interior storage elevators, a knowledge of that fact would have had a very important bearing on the decision of this House to agree to the policy of establishing these interior storage elevators. The minister knows that if the cost of using them is too large the farmers will shirk using them. From the answers to questions I have asked the. minister, I do not think that the Government so far has got along very far in the actual construction of these elevators and I trust that before . the minister goes any further with their erection or incurs any further expenditure, he will ascertain if it is not possible to have the railroad companies agree to give a through rate to Fort William, Vaucouver, Hudson bay or other final terminal points; because I am quite satisfied that if some such arrangement is not made the beneficial result of the building of these interior storage elevators will be nullified to a large extent, if not entirely. So far the passing of the Canada Grain Act a couple of years ago has resulted only in the increase of the cost of handling and marketing grain. The minister knows that

the great cause of loss of profit to the farmer is the cost of production of his grain in the West. That cost has markedly increased owing to various things, not altogether the increased cost of handling, other contributing causes are the increased cost of lake shipment, of ocean shipment and of labour. The minister has read the report of the commission appointed by the Saskatchewan Government over a year ago to investigate the grain trade in which they point out that notwithstanding that last year's crop was the best the West has ever produced, both as to quality and quantity, the margin of profit was .less last year than for many years previously. The commission pointed out that from 1909 to 1913 the cost of production of grain in western Canada had increased from twelve and one-half per cent to fifteen per cent, and one of the items in this increase has 'been the increase in the cost of storage, handling and marketing. The crux of the success of this elevator scheme depends upon keeping the cost of the use of these elevators down to a minimum; and if the farmer, say at Swift Current, who uses the terminal interior storage elevator at Moosejaw, has to pay a local rate from Swift Current to Moosejaw and another local rate to Fort William, or even if he has to pay one local rate with his through rate from Moosejaw to Fort William, the result will be that the grain grower will find it quite impossible to use these means of protection in times of congestion. I have been trying to get, by questions and returns, certain facts in connection with the operations of the Board of Grain Commissioners at Fort William and Port Arthur. I want to draw the minister's attention to a return dated March 2, of this year -which I moved for and which called for	'
The quantities of wheat, by grade, received into the terminal elevators at Port William and Port Arthur from the date of the weigh-up in 1910, to the date of weigh-up in 1911, the same for 1911-1912, and the same for 1912-1913.
I have gone over these returns and I find a very remarkable omission in all of them. My idea in moving for the return was to find out whether or not the terminal elevators were giving any better results under the control of the Board of Grain Commissioners than formerly. I am absolutely unable to come to any conclusion in that respect. These elevators show a certain amount of shortage or overage each year. The reason why the returns are unsatisfactory is that there is no balance carried forward from year to year in the case of each elevator. The bank account is apparently absolutely closed at the end of each year, or at each annual weigh-up, and the elevator starts out with a clean sheet for each succeeding year. The amounts are given for each year, the shipments in and the shipments out and the weigh-up, but there is no balance carried forward from year to year. There seems to be a remarkable omission in the returns and it prevents me from arriving at the information I had in my mind when I moved for them. There is no balance carried forward from the weigh-up of the year 1911 to the year 19111912. I would like to ask the minister if he does not think that he would be well advised to take into his consideration the question brought to our attention by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), and to see, before there is any further prosecution of this policy of building interior elevators, if there is any possibility of coming to a definite arrangement in regard to the matter. That could be done quickly, but the minister has not taken any steps even to ascertain whether it can or can not be done. As far as I could gather from his remarks, he never made an attempt to make such a specific arrangement. I think it is important that the attempt should be made now before the policy is prosecuted further. Surely the minister does not want to load up the country with a large capital expenditure for the building and maintenance of these elevators if the elevators are not going to pay, and if, to make them pay he has to compel the farmer to pay a great deal more in charges than he can afford.


William Erskine Knowles: Is the minister not going to answer any of the questions that were asked him?


George Eulas Foster: I did not quite oatoh my hon. friend's question.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister will remember that, during the consideration of some amendments to the Grain Act, or perhaps it was while his Estimates were under discussion, I asked him as to the circumstances under which gravel had been procured for the construction of the elevator at Moosejaw, and I asked him also how the different railways were to get in. The minister said that he would have a letter written to the engineer and see if he could make any report upon it. I asked him in regard to the access of the different railways and he said I could see the plans if I went to the department. I went to the department but found that they were gone.

I also spoke of the combined position of architect and contractor and pointed out that the other contractors were at a disadvantage because the successful contractor was associated with the architect. None of these points were discussed at length, but the minister stated that we could discuss them later on; he was very anxious to get the item we were considering through before six o'clock. I see that he has not anticipated the repetition of these questions and I do not know whether we will have another chance of having them answered during the session.


George Eulas Foster: What I said at
the time-we were discussing Estimates -was that I would reserve one item in the Steamship Subsidies Estimates and that when we came to take them up afterwards I would be prepared to answer any question in regard to elevators and elevator construction. My hon. friend will remember that.


William Erskine Knowles: Yes, I was in error
when I said it was the Grain Act that we were considering.


George Eulas Foster: When we were putting
through the resolution upon which the Bill is founded, the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) asked if I would answer some of these questions at the time the Bill was being put through. I said that I would, and the hon. gentleman himself also put some queries that he would like to have answered. Therefore, I have been looking towards the discussion of these matters when we came to the single item that had been left in the Estimates. However, in face of the remarks which have been made by my hon. friends opposite, I will try to answer the questions now. Some of them I am going to allude to because they are important, and others I am not going to allude to because they refer to a little joking in reference to myself, and that is not important enough to take up the time of this committee with. I have never posed as a farm instructor, and all I did do was to exercise my individual right as an humble observer, and in looking over the situation in the West I conceived an opinion that in some way or other mixed farming might be more extensively prosecuted than it hitherto has been. I had the temerity to utter that opinion in the House on several occasions. I am quite sure that nobody has been hurt because I did utter it, and 1 am also quite sure that I have not lost the respect of any good, well-grounded

farmer in the West because I mentioned that opinion. I defer entirely in connection with all that kind of knowledge to my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles). He is a past master in all those questions of wild oats and oil seed out in all the different ranges where weeds grow and flourish and pester the farmer of the West. He lives in that country and ought to know a great deal more about these things than I do.
As to gravel, which has greatly disturbed my hon. friend, I am afraid I will have to ask him to excuse me from going deeply into the gravel question, because I do not think it is important. We make a contract with a contractor. We pay him for his construction, and cement is used in that construction. The contractor has to look for his own materials and he gets them where ' he best can and at the best price he can for himself. We are not concerned as to where he buys his cement, except that we would like him to get it, and he practically does get it, in 'Canada. We are not concerned as to where he gets his gravel. We are concerned with two things, and with two things only. These are that the cement shall be the proper thing and that the gravel shall be the proper kind, and that the two shall make the construction according to the ideas of the supervising officer who is our own engineer. As to any troubles which have arisen in the path of the contractor towards his finding the gravel and getting it to the place of construction, I do not think that is anything of interest to this House.
I have no information upon it. All that I require my engineer to do is to supervise the construction of the work and see that the gravel and cement are proper. That he does, and that he reports to me. So much with reference to the gravel business. The next is as to the nearness of contact between the contractor and the engineer. Plans are prepared by different individuals and architects for the building of an elevator. These plans are gone over very carefully by our own architect and engineer. The plans he considers the best for that particular elevator are recommended by him and they are accepted on his recommendation by the board. Then it is the duty of the supervising engineer, who has no affiliation with the contractor in any way, to see that the building is constructed upon these plans and specifications, and that he does. There is no collusion and could not possibly be any collusion be-

tween the architect and the contractor in that respect. The architect's plans are there; if they are not good they are not taken, if they are good they are taken, and when they are taken the plans and specifications have to be lived up to according to the direction of our own engineer in charge, and in whom I have full faith. Mr. Howe is one of the most capable young men in his profession in Canada, and he is also as straight-forward and as honest as a man can be. I have every confidence, as has the Board of Grain Commissioners, that he does his work well and sees that the contractor does his work well also.
With reference to my hon. friend (Mr. Neely), who made the general assertion that after all these three or four years of effort under the Canada Grain Act, the only benefit that has come to the West was that they had had their fees and charges Taised, which, however, is not the fact. I may say that the enunciation of a statement like that is all the argument I want to use against my hon. friend's fairly long criticism of the Grain Commission and of the working of the Grain Act. I put that to the farmers of the West, to the shippers of the West, and to the grain growers of the West. Here on one side is a statement made by a member of this House that all the good that has come to the West out of the whole Grain Act and out of its administration under the commission is that they have had their fees made higher.


David Bradley Neely: 1 said all I had been able to discover.


Mr.   POSTER@: My hon. -friend will not
depreciate himself so much as to say to this House that there is- anything discoverable that he has not been able to discover. He has not so placed himself generally before this House as being a man who feels that he is lacking in knowledge in any way; the opposite is rather the case. He is an authority upon western matters and I have never questioned his authority, and it will not do for -him to try to escape the mild criticism I am giving him by entering the plea he has just put in. I will let -his statement go to the farmers, to the shippers, and to the grain men of the West and he will not find a baker's dozen of them who have had anything to do with -and any experience under the Canada Grain Act, who will stand by him in that assertion. He has quoted the commission appointed by the Government of Saskatchewan, by which he sets great store, and I read the report of 226
that commission -and I ta-pprove very largely of that report. I hope I will not raise the ire of my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Know-les) when I venture to express the opinion that after having read that re-port I think i-t is a very excellent report, and my hon. friend oan take that report from the first page to the last and he will find -almost unceasing commendation of the work of the Grain Commission and of the Canada Grain Act.


William Erskine Knowles: Where is the commendation that my hon. friend speaks of?


George Eulas Foster: If th-e hon. gentleman has read the report he will find it on almost every page.


William Erskine Knowles: What is the date of that report?


George Eulas Foster: I cannot be expected to
keep such dates in my head, but m.y hon. friend comes from Saskatchewan and surely he knows the date of the report of his own provincial government and he is not asking me for information in that respect.


William Erskine Knowles: I wanted to get it down on ' Hansard.'


George Eulas Foster: These are apparently questions which flow out fatuously from the hon. gentleman and are not meant for any practical result. With reference -to the storage elevators, my hon. friend who last criticised them, gave the impression to the House that in the first place the only reason why these elevators were -constructed was to enable people to store grain on its way to the ultimate market. That is one reason, but that is not the only reason. Even suppose we let him rest on his own argument, that the man who puts his grain into the storage elevator will have to pay -the local rate- from the Iplace he takes it to the storage elevator, and then when the storage has served its purpose that the local rate will have to be paid again when it is sent to its ultimate market, are there not -still other advantages to come from the erection of storage elevators in the West? I think the hon. member will not say that the only advantage is a resting place for -a little while -for grain on its way towards its ultimate market. The storage elevator is also to enable men who wish to take advantage of the market, -and are able to take advantage of the market, and who have no grain houses and storage places of their jwn, -to put their grain into these storage houses nearby their own farms, to get their warehouse receipt, to finance themselves



upon that receipt, and if they wish, to hold the grain in an independent position for a future market. They have had no conveniences for that upon their own farms, and I hope my hon. friend from Moosejaw will not think I am unduly criticising the western farmers because they have not these conveniences, but the fact is that as a rule they do not have them. Here we have machinery placed by this Parliament or by the Government in which they may store the grain and hold it there, financing themselves to the extent that the warehouse receipt gives them the capacity for so doing, and avoiding the necessity of throwing their grain in with the general rush, when the price is apt to go down, as it did last year, and holding it themselves for a future market. I think that is a great advantage, especially if what happened two years ago should repeat itself. If you have any season during which we raise in the West two hundred or two hundred and fifty million bushels of wheat, when, owing to the season, a large proportion of that goes bad an*d needs to be treated, these internal storage elevators equipped thoroughly for drying and for treating grain will save so much to the aggregate farming interests of the West that they will pay for themselves one hundred times over. I think every one will admit that. In a season such as we had two years ago, with an aggregate output of two hundred and fifty million bushels in the West, elevators at Calgary, at Saskatoon, and at Moosejaw, ready for storage to the extent they will be, with treating machinery in full equipment, they will be an insurance and a benefit to the farmers of the West which it is very difficult to estimate in money value. These are advantages that ought not to be lost track of in connection with the other.
As to the matter of rates, we are not legis-, lating in this Canada Grain Act for rates on railways. Rates on railways are fixed in different Acts and by a different authority from the Grain Commission. I am quite willing -I am rather glad in fact-that my hon. friend's criticisms have gone upon the paper. They will be embalmed in the treasure house of this Parliament-the inevitable and inexhaustible * Hansard.' There they will be; and we shall compare notes next year when we come together again, when the capacities of ' Hansard ' will be just as large as they are to-day, and we shall see how we make out in the way of these comparisons. I have no fears as regards that. The Grain Commission 
and my department have already considered this matter to a certain extent and will further consider it; and when the time comes for the movement of the grain and the operation of these internal storehouses, I have no doubt that a satisfactory arrangement will be reached.
I do not know that there are any other questions that I have missed answering. I want to answer every question; and if I incorporate into my answers a little mild criticism now and again of my two hon. friends who are facing me, it is just to show that I am generous enough to give back a little of what they so generously gave to me.


David Bradley Neely: It is very remarkable that the hon. minister, with all that fund of information which he has, which he should have and which he is expected, as the head of his department to have at his command, in speaking of the improvements in the handling and the marketing of the grain of the West, that have been brought about under his administration, after all has had to fall back for his verification on a report published by a commission appointed by the Government of the province of Saskatchewan. Whilst he has challenged my statement, he has not given, so far as I can learn, any concrete evidence that he has concrete illustrations in his own mind as to what improvements have been brought about; but he simply makes the general statement, basing it on the report which I have just mentioned, that such is the case. I am willing to take the minister's word for it, but I would have preferred if he had given us some concrete illustrations as to the improvements brought about since he has been in charge of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and consequently of shipping conditions in the West.
The minister tells us that, when this policy gets on a little further and when there are eight or ten of these elevators in operation, this question of the rates will be worked out satisfactorily. That information is very satisfactory, but it is very indefinite. The minister does not at all meet the point which I am trying to make, namely, that, before launching on this policy of building a large number of storage elevators throughout the West, at a greater or less expense, he and his department have made no definite arrangements. I use for illustration only this one particular benefit that the farmers expect to derive from these storage elevators, that .is, a place of storage in time of congestion.

I quite agree with the minister that they may be of great benefit in other directions; but the point I am making is that, if the financial benefit that may be derived by the farmers from the erection of these elevators is to he handed over to the railway companies by the paying of extra rates for transport, then the whole .scheme falls to the ground. That is my contention, as the minister knows; but he has managed, in that very able manner of his, to evade it entirely in his reply. The minister is very capable when it comes to making a general statement; hut when it comes to giving particulars, I am afraid I have to admit that, apart from the criticism of my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), that he is not an authority on farming, he is not just as great an authority as he should 'be on matters intimately connected with his department.
On April 22 I asked the minister a few -questions, which h-e was good enough to answer, with reference to what the Board of Grain Commissioners had done regarding the establishment of sample markets in western -Canada. Here is a little bit of inside history given in answer to my questions. The questions and answers are as follows:
Mr. Neely:
1.	Has the Board of Grain Commissioners recommended to the Government the establishment of sample markets in western Canada?
2.	If so, what date did they recommend for the establishment of sample markets and at what points?
3.	Has the Government passed any Order in Council respecting the matter, as required by the Grain Act?
4.	If so, what dates were fixed and what points were selected for the establishment of these sample markets?
5.	If such Order in Council was passed, has it been given effect? If not, why not?
Mr. George E. Foster:
1.	Yes.
2.	September, 1913. The board afterwards-*
I Mo not know what ' afterwards ' means-
-changed the date of their recommendation to December 15,	1913; Winnipeg and Fort
William.
3.	Yes.
4.	December 15, 1913, but subsequently indefinitely postponed; Winnipeg and Fort William.
5.	No. The crop of 1913 was of unusually high quality and remarkably uniform. It was harvested early and placed rapidly upon the market. By the date set, most of the wheat had passed out of first hands, and the farmers therefore would have got little if any advantage from putting the sample market into operation.
226i
If the first date recommended, namely, September 1, 1913, had been adopted, and the Order in Council passed in accordance therewith, this -answer would not have been on the Order Paper as to the crop having passed out of the farmers' hands previous to the establishment of the sample market. I am giving this as an illustration to show what I think everybody in the grain trade in the West knows perfectly well, that, through inexperience or something of the sort, a certain policy entered into last year for the hanMling of last year's crop was recommended by the Board of Grain Commissioners, an Order in Council was passed based upon that recommendation, and what happened? When it came to the working out of the policy, certain insuperable difficulties faced both the members of the board and the minister, with the result that that Order in Council was not carried into effect, but was indefinitely postponed. The recommendations of the Board of Grain Com-. missioners and the operations of the minister and department during this year will show whether or not they propose to take up for the coming year the proposals which they made last year, but which they dropped. I am just using that as an illustration to show how a policy may be adopted without due consideration, and that those who have adopted the policy may find themselves up against insurmountable difficulties, with the result that the policy has to be dropped. I would not like to see that occur in the case of the interior storage elevators, because I agree with the minister that great benefits may result therefrom. That is, benefits will result if the railway companies are not permitted to rob the farmers of those benefits by charging them double rates instead of single through rates to the head terminals at Fort William and other points.


Mr. ROBB:: Can the minister tell what will be the storage rates in these elevators?


George Eulas Foster: These have not been fixed yet by the Grain Commission. I may remind my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) that he is in error when he says that the only thing that had happened as the result of the Grain Act and its administration under the Grain Commission was an increase in the rates. I do not follow him in that, for the rates for storage in elevators are exactly the same as they were last yeaT, under the amended Act they remained the same as under the former

Act; there has been no raising of rates in any respect.


David Bradley Neely: What about the license and so on.


George Eulas Foster: I did not imagine that my hon. friend was so interested in looking after the interests of the elevators, these big corporations, that we would raise this row because they were made to pay a fair license fee. That fee does not come from the farmer, and I think that the elevators are quite able to pay it; and so long as I have the administration of the Grain Act I propose that they shall pay something for the privileges that they enjoy. But so far as the fees charged the farmers are concerned, whether in the country elevators, the elevators in the West or the terminal elevators the farmers pay not one single tenth of a cent more than they paid before.
My hon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) asks what will be the storage rates. I have already answered that the storage rates have not been settled. They will certainly not be greater than the rates at present in force in Fort William. Whether they shall be less or not will depend upon the opinion of the Grain Commission. I may say that while, as minister, I am responsible in the end, yet I have thrown absolutely their full share of the responsibility for these matters upon the Grain Commission. They are three men whom I believe to be good men and capable. They are in the business and all the time they are going, up and down the whole line of transport and amongst the people who are engaged in this business. I think they have the best opportunity of examination and of reaching conclusions, and I stand by the Grain Commission. I do not think there is a single thing yet in which I have been at cross purposes with them. I think they know better what ought to be carried out than I do. At the same time, I do not abdicate my position as being responsible and there is very little that the Grain Commission does that I do not discuss with them in one form or another.


James Alexander Robb: The statement from the minister that the storage rates will not be greater than the rates at Fort William will not afford much encouragement to the grain grower or grain handler of the West. The storage rates at Fort William have been one of the grievances in the trade. For instance, they charge for winter storage one cent per month, whereas, if the grain Were on this side of the lakes it would be carried at one and one-half cent for the winter season.

If the internal elevators are to be of any considerable value for storage in the West, rates will have to be considerably reduced as compared with those at Fort William. Now, I agree largely with what the minister has said as to the value of these internal elevators in the West. One advantage will be that the crop can be handled more quickly than would be possible if the trains had to go down to Fort William and back. Another advantage will be that if these elevators are equipped with proper cleaning machinery, the grain can be cleaned	in	these elevatorsand	the	owner of the grain will
not have to pay freight on weeds and seeds that are of very small commercial value and that are not wanted in the East. I am not sure that it is good policy to give out the ideas concerning the western country that freight rates are going to be quite as bad as represented by my hon. friend from Humboldt. I noticed that the hon. minister was not in a position to correct that. I do not know where my hon. friend from Humbo'ldt gathered the idea he gave to the House. For instance, he gave a concrete case where they will have to pay a local freight from Swift Current to Moose-jaw and another from Moosejaw to Fort William. I think he has been misinformed in that.


David Bradley Neely: I did not say anyUiing
about what they had to pay; I asked if the minister had made any arrangement.


James Alexander Robb: I gathered that the minister was going to take credit later on for fixing these rates. As a matter of fact, the rates had been in force for many years, and I suppose that these internal elevators will enjoy the same privileges as the millers in their elevators. Grain will be shipped on through rates to Fort William and will pay a stop-over of two cents per 100 pounds for cleaning. I think that is a reasonable charge and the farmers could hardly expect better. These are the rates going East; the rates going West are somewhat different, and they, perhaps, will have to be corrected.


William Erskine Knowles: How long is the stopover?


James Alexander Robb: I think the millers are allowed six months.


George Eulas Foster: As to the point men-toned by my hon. friend, the feeling that the rates for storage at the terminal elevators at Fort William have been too high, we really are not in a position to under-

stand the inside workings o'f the elevator system under the established rates until we have had the experience of a full year of an elevator owned and operated by the Dominion. The Grain Commissioners, of course, are watching that matter very closely, as also is my department. At the end of the year we shall have means of estimating what are fair and reasonable charges for storage at the terminal elevators. I am not making any pronouncement at the present time. But the Grain Commissioners' report, when it comes down, will, I think, give an intimation of the views that the Grain Commission has formed in that regard. And, I may say-putting it negatively-those views are not of a tendency to increase the cost and charges at the terminal elevators. The whole matter, as my hon. friend will see, assumes an entirely different aspect as the basis for judgment concerning proper charges, when the operation of the Government elevator has proceeded for the space of one year.


Frank Oliver: What are the winter storage charges at the Midland elevator ?


George Eulas Foster: I have not the information before me just at the present time.


James Alexander Robb: One cent and a half a bushel.


Frank Oliver: What is the storage charge at the Port Colborne elevator ?


James Alexander Robb: One cent and a half is the maximum rate; if the grain is taken out within the winter period the rate is one-thirtieth of a cent a day.


Frank Oliver: The Port Colborne elevator is the property of the Dominion Government. It was built by the Dominion Government at the cost of the Dominion; it has been in operation for a considerable number of years, and there ought to be adequate knowledge in the department by this time as to whether the charge at the Port Colborne elevator, which is on all-fours with the private elevators at Midland, is or is not below a reasonable figure. It is hard to make anybody understand that Government money employed at Port Colborne in the erection of an elevator should have less earning power than Government money employed in the construction of an elevator at Fort William. I think the minister has been rather slow, if I may say so, in making up his mind as to what the storage charges should be, especially when he is establishing a new policy, carrying out a new principle and making a very large expenditure of money. Without wishing to delay the committee, I take this
opportunity of emphasizing to the minister the views of the hon. member for Humboldt that the value of the interior elevators depends upon the charges made foT their use, both in respect of storage and of transportation to and from them. I am not pleased to hear the minister explain at such length and with such emphasis the additional benefits that will be conferred by reason of the elevators offering more than simple storage. It seems to me as if he were discounting a possibility of higher charges for the additional advantages that we all hope will come from the construction of these elevators. I have said before, and I am going to take the liberty of saying again, that in the face of a falling world's market of wheat; in the face of increase of production in new and competitive countries, if we are going to stay in the wheat business, we must cut our costs to the bone. This is not a matter concerning only the farmer of the West; it is a matter concerning everybody in Canada whose business is dependent directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, upon the success and expansion of wheat growing on the western prairies. If it is possible for the minister to cut the cost of storage; if it is possible for him to cut the expense connected with these interior storage elevators, it is his duty to do so, ini the interests not merely of the farmers but of the Dominion of Canada as [DOT]a whole, in order that there may be a further expansion of the wheat-growing industry on the prairies and in order that the wheat growers of the West may he able to compete in the markets of the world under the adverse conditions which are increasing from season to season. I say it is his business to cut those costs laibsolutely to the bone, and it is not going to meet the case to say that such and such charges prevail some place else; that there axe going to be special advantages in the use of these elevators and that the farmers ought, therefore, to pay ian extra special charge. If the purpose of the Government in making these expenditures and in providing these facilities is to be reached, there must be a cut of costs absolutely to the minimum.
In connection with the cost of use of these elevators, let me refer to the back-haul to whioh the minister himself has alluded. The elevators at Saskatoon and at Moose-jaw are situated about midway in the province of Saskatchewan from east to west. Very much more wheat is raised in Saskatchewan east of Moosejaw and east of Saska-

toon than west of Moosejaw and west of Saskatoon, therefore if the elevators at Saskatoon and Moosejaw aire to be used by the Wheat growers living to the east of them an additional haul to market-the backhaul of which the minister spoke-is involved. I am not dictating as to what can or what should be done, but it is perfectly clear that in respect of the wheat of eastern Saskatchewan, which has to pay a backhaul to get the benefit of these elevators, unless there is some special advantage in connection with the freight rates, these elevators are going to be of very little use to that part of the province of Saskatchewan which raises the largest proportion of the wheat of the province. This special advantage would mean a cut below the ordinary rate in respect of the wheat taking this back-haul. I do not know whether or not that is possible; I am not going to discuss that point. I merely point out that unless something of that kind is done, considerably more than half the wheat grown in the province of Saskatchewan cannot get the benefit of those elevator facilities at Saskatoon or Moosejaw excepting at a prohibitive cost.
I am sorry that the minister is not able to give us the charges that he proposes to impose for the use of these elevators. The hon. member for Huntingdon has said that there is a milling-in-transit rate on the railroads which would be available to the elevators. That is quite possible. I know that there is a milling-in-transit rate, but I also know that special charges might be be levied on grain for storage which is not levied in the case of grain for milling. There is always the posibility of an advance to the disadvantage of a new institution. I wish to emphasize the necessity, in the interests of the Government, in the interests of the reputation of the Dominion, in the interests of the country at large, and in the interests of the farmers, that this matter of cost should have the fullest attention of the minister and that the cost should be cut absolutely to the bone.
On section 2-S. 121 amended:


James Alexander Robb: Will the minister explain the effect of putting 123 under the same classification as 122?


George Eulas Foster: Putting 123 in clause 121 will bring public elevators in the East under the same supervision and control of the Grain Board as those in the West and as terminal elevators are under. A public

elevator, as my hon. friend knows, is one that receives for storage and transit grain which has been certificated at Fort William, and which passes through on its way to the ultimate market. It has been felt for a number of years, and the Grain Commission have been very insistent on this, that there should be more supervision and control over the grain after it leaves Fort William and until it reaches the seaboard. The purpose of the inclusion of section 123 in clause 121 is simply to give the same authority and supervision and control over the eastern public elevator as there is over the terminal elevator. The purpose is to endeavour to keep intact the quality of the grain as it is certificated at Fort William or Port Arthur until it reaches the ultimate market.


James Alexander Robb: As I understand the section reads:
No person owning, managing, operating or otherwise interested in a terminal elevator shall huy or sell grain at any point in the eastern or western inspection division.
As I understand, if this clause is adopted owners of public elevators will come under this prohibition, they will be deprived of the privilege which they now have of buying grain in the western division. Is that right?


George Eulas Foster: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-exception in case of terminal elevators:
George Eulas Foster: Section 3 is simply the exception of terminal elevators from the car clause. It would be impossible to carry on the work of a terminal elevator at Fort William under the restriction of the car clause. The clause that will govern them will be No. 133.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 3-terminal elevators:


William Erskine Knowles: The section which, of course, is really an amendment to the be-gining of section 195, and which is called 194a, provides that:
The provisions of sections 195 to 207, both inclusive, shall not apply to elevators licensed as terminal elevators.
I suppose the minister intends to make the elevators at Moosejaw and Saskatoon terminal elevators under a declaration by Order in Council?


George Eulas Foster: They must be terminal elevators.


William Erskine Knowles: In paragraph y of the
interpretation section it is provided that:
Terminal elevator includes every elevator or warehouse which receives or ships grain and is located at any point declared by the Governor in Council to be a terminal.
Under this section 3 there is nothing to prevent every elevator at Saskatoon and Moosejaw becoming terminal elevators because every elevator, just as well as the Government elevator, will be an elevator which receives and ships grain and is situated at a point declared by the Governor in Council to be a terminal. The Governor in Council will declare Saskatoon and Moose-jaw to be terminal points and this clause says then that every elevator which is situated at these points shall be a terminal elevator. Consequently, it would look as if the local elevators in Moosejaw and Saskatoon would hot come under sections 195 to 207, namely, the clauses in regard to cars and the car order book.


George Eulas Foster: I think there is a point in that which I did not notice. I would suggest that we pass the clause and I will not push the Bill to the third reading, but I will have this matter looked into so that if anything is necessary to guard it I can introduce it as an amendment.
Bill reported.



REGULATION OF EXPLOSIVES.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Louis Coderre (Minister of Mines), the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blondin in the chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to regulate and control the manufacture, importation and use of explosives and the construction, licensing and inspection of premises used for the manufacture and storing of explosives, and to provide for the making of inquiries where an accidental explosion has occurred.
Frank Oliver: This is a resolution that, no doubt, is important, and there are a number of members who would like to be informed in regard to it. There are very few in the House just now and we do not wish to delay the business, but if the minister will make a full explanation on the second reading of the Bill there will be no objection to it going through without the information being given now.


Mr. CODERRE:: I will do that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would ask the hon.
the minister if this resolution contemplates the avoidance of such accidents as happened a year or two ago at Beloeil? There was a powder manufactory at Beloeil and an explosion took place with the result that ten persons were killed. There is another powder manufactory on lie Perrot. It is quite near the track, and I am often nervous when I pass that point on my way to Montreal. Does this Bill contemplate circumstances of that nature?


Louis Coderre: I shall be pleased, as
requested by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), to delay the full explanation of this proposal until the second reading of the Bill. I would say to my hon. colleague from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) that this resolution is to authorize the regulation and control of the manufacture, storage, testing, importation and transportation of explosives generally and the Bill which will be founded upon it proposes to do away, as far as possible, with such accidents as the one which he has mentioned. This is a most important measure. It should have been passed years ago. I remember that in 1911, my predecessor, Mr. COMMONS
Templeman, brought a Bill before the House, a few clauses of which were passed. The accident which has been alluded to by my hon. friend from Rouville is not the only one that has occurred during the past year. I have here a list, based on information we have obtained from the Labour Gazette, of ninety-two fatal accidents in 1913 due to explosion in mining, railway construction and other employments.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The present Bill will deal with such conditions?


Louis Coderre: I think so.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. CODERRE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 189, to regulate the manufacture, testing, storage, and importation of explosives.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), Bill No. 180, to amend the Canada Temperance Act, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Mr. DOHERTY:: The first purpose of the Bill is to make the Canada Temperance Act of practical application in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The second purpose of the Bill is to obviate a difficutly which has arisen in connection with elections under the Canada Temperance Act in the unorganized territories of Ontario. The law at present says that the persons entitled to vote upon an election for the adoption of the Canada Temperance Act, are the persons who would be entitled to vote in Dominion elections, and in order to hold an election under the Canada Temperance Act it is necessary that there should be a list in force for the purpose of a Dominion election. The law provides that in the unorganized territories an electoral list shall be made every year unless the Governor in Council dispenses with the making of such list, and it has been usual for the Governor in Council to so dispense with the making of the list in years other than that in which a general election is anticipated. Consequently, in certain cases it was necessary to make a special list for an election for the adoption of the Canada Temperance Act, and inasmuch as the list so made must be suitable for use at a Dominion election, even where

only a small part of the riding would be included in the district in which it was sought to bring the Canada Temperance Act into force, it was found to be necessary to make a list for the entire riding. This entailed additional and useless expense, and the purpose of the amendment is to provide that in such case the list may be made to cover only that part of any riding included in the district in which the Temperance Act is sought to be brought into force. It is provided that such list shall be applicable for the purposes of that election only, and shall not be used in the event of a Dominion election becoming necessary in that riding. It was considered undesirable that in a Dominion election in the riding part of the list should be made at one time and part at another.
It is farther sought to amend the law so as to remove doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts to hear contestations of the validity of elections held under the Canada Temperance Act. I would not be inclined to think that the doubt as to the jurisdiction was very serious, but as the question had arisen it was thought wise to remove any doubt. In connection with the lists there was also found another difficulty which is sought to be remedied by an amendment which I intend to propose to the Bill as introduced. The Canada Temperance Act provides that twenty-five per cent of the qualified voters shall petition for the ordering of an election under the Act. In districts composed partly of organized and partly of unorganized territory, difficulty has arisen from the fact that in the unorganized territory there was not in force in certain cases any list of electors Which would enable the Secretary of State to determine whether or not the petitioners were twenty-five per cent of the electors in that unorganized territory. The amendment will provide that in such case, for the purpose of determining whether or not there are twenty-five per cent of the voters in the unorganized territories who have signed the petition, the Secretary of State shall take the number of voters who were on the last list in force in that territory as being the number whereof twenty-five per cent must sign the petition. This is made subject to the. exception that in cases where it may be demonstrated that there has been a noted diminution in the population of the unorganized district since the making of the last list, then twenty-five per cent of the persons who can be shown to be living in the district will be sufficient.


William Erskine Knowles: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that the Act as it now stands provides for separate elections in cities and counties. The difficulty that arose in the western provinces was that there were no subdivisions of territory corresponding with the (districts in which the Act provided that a temperance election might be held. The way in which that difficulty is sought to be obviated is by a provision that in those provinces the word ' county ' shall mean a riding for a Dominion election. It makes the Act applicable, and at the same time obviates any difficulty about the lists, because a county for the purposes of the Canada Temperance Act will be the county for the purpose of a Dominion election, and naturally the same voters' list will be applicable.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Will the minister tell the House in how many counties in the Dominion the Canada Temperance Act is now in force?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in a position to give that information. Perhaps I should have anticipated that question, but I did not anticipate it.


William Erskine Knowles: Can the minister tell me whether my information is correct or not? I am informed that, say in a county in the province of Ontario, in which there is a small city and a large rural vote, in the city there may be a majority of people who do not approve of the bringing of this Act into operation, while in the rural district there may be a large majority approving of it. In such a case will the rural people have the power to impose their wishes on the urban people?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps the best way to answer the hon. member is to give him the definition in the statute. Under section 2, the interpretation section of the Act as it stands, we have this provision, which I think answers the question:
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, ' county ' includes every town, township, parish and other division or municipality, except a city, within the territorial limits of the county, and also a union of counties united for municipal purposes.
I should say that under that provision, in an election held for a county, which includes a city, the city would not be included in the county.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: But a town would?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, a town would.
Everything that was not a city would be included.


William Erskine Knowles: The amendment in regard to the provinces in the West will be subject to the same exception; or, in other words, our cities in Saskatchewan will be masters of their own destinies in this matter?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am afraid that the amendment as drawn will not meet that requirement. The provision in this Bill is that:
As respects the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, ' county' means the electoral districts therein as designated by the Representation Act.
In that respect this definition differs from the definition of the word ' county ' as given generally. That, however, is already the law as regards the province of Manitoba. The present provision of the law as respects the province of Manitoba is:
* County ' means the electoral districts therein as designated by the Representation Act.
And we are now making applicable to Alberta and Saskatchewan the law as it stands with regard to Manitoba. If the hon. member thinks it desirable to make the same distinction with regard to these provinces, I am quite prepared to consider his suggestion.


William Erskine Knowles: I am not very familiar with the matter; the minister knows it better than I do; but if we are thoughtlessly making one law for Ontario and another law for Saskatchewan, we may be in error. On the face of it, I have grave doubts whether it will be in the interest of temperance, say in the West, where we have a very large rural population, if we ean take a constituency including a city, because the city may consider that the prohibition of liquor is not desirable, and that it can not be successfully operated, whereas the county people may hold the opposite view, and may be able to impose their views on the city. I am not at the moment placing myself on record either as in favour of the amendment or as against it; but if we are making legislation for one province different from that in another we should do so knowing that we are doing it and why we do it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is a question of assimilating the law in Saskatchewan and Alberta to that in force in Manitoba. At first glance one might be inclined to think that conditions in Alberta and Saskatchewan might be more similar to those in Manitoba than possibly to those in Ontario. I have not heard any suggestion that the law does not operate satisfactorily in the province of Manitoba, and I think that the same provision under the Act is applicable to British Columbia.


William Erskine Knowles: British Columbia has a very small rural settlement as compared with Saskatchewan.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. member, who is no doubt more familiar with the conditions in these two western provinces than I can pretend to be, thinks there will be a material advantage in assimilating the law in these two provinces to the law in force in Ontario, rather than to the law as in force in Manitoba, I shall be glad to consider the suggestion.


William Erskine Knowles: I am not speaking after very much reflection; but I am rather inclined to think that what the minister suggests may be my view, so far as I can see now. The fact that Manitoba has a certain condition of affairs does not seem to be a strong argument why the law in force in Manitoba should be applicable to Saskatchewan. In fact, I would rather follow Ontario in this matter than Manitoba.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The mere fact that a certain provision is in force in Manitoba is not a reason why it should be put into force in Saskatchewan, unless it appears that the provision as regards Manitoba is more suitable to Saskatchewan than the provision as regards Ontario. As I said a moment ago, at first glance one would be inclined to think that conditions in Saskatchewan and Alberta would be more similar to conditions in Manitoba than to conditions in Ontario. When the law was originally made with this distinction, I presume there must have been some reason for the difference, and I have not heard any representation upon the subject indicating any desire that we should differentiate between the law as applicable to Manitoba and the law as applicable to the other prov-' inces. I do not want to be understood as saying that because it is so in Manitoba, it should be so in Saskatchewan and Alberta. It is entirely a question of what is most suitable for the two provinces.


William Erskine Knowles: Would the word ' county ' have the same meaning in the East

as in the West ? It is possible that this little discussion may be due to the minister's having given in his kindness an answer without giving the matter very much consideration. I am not sure that there is a difference. I asked the minister to put it beyond peradventure. I wonidered if the minister had looked into it carefully enough to be positive in his opinion that a different condition of affairs does prevail in Manitoba from that in Ontario. I know that there is a debate on the subject. If the minister is sure on that point, I will let it rest; but if he gave a somewhat hurried answer, there may be an explanation, and even the Manitoba cities are the governors.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My answer consisted in reading the statute, and that seems to be perfectly clear. I will read all that relates to this point:
(d)	'county' Includes every town, township, parish and other division or municipality, except a city, within the territorial limits of the county for municipal purposes;
(e)	as respects the province of Ontario, or any other province in which provisional or temporary Judicial districts exist, 'county' includes such provisional or temporary judicial districts;
(f)	as respects the province of Manitoba,
' county ' means the electoral districts therein, as designated by the Representation Act;
(g)	as respects the province of British Columbia, until the province shall have been divided into counties and a regular municipal organization established in each of such counties, 'county' means an electoral district therein in accordance with the division of the province for election of members of the House of Commons of Canada, and includes every town, township, parish and other division or municipality within the territorial limits of such electoral district, or within a union of electoral districts where united for municipal purposes.
It is possible, in view of this first general definition of ' county ' excepting from it the cities, that that first disposition should be considered as applying to these counties as subsequently defined in the other provinces. I shall be glad to look into that matter. I am free to confess that I did not examine that question, because what was represented to us, and the only thing represented to us, was that it was desirable that we should insert a definition so as to make it aplicable to Alberta and Saskatchewan, without any expression of (desire as to how it should be made to apply.


Frank Oliver: In my judgment, the provision which is applicable in Ontario whereby the city is excluded would be properly applicable in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

A city is incorporated by the provincial authority, and given independent powers lor what seem good and sufficient reasons. The fact that it has been created a city, the fact that a certain place has been created a city by the provincial authority, means that the provincial authority desires to establish a separate control within that area; and it seems to me that it would be rather a mistake to ignore that plain intent of the provincial authority when creating a city. I would suggest that in applying the law to the electoral districts, the same exception be made as regards cities in Alberta and Saskatchewan as is made un-. ^questionably in regard to Ontario and probably in regard to Manitoba.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall look into the question, as I mentioned a moment ago. The definition of county which excludes the cities is not specially applicable to Ontario, but is a general definition. Then, we have provision with regard to Ontario, with regard to Manitoba, and with regard to British Columbia, and we shall have with regard to Saskatchewan an'd Alberta.
I think it is quite possible that one should read the definition as applicable to all these specified cases, in which event the exception	of the	cities would be
general.	I confess I did not consider any question arising except that we should make this law applicable and workable in the two provinces. If we reach the conclusion that it is applicable, the Bill might stand as it is; if we reach a contrary conclusion upon what is represented, I dlo not see any objection to modifying the Bill so as to make the exclusion of the cities apply.


Wilfrid Laurier: I was not
present when this debate commenced, but 1 heard the hon. minister speak on the introduction of the Bill. So far as- he has spoken, he has not given any information as to the raison d'etre of this Bill. Are we to understand that this Bill is asked for by the temperance organizations, or is there any demand in the western provinces for the change of the Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Before the right hon.
gentleman came in I had endeavoured to explain the reasons that brought about the proposal of these amendments. It has been represented by people interested in the tem-Iperance cause that the Act was not workable in Saskatchewan, and if I am not mistaken the hon. member for Edmonton <Mr. Oliver) but a few days ago referred
in this House to this lack of provision in the Act making it workable in these two provinces. It is because it appears to us fair and right that a law intended to be of general application, and unworkable in these particular provinces simply for want of definition of those counties or districts in which the Act might be brought into force, ought to be so modified as to make it applicable throughout the country generally. The other amendments suggested in the Bill are the result not so much of representation from anybody as of difficulties that arise in the application of the Act and that have caused a great deal of trouble. One difficulty was to get a list for the purpose of an election necessary for the adoption of the Canada Temperance Act, where the whole or part-more particularly where part of the counties in which the election was sought to be held consisted of unorganized territory in the province of Ontario. As I explained, it was found that under the law as it stands, in virtue whereof persons entitled to vote in an election on the Canada Temperance Act are described as persons who would be entitled to vote at a Dominion election to be held at the same time, wherever a county for the purpose of the Canada Temperance Act included some part of an unorganized territory in the province of Ontario, the only method by which you could get a list applicable to that part which was comprised of unorganized territory was by making a list under the Dominion Elections Act, and it was considered, after careful examination, that you could only make a list for the purpose of the Dominion Elections Act by making a list for the entire Dominion riding. So that where, perhaps, but one-tenth part of the Dominion riding forming part of the county for the purposes of a Canada Temperance Act election consisted of unorganized territory, we were under the necessity of making a list for the entire riding, which entailed a very considerable useless expense. That was one difficulty. A second difficulty that arose also related to the unorganized territory-that in order that an election should be held in a county as it is defined in this Act, it is required that there should be a petition made by twenty dive per cent of the qualified voters. In that connection the difficulty was that where the county for temperance election purposes consisted partly of organized and partly of unorganized territory, we found ourselves in this position; when the peti-

tioner presented his petition it was easy enough to ascertain whether he had twenty-five per cent of the voters in the organized territory, because there was a list to which he could refer, but with regard to the unorganized territory it was exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for the petitioner satisfactorily to establish that he had twenty-five per cent of the persons who would be entitled to vote at that temperance election when it came on, because the lists, being made only for the purposes of that temperance election, naturally would not be made until after the occasion for it had been shown by the presentation and granting of the petition for the election. It is mainly on account of the difficulties which I have mentioned with regard to the unorganized territory that the decision was arrived at to amend the Act. When we had decided to amend the Act, it was pointed out that in its present condition, as I mentioned a little while ago, it was not workable in these two provinces and we thought that we ought to meet that difficulty.


James Alexander Robb: In the preparation of this
Act, has the minister taken into consideration the representations that were made to him in March, 1913, by Dr. Bazin, of Orms-town, representing the Temperance Association in the province of Quebec?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The representations
made by Dr. Bazin have certainly had the consideration which they deserved, both on account of their intrinsic merits and on account of the source from which they came. But the principal suggestion of Dr. Bazin looked to a much more fundamental amendment of this Act than anything which is suggested here. In fact, one could hardly call it an amendment to the Act; it was the suggestion of an entirely new procedure with regard to the adoption of the Canada Temperance Act. I am speaking now solely from memory, but I do not think that I am mistaken. The principal suggestion of Dr. Bazin was that at every general election we should simultaneously submit, all over the country, I understand, the question whether the Dominion Temperance Act, or prohibition in some shape; should be adopted. That, of course, is a proposition that, I think, calls for more serious consideration than any of the amendments which it is now proposed to make to the Act, which look merely to the making of the Act more workable than it is under present conditions.


Mr. CARROLL:: I would like to bring
to the attention of the minister what seems 
to me to ibe an anomaly in the Act. Any city situated in a county which brings the Canada Temperance Act into force is excluded from the operation of the Act, but if a municipality should receive a city charter after the coming into force of the Act, the newly-created city is in the same position as the Whole county and is not excluded from the operation of the Act. If it is the intention of the legislation to exclude all cities from the operation of the Act, the Act should be amended to provide that when a civic corporation receives a * city charter after the coming into force of the Act in the county in Which it is situated, that city shall be excluded from the operation of the Act. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, on certiorari application, decided that civic institutions receiving city charters after the coming into force of the Act in the county in which it was situated, should come within the operation of the Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not understand
that the Canada Temperance Act provides that you cannot pass it in a city. What it provides is that when you pass it in a county the city shall be excepted, but the city may pass the Act for itself. The purpose is not to say that the Scott Act shall never be enforced in any city; the purpose is to prevent cities from being controlled by the rest of the county in which they are situated.


William F. Carroll: But that is not exactly the point I am making. The Act as it now stands provides that when the Canada Temperance Act is brought into force in a county in which there is a city, that city is excluded from the operation of the Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is provided that the city shall not be bound by the proceedings and the voting of the county.


William F. Carroll: Exactly so. If a town
receives a city charter after the county in which the city is situate is brought under the operation of the Act, the Act does not apply to that city. I think there should be something in the Act to make its application uniform in respect of cities growing up in counties in which the Canada Temperance Act is put in force. The mere fact that the county has voted to bring itself within the operation of the Canada Temperance Act should not provide that the Act shall apply also to a town which afterwards receives a city charter, especially in view of the fact that that town would be exempt from

its operation if it were a city at the time the county came undeT the operation of the Canada Temperance Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It may, perhaps, be desirable to make some provision to enable the city to be included in the country, because it has become a city, to withdraw itself from the operation of the Act, but I do not quite see that because something that was part of a county at the time the election was held, and therefore bound, as part of the county, by the result of the election in the county, should, by the mere fact that it becomes a city, cease to be under the operation of the Act. That would be a proposition which, I think, ought to be acceded to if the provision of the law was that the Act was never to apply in cities. But that, as I understand it, is not the provision of the law. The Act may be enforced in cities if it is properly brought into force. Where the Act has been properly 'brought into force in a territory which at the time is not a city; but which subsequently becomes a city, the fact that that portion of the territory has become a city does not alter the fact that the Temperance Act has been properly brought into force within it. Whether, because it has become a city, it should be given some exceptional method of relieving itself of the condition with regard to the Temperance Act in which it was before it became a city is, no doubt, a matter that deserves consideration, but it does not, at first glance, seem to me that it goes without saying that merely because it has become a city, it ought to be relieved from a condition which it, in common with the rest of the county, had imposed upon itself.


William F. Carroll: I would think that there is no provision in the Act which would allow that new city, which received its charter after the Act came into force in the county, to exempt itself from the operation of the Act. There is where the difficulty comes in. If it were the intention of the Act to have one law for the city and another for the county or to give the city 'the option of having the law, no matter what the county may decide, there should be something in the Act to provide for new cities that may arise. I am arguing the matter merely from the standpoint of uniformity in the law. In the city to which I have special reference they could not bring into operation a license system as the Act stands now. They would have to be bound by the action of the county when it had perhaps one-third the population of the city to-day.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman will realize that his suggestion has no direct relation to the amendment sought to be made, and I have to confess it is the first time that that matter has been brought to my attention. I would require to consider it further before determining whether or not legislation should be introduced to meet the difficulty. The present amendment looks simply to providing voters' lists and to making the Act workable in provinces in which it is not now workable.
I shall be very glad to consider the suggestion made and see whether it really calls for a remedy, and what would be the proper remedy.


Mr. WRIGHT:: We might take it for
granted that, in a county in Ontario, Quebec, or any province where there are counties, or in a eonstitutncy in the western provinces, where the Act has been brought into force, the city included in the county had voted in favour of the Act. But, if not, the city would have its own remedy: it could get up a petition and have a revote.


William F. Carroll: It could not.


William Wright: In that way it could
take itself from under the jurisdiction o>f the Act. If that is not possible, an amendment to the Act giving that power could easily be drafted. I do not think, however, that any town should be able to remove itself from the operation of the Act simply by forming itself into a city. A certain population should be defined for a city. In the West, for instance, we know of certain places of two thousand population suddenly becoming cities.


William Erskine Knowles: Five thousand is the
law.


William Wright: I would refer my hon.
friend to Weyburn, which has only two or three thousand.


William Erskine Knowles: That is a place of seven thousand.


William Wright: If we are going into this system, it should be confined to cities Of ten thousand population.


Frank Oliver: Subsection (c) of clause 2, reads:
In the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, in any registry office or in any sheriff's office in the respective electoral districts.
I suppose that is in relation to the posting of notices in connection with the holding of elections. In Alberta and Sas-

katchewan there are a number of electoral districts in which there is no sheriff's office, or registry office, and some other provision must be made to meet that case.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Is there not
4 p.m. a sheriff in each county?


Frank Oliver: These are Dominion electoral districts, in some of which there is no sheriff.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I realize the difficulty, and would be very glad to meet it. What is desired is to get some place where notices could be posted where they would get the greatest possible publicity. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could help me in this regard.


Frank Oliver: I think the matter
would have to be left to the decision of the officer o*f the Dominion Government. I do not know of any office that you could depend on being located in any particular constituency that would have particular prominence. A Dominion lands sub-office would be quite prominent, but there might be constituencies in which there would not be one.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: In regard to the
clause providing for the electoral districts being designated as counties for the purposes of this Act, I would point out that under redistribution, if it goes into effect, cities in western Canada will be divided. We shall have Calgary east and west and Edmonton east and west. This measure might be adopted in the east half of the city, which would go dry, while the other part of the city would remain wet. How would the minister deal with a case like that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If, on more careful examination, the conclusion should be reached that the city is included in the county for purposes of this Act as the law now stands, I shall amend this Bill so as to exclude the city and let the city in these provinces stand, as in the other provinces, as a distinct entity by itself, which, as such distinct entity, will adopt or not adopt the Act upon its own decision.


William Wright: Will the hon. Minister
of Justice confine that to cities with 10,000 of a population?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In regard to our making a modification as to the population of cities which should be excluded from the counties, that is another proposition which looks to modify what I might call the substance of the Canada Temperance Act. I have not

considered that question at all. These amendments in the procedure of the Canada Temperance Act were urged upon us as being immediately necessary. We have not had any suggestion in regard to what population should be necessary to exclude a city. It seems to be evident that we shall not be able to finish the Bill without a further consideration and I shall be very glad to consider the suggestion and see if it is possible to comply with it. It has been suggested to me that permission to post the notice in a post office might meet the point which has been raised.


Frank Oliver: Yes, the post office will
be all right.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We might add ' or in any registry office, or in any sheriff's office or, failing such, in any post office'. I suppose it will be preferable that where there is a registry or sheriff's office it should be posted there?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Erskine Knowles: I think it would be
better where there is no registry or sheriff's office that the petition should be sent simply to the Secretary of State and let him direct the place where it shall be posted.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We might provide that it shall be posted as may be designated by the Secretary of State.


William Erskine Knowles: Let the man simply send his petition to the Secretary of State, and let the Secretary of State say as to the posting of the notice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would think that suggestion better than the one in regard to the post office. I shall try to make an amendment to meet that. I beg to move that section 2 be amended by adding at the end of subsection c, the following:
Or, if there be no such registry office or sheriff's office, then in such place as may be designated by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-publication of notice in newspaper:


Mr. GRAHAM:: Why does it prescribe
that the notice shall be published in a newspaper ' at or near ' the city? Why not say ' in ' the city?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We can almost absolutely count on every city having a paper, but it must be drafted to meet the possible case of the paper not being published

actually in the city. I do not know that we can take it for granted that all our cities have newspapers; they certainly ought to have.


George Perry Graham: Legally, suppose a man puts the notice in a newspaper published fifty miles from a city; would that be near the city? Under this Act he is not compelled to put it in a newspaper published in the city; he could put it in a paper published elsewhere.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There would "be no
objection to amending it so as to provide that it must be published in a paper in the city.


George Perry Graham: If there be one.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If there be one, or if
there be not one, then in the nearest place. I would move that section 5 be amended by striking out the words ' at or near ' in the 41st line and substituting the word.' in '.


William Wright: I presume that this Act may be submitted to the electors in municipalities in which there is no newspaper published, and I think the notice ought to be in some newspaper in the county or district in which the vote is taking place even although it is not near the city. I think that the nearest newspaper ought to have the opportunity of publishing this notice if it is going to be of any benefit to the electors.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The intention is that
the notice of the contestation of the election shall be published for two weeks in two newspapers published at or near the city or the county in' which the vote has taken place, or if there be no newspaper published in such city or county, then in the nearest newspaper. I move:
That the section he amended by inserting in the forty-second line, after the word ' place,' the words:
Or If there be but one newspaper published in the city or county then in that newspaper, and in a newspaper whose place of publication is nearest the said city or county; or if there be no newspaper published In said city or county, then in two newspapers whose place or places of publication are nearest said city or county.


Mr. PROULX:: The section does not say in what language the notice should be published. In provinces in which the English and French languages are official, I suppose the notice should be published in both languages.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is a reasonable suggestion. We might perhaps say that in
the province of Quebec it should be published in both languages.


Edmond Proulx: In Manitoba both languages are official.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would move that the following words be added to the amendment:
Such publication to be made in the French and English languages In cities or counties wherein there is a newspaper published in each of these languages.
Section as amended agreed to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I move that the Bill be amended by inserting in section 2 the following subsections:
2.	If in any city or county or any part thereof there are no voters' lists which could be used for the purpose of this Act, the petition shall have appended to it the genuine signatures of one-fourth in number of such persons as are voters or who possess the qualifications of voters, other than being on the voters' lists, for such city or county.
3.	For the purposes of this section the number of voters in any city or county in which or in any part of which there are no voters' lists which could be used for the purposes of this Act shall be:
(a)	Where there are voters' lists in force for part of such city or county, the number of voters on such lists, together with the number of voters who were on the last voters' lists that were in force in the rest of such city or county;
(b)	Where there are no voters' lists in force in such city or county, then the number of voters that were in the last voters' lists that were in force in such a city or county; or
(c)	Where there are no voters' lists in force in the whole or any part of any city or county, such number as is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State as being the total number of persons who possess the qualifications of voters for such city or county, other than that of being on a voters' list.
The purpose of this amendment is to meet the situation where the Secretary of State has to determine whether he has 25 per cent of the voters who have signed the petition, and where in whole or in part there is no voters' lists for the districts in 'which the election is to be held. In the case where the absence of the voters' list is only partial, he is to take as the total number of voters the total number of voters cn the existing voters' lists, plus the total number of voters that were on the last existing voters' list for the portion or district of the county for which there is no voters' list. Where there are no voters' lists for the whole of the county, he takes the number of the voters that were on the last voters' lists. Finally, as an alternative to that, if there be reason for it, he may take what is proved otherwise to be 25 per

cent of the people who are actually entitled to vote. The purpose is to avoid the necessity of this last requirement in all cases, and to facilitate the establishment of the 25 per cent wherever it can be done by reference to the last existing voters' lists.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move to amend the Bill further by adding to section 5 at the end thereof the following:
No such action shall be commenced until the plaintiff has given security for costs to the satisfaction of the court in which he proposes to bring his action, and no such action shall be brought after the expiration of one year from the date of the polling.
This is the requirement that any person contesting the election shall give security for costs to the satisfaction of the court, and furthermore to put a limit of time within which the contestation may (be made.


Edmond Proulx: Does not the minister
think a year is a little long?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not quite sure
but that it is a little long.


Edmond Proulx: I think six months is
sufficient.


William Findlay Maclean: It is thirty days in our Election Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection to accept my hon. friend's (Mr. Proulx) suggestion.


Edmond Proulx: Six months is ample time to get all the information necessary to contest an election.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think so, and it is
desirable that there should not be too long a period during which the matter will be unsettled.
Amendment as amended agreed to.


Edmond Proulx: There is another section which gives jurisdiction to the Superior Courts of Record. Perhaps it would be just *as well to give the county court judges jurisdiction in these matters. They are amply qualified to try these cases, which are mostly questions of fact.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not want to suggest that the county court judges are not qualified to try these cases, but these are undoubtedly matters of importance concerning which sometimes a good deal of popular feeling arises in one way or an-
[Mr. Doherty.'!
other. Under the circumstances it seems desirable to leave these matters to the high court judges. Another reason is that, if we give jurisdiction to the county court judges, we cannot establish the same jurisdiction throughout the country, because we have no county court judges in the province of Quebec.
Section as amended agreed to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Before the Bill goes to third reading I shall get this question about the exemption of cities cleared up; and if it is necessary to obtain that result I will take such proceedings as may further be necessary to amend the Bill.
Bill reported.



IRRIGATION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in .Committee on Bill No. 138, to amend the Irrigation Act.-Mr. Roche. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 5-minister may permit diversion of water:
William Ashbury Buchanan: It has been pointed
out to me that this clause will affect certain litigation between the users of the Canadian Pacific Railway irrigation ditch in the vicinity of Strathmore in their action against the Canadian Pacific Railway Irrigation Company. The reason is that this legislation is made retroactive. I have been asked to urge upon the minister that the users of water should stil-l be given the privilege of carrying on their action against the company. In this connection I might read a letter which I have received which probably will explain the case a little more clearly than I can. This is from the chairman of the Test Case Committee. As the minister knows there has been a good deal of difficulty in that part of the country with the Canadian Pacific Railway Irrigation Company:
You will notice on page 3, '20 F,' provisions for the minister being permitted to issue permits to persons or companies to divert and use water during the construction period, and in section 15 it provides for actions applying to all cases where the minister has given permits, which it appears to me is to authorize what the minister has already done which had not previously been authorized.
Now, they want to avoid that, they ask to be left to fight out their dispute without any retroactive legislation-that is they do not want to have their interest impaired in any way by this proposed measure, and they claim that it will interfere with their

interest in that respect. There is a good deal of strong feeling in that district over the treatment received by the farmers who have purchased land from the Canadian Pacific Railway Irrigation Company. As the minister know.s, there has been difficulty over the reclassification of land. It is held that under the proposed reclassification that the farmers may be compelled to pay more than they should for the land .they bought. This land that they bought was guaranteed to be irrigable, and they claim that, under the terms of the reclassification arrangement, lands which have proven to be nonirrigable, but which were sold as irrigable and subject to irrigation from the time they were purchased, they will have to pay for at as high as $8 an acre, in addition to additional price. It has been represented to me, and I would like to place it before the minister, that this difficulty is serious in that particular district. There is a great deal o.f feeling and a great deal of dissatisfaction. The demand is made by the Grievance Committee in that district that there should be a Royal Commission to investigate the charges made by the farmers against the Irrigation Company before the Government takes any action in regard to the reclassification of the land. It is also pointed out to me that officials of the department are .addressing letters to farmers in that district advising them that it is in their best interests to sign up a new contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Irrigation Company, in which there are provisions with regard to reclassification which would bring about further charges upon the farmer. Of course, the company has its own side of the ease-that the lands are satisfactory and the terms of sale are being carried out. But it has been represented to me by practical iTrigationists, who have been in that district since the commencement of irrigation farming, that the condition of things was misrepresented, and that, under the proposed reclassification, they will be compelled to pay $8 more for their land, which it was claimed was irrigable land. I bring this to the attention of the minister, because this clause is objected to by the Test Case Committee. They prefer to be left in a position to carry on any .action they may bring against the Irrigation Company, and they say that section would interfere with their rights.


Mr. ROCHE:: It is not intended at all that this Bill should interfere in the slightest degree with those who have tracts from the Canadian Pacific Railway Irrigation Company, and I do not see how such an interpretation could be placed upon it. On the other hand, there have been instances where it would have been a very great hardship to have denied to an irrigation company-I am not now referring to the Canadian Pacific Railway Irrigation Company-the privilege of using a portion of their works before the completion of those works in their entirety. I am aware that considerable difficulty has arisen between the Canadian Pacific railway and the water users in the Canadian Pacific Railway irrigation tract. The matter was brought to my attention about a year ago. Representatives both of the company and of the farmers met me, and I decided, after hearing their representations, that it would be the part of wisdom that we should have a reclassification of those lands to see whether they were actually irrigable or not. At first the company protested strongly, and did not wish to submit to such reclassification. At that time the chief demand made upon the Government was either to institute an inquiry or have a reclassification of the land. We are now having a reclassification of these lands, the company having decided to submit to the request. The work of reclassification is being conducted by their officials as well as by engineers on behalf of the Government. This Bill will not interfere with any test case going on in the courts. For, as a matter of fact and practice, ever since the Act was put into effect in 1894, parties have been allowed to use their partially constructed works without taking out a license. This Bill is simply to legalize what has been done as a matter of practice hitherto. I may quote illustrations furnished me by the department to show the benefit arising from allowing an irrigation company to irrigate land before their entire works are completed.
Some years ago, in the early history of Moosejaw, that city obtained its water supply from Moosejaw creek, which flows through the city. This supply was never of a satisfactory quality, and finally became insufficient in quantity as well. Application was made by the city for permission to take a further supply from springs removed several miles from the city. This application was made in June, 1908. Authorization to construct the works



was issued in 1913, subject to the acquisition of the necessary right of way by the city. The city authorities	constructed
their works in	advance	of	thisauthorization, but	secured	only	partof the required	right	of	way.
It was absolutely necessary for the city to have a further supply of water from this particular source as soon as their works were sufficiently constructed to enable them to lay a pipe from this creek. No objection was made by the Government of the day or by this Government. The city has not as yet received a license to use the water from this source, solely owing to the fact that they have not as yet been able to secure their entire right of way. Nevertheless, they have been using water from this source during the last four years. The same thing is being done in connection with its water supply from Sandy Creek, near Caron. In this case the works are not yet completed, but so great has been the need of water that the partially completed works have been in use for some time, although, as yet, unlicensed. I could cite many other illustrations to show what a hardship . it would be to prevent a permit being issued until the licenses were granted after the completion of the work. I can assure hon. gentlemen that it is not intended to interfere at all with any decision that may be given with regard to any test case that is now pending.


Frank Oliver: Looking over the correspondence which the hon. member for Medicine Hat has here, I see that it is the opinion of counsel that this legislation would interfere with a case now pending. Would there be any objection to putting a saving clause in the section, saying that it would not interfere with any litigation now in progress?


William Roche: I have no objection to that.


William Ashbury Buchanan: The counsel for the
people to whom I refer have made this statement:
Disputes exist between the railway company and the users respecting the obligations of the users of water heretofore used and as this legislation is retroactive, the rights and liabilities that exist between the railway company and the users would be affected.
I sent a copy of the printed Bill to the committee and to the counsel, who makes this statement in a letter to the committee.


William Roche: I think the objections urged would be removed by adding to section 5 the words:

But shall not apply to any case with respect to which litigation is now pending.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I am not familiar with the Act, but I would point out to my hon. friend that where a clause of that kind is inserted in a Bill, the wording usually runs this way:
Nothing in this Act shall apply to any case with respect to which litigation is now pending.
The amendment suggested by my hon. friend says that nothing in this section shall apply to pending litigation, but there might be something in some other part of the Act which would militate against litigation now pending. If it is the intention of the minister that nothing in the Act shall apply to pending litigation, it is better to say so, and to make the provision to that effect the last clause in the Bill.


William Roche: Any litigation now pending is subject to the existing Act. If we say that nothing in this Act shall apply to any litigation, I am afraid we would be going a little too far.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is not what I
mean. I am talking about the Bill now before the committee; the hon. minister is referring to the original Act as amended. The hon. minister might make his amendment read: ' Nothing in the amending Act; ' that would make the matter perfectly clear.


William Roche: I have no objection to such an amendment.


Mr. MURPHY:: May I suggest to the
minister that the amendment as now proposed to this particular section should come in at the end of the Act?


William Roche: All right.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I have here a statement from Mr. Henry Sorensen, of Strathmore, who is chairman of the Farmers' Combined Irrigation Committee, with regard to the reclassification of land. It is as follows:
With regard to the reclassification as it is now being conducted you will notice in the document, which the farmers have been asked to sign, pledging themselves to accept the reclassification as it is being conducted by the Government, that each farmer will be asked to incur an additional expense of $8 per acre for drainage and other work in connection with the lands.
Now this means in plain words nothing else but: that after the Canadian Pacific railway have charged men an exorbitant price for so-called irrigation lands and after the water has so deteriorated the soil that the lands are unfit for farming purposes the farmers are now to be put to an additional expense of $8 per acre to endeavour to put the lands into the same con-

dition as they were prior to being spoiled by the water.
That is the statement he makes in connection with reclassification, a statement which has also been made in other letters which I have received from the farmers of that district-that under this reclassification there will be an extra charge on certain of their lands of $8 per acre. I have here the forms of an agreement and a letter from the Superintendent of Irrigation under date of February 23, to a farmer in that district, which reads:
Department of the Interior.
Canada.
Ottawa, February 23, 1914.
Sir:
According to records filed in this department by the Canadian Pacmc Railway Company, you have purchased from that company certain irrigable and non-irrigable land and have entered into an agreement with the company for the supply by it to you of water for the irrigation of the irrigable land so purchased.
The company has informed this department of the completion of the works for the irrigation of the western section of its irrigation tract and has asked for the issue of a water license. The Minister of the Interior has decided that, before the works as constructed can be accepted and before any water license can properly be issued in the company's favour, it will be necessary for the company's classification of alleged irrigable land to be checked and, where necessary, revised by departmental officials. The company will be required to file with the Commissioner of Irrigation such additional plans and other data as may be required by him in connection with the reclassification. When such plans have been filed the commissioner will have such examination made on the ground as may be necessary to determine the accuracy of the plans and where necessary will have a resurvey made. The company's classification will then be carefully checked and, if necessary, revised.
The company has agreed to accept and abide by the result of such reclassification and, to amend and adjust all its sales-contracts and water agreements in accordance therewith. I am, therefore, to request you to state whether or not you are willing to similarly accept the result of the reclassification to De made under the direction of the Minister of Interior. There is no desire on the part of this department to interfere in any way with any rights which you may now possess under your existing contracts with the company and no effort will be made to induce you to sign any agreement against your own inclination. It is believed, however, that the signing of such an agreement will materially facilitate the settlement of the existing difficulties between the company and lessees of water.
The attached form of agreement is believed to correctly show the lands purchased by you from the said company and the essential facts in connection with your agreement to receive water from it for irrigation purposes. If you are prepared to accept the result of the reclassification of land to be made under the direction of the minister, I am to request you 2271
to sign and return to me at your very earliest convenience the form of agreement attached hereto, retaining one copy thereof. Tour signature should be properly witnessed and sealed. Kindly advise me of your decision in this matter at your very earliest convenience.
Tour obedient servant,
E. F. Drake,
Superintendent of Irrigation.
What was pointed out to me in connection with this letter was that the farmers object to the reclassification, that their demand has been for a Royal Commission to investigate the whole situation prior to any reclassification. I am now speaking of this particular association, and I would not say that this includes all the farmers of that particular irrigation tract.
5 p.m. I would again ask the minister if the case for a Royal Commission has been presented to him, and what decision he has come to in regard to it; and also whether the statement made here that this reclassification will mean an additional expenditure of $8 an acre to put the lands ' in the condition in which they were prior to being spoiled by water/ is correct. I may say that I know nothing about the case myself except what is in the letters I have received.


William Roche: ing to influence the farmers. As a matter of fact, the letter distinctly states that the Government are not in any way trying to influence them. It is erroneous to say that by reason of the reclassification they will be called upon to pay $8 more an acre for their lands. They have their contracts with the Canadian Pacific railway. We have asked the company not to prosecute any litigation against any water users in arrears for rental until after a reclassification has been made. The company strongly objected to that, but we have impressed them with the necessity of foregoing action against the farmers pending the reclassification. The result has been that there have been no proceedings against the farmers. This will not mean an increase of $8 an acre for the land. If it is found that the Canadian Pacific railway's original classification was right, I presume the farmers will be subject to their contracts with the Canadian Pacific railway, whatever they agreed to pay for the land. If it is found that the lands have been wrongly classified, there will have to be a rearrangement and a new contract. It was for that reason that the letter was sent out. The Royal Commission which has been recently asked for, was not originally asked for; in fact, it was only asked for after the reclassification was under way. Very many of these farmers have agreed to sign an agreement that they will abide by the reclassification, probably in the proportion of three to one.


Frank Oliver: Could the minister say
what seems to be the reason this writer has for saying that a reclassification will mean an increase in the cost of the land? As the minister explained, the man is simply writing nonsense, but surely he must have had some foundation upon which to base the idea.


William Roche: Supposing they have a
contract with the Canadian Pacific railway to purchase lands that are supposed to be irrigable and that the contract price should be, say, $24 per acre, if it turns out, as that gentleman says, that they are not irrigable, then he claims that they should be got for $8 per acre less. That is the only explanation I can give for the gentleman saying that they would be called upon to pay $8 more in the event of the reclassification upholding the Canadian Pacific railway's contention.
On section 8-use of irrigation works for the storage of water:


Frank Oliver: The question of administration would arise in applying this section

and I think there should be a full statement as to how it is proposed to exercise the authority which the section will confer on the minister.


William Roche: As the Act states, the
amendments are for the purpose of preventing any person or company from enjoying a monopoly of the available water supply and more especially if that particular water supply is situated in an advantageous location in reference to ditches. The amendments, while so framed as to protect existing rights, will make provision for the use by others, or by the public, under the direction of the minister, of any works which are not being fully utilized by their owners or which can be advantageously enlarged so as to serve a more useful purpose. There might be certain seasons of the year when there is a drouth and a certain work is not utilized by its owners to its full capacity. OtheT parties desire to use the water and the minister takes power under this provision of utilizing this work for the benefit of persons who have no other opportunity of securing water privileges. To cite an instance: the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company were requested to allow their works to be utilized in favour of other parties and they were so utilized. I think the proposal explains itself pretty fully. It sets out in detail how the relative costs are to be borne. It states that the minister may fix the amount of compensation to which the owners of the works so utilized are, in his opinion, entitled, and the amount that shall be paid to the owners of such works. The cost of maintaining these works shall be borne as between one applicant and the other and the owners of the works, as they existed before the enlargement, generally in proportion to the quantity of water which each is entitled to use. Where parties have works completed but not utilized to their full capacity it is provided that these works may be utilized on behalf of other parties.


William Ashbury Buchanan: There is a considerable waste of water from the works of the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company. This water is carried away through the coulees. It has been represented to me that if an arrangement could be made by which this water could be stored it would be of great advantage to farmers and stock-raisers. I might mention the case in which a large quantity of water goes through the Chin coulee which might be stored. If some arrangement could be made with the Government or the irrigation company by which that water could be stored in a reservoir the

people in that particular district would derive a great amount of benefit especially for the watering of stock. At present the water which runs through the Chin coulee is not stored and it does not become of permanent value to the people in that district. The storage of that water would be no loss at all to the irrigation company but it would be of great value to the farmers and settlers there, especially for the watering of stock.


William Roche: I understand that there is a waste of water down these coulees and I also understand that the company are now making arrangements, by way of the construction of a reservoir, to preserve that water. When the Chin coulee works are completed they will stop the future waste.


Frank Oliver: This section gives the
minister very extraordinary authority over private property. Is there a precedent for that authority and, if so, where does it exist?


William Roche: I do not know if there is a precedent but we felt that where works were being taken and utilized by the minister for the general benefit of the public he should have the authority to fix the compensation. I have no precedent in my mind for this authority but in what manner would my hon. friend suggest an alteration in the manner of fixing the compensation?


Frank Oliver: I did not know but that there was a precedent in some legislation elsewhere, which probably would be an indication as to the way in which the Act could be administered. The reason given for the desirability of this authority I will not question, but I still say it confers a very extraordinary authority upon the minister and I think that in a matter Of providing compensation the minister is possibly taking a measure of responsibility that is not best for his own convenience or in the interest of the individuals concerned. Where the question of compensation comes in I would think there should be provision for arbitration, and in a case where one party materially alters the work of the other party, there is always a possibility of substantial damage being done to the new work, or of the new work being ill-conceived or ill-executed and serious damage suffered by the owner of the original work. There is no provision in the Act to meet such a case. I do not wish to stand in the way of the good administration of the Irrigation Act, but I take this opportunity of calling the attention of the minister to the fact that he is assuming very extraordinary powers here on his individual responsibility, and I think he would be well advised to give the matter more consideration than he evidently has given it up to the present time.


William Roche: I km informed that there
is a precedent for this in British Columbia, but I am not absolutely certain as to that. It is considered that the minister should take this responsibility, although he is not anxious to insist on any undue responsibility. First of all, the parties have an opportunity o'f coming together and deciding if at all possible as to the amount of the respective cost of the work that should be apportioned by their respective parties, but failing or delaying to agree the minister may fix the amount to be paid by each. It is only when the private users fail to amicably agree on the amount, that the minister is called in as an arbitrator. This Bill has been submitted to quite a number of persons in the West and in the East who are engaged in irrigation, and they thought this was quite essential.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Roche: I wish to amend section 4 of the Act by substituting the following:
Any water, the property of which is vested in the Crown may he acquired for domestic, muncipal, ndust.ial, irrigation, and other purposes including the granting of permission to cstabl sh dams, piers, booms and other necessary works in any non-navigable stream, to facilitate the passage of logs, timber, and other products of the forest along such stream.
By this amendment the word ' municipal ' is added to the existing Act and the words beginning with ' including the granting of permission ' down to the end of the amendment, are also added.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Roche: I have another amendment to propose. In the original Act Parliament clothes the Minister of the Interior and the Department of the Interior with all the powers and authority as to the expropriation of lands for irrigation purposes which the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Department of Railways and Canals enjoy with regard to the expropriation of lands for railway purposes. Subsequently, however, the Railway Act was amended so as to vest certain powers with respect to expropriation in the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. It has been held by some that the amendment to the Railway Act has curtailed to a certain extent the po,wers of the Minister of the Interior and the Department of the Interior with respect to the expropriation of lands

for irrigation purposes and the object of the amendment I have to propose is to reestablish, if it be necessary, their full authority over such matters without reference to the Board of Railway Commissioners. I am told by legal authorities that it really does not curtail our power but I desire to make it absolutely clear.


Frank Oliver: Is there any authority now vested in the Board of Railway Commissioners under the Irrigation Act?


William Roche: Our law department states they have nothing at all to do with the expropriation of lands for irrigation purposes.


William Ashbury Buchanan: Is there any truth in the following despatch from Calgary which appears in the Citizen of this morning?
Calgary, Alta., May 11.-Approximately four hundred thousand acres of land in the southern portion of Alberta will be put under irrigation by the Dominion Government, or by the municipalities which obtain from the Government the right to operate a system of irrigation in the various districts, some time in the near future, according to the statement of F. H. Peters, irrigation commissioner for the Dominion with headquarters in Calgary.


William Roche: I am informed that the department have made certain surveys north of Lethbridge to determine the character of the land and to see what quantity is available for irrigation; but we have no final report on the subject as yet, and we have not come to any decision regarding the matter. I do not know whether Mr. Peters is referring to that or not. He may be referring to the fact that in the very near future the 400,000 acres of the Canadian Pacific lands will be sufficiently advanced to be thrown open for settlers on the irrigation system. If he refers to the Government land, we have not any final report from the engineer as to the particular character and class of lands and where they are located. I believe they are north of the city where the hon. gentleman resides.


William Ashbury Buchanan: During last summer a survey was made of these lands north of the city of Lethbridge, near the Little Bow.
I do not know exactly the locality of the lands, but I know there was a survey party there; and some of the settlers told me that they were talking to members of this party, and that it was intimated to them that the Government might establish an irrigation system in that particular district so that the farmers could get a supply of water from it under certain arrangements. The settlers are particu-

larly anxious to get this water, especially in the district known as the Iron Springs district. The settlers say that the surveyors were in there examining the possibilities of supplying water to that country, and that the Government had in view the establishment of an irrigation scheme so as to supply the farmers who required it with water for irrigation purposes.


William Roche: I have not any final report on that.


Frank Oliver: The question is: Has the Government in contemplation the establishment of a Government irrigation scheme in that particular locality?


William Roche: The policy of the Government has not been discussed in regard to that matter at all; it has never engaged the attention of the Government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Roche: I beg to move:
That the following words be added at the end of section 10 :-Nothing in this amending Act shall apply to any case with respect to which litigation is now pending.
-Section as amended agreed to.


Frank Oliver: Can the amendments made to the Bill be printed before the third reading? They are rather important.


William Roche: Yes.
Bill reported.



JUDGES' SALARIES.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blondin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Judges Act, chapter 138 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, and to provide for the increase of the salaries of three Judges of the Superior Court of Quebec from $5,000 each per annum to $7,000 each per annum and to provide for the salary of an additional Judge of the said Court at $5,000 per annum; to provide for the salaries of three additional puisne Judges of the Supreme Court of Alberta at $6,000 each per annum; to provide for the salary of one junior County Court Judge for the province of Manitoba at $3,000 per annum; to provide for four additional District Court Judges for the province of Saskatchewan at $3,000 each per annum; to provide for the increase of the salary of the senior Judge of the Circuit Court of the district of Montreal from $3,600 to $5,000 per annum, and for the increase of the salaries of the three other Judges of the said Court from $3,000 each per annum to $4,500 each per annum.
Mr. BOIVIN:: Who are the three judges of the Superior Court of the province of

Quebec whose .salaries are to be increased from $5,000 each to $7,000?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The three judges referred to are the judges who were appointed respectively for the district of Richelieu, Mr. Justice iBiruneau; for the district of St. Hyacinthe, Mr. Justice Martineau; and for the district of Montcalm, Mr. Justice Chauvin.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The judge sits at Mont Laurier, in the district of Montcalm.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to the first two judges, the reason of this proposal is that the legislature of the province of Quebec, after consultation between the Prime Minister and Attorney General of the province and myself, as Minister of Justice, has provided that the residences of these two judges should 'be fixed in the city of Montreal, and that they should be expected to devote their entire time outside of their special districts to the service of the district of Montreal. This legislation was enacted after the Attorney General of the province and myself had both agreed that it would be desirable, in the interest of the proper administration of justice, that these two judges should be so transferred to that district. The operation, of course, required the concurrence of both authorities, because, while it is within the power of the legislature of Quebec to define the duties of a judge, and they may by so doing modify the position to which a man has been appointed, it is the function of the Government of Canada to appoint the judge to the position so created. It is to carry out this understanding arrived at that the provision is made with regard to these judges.
I may point out the particular advantage that results. It is undoubted that the services of outside judges, or, failing those services, the appointment of additional judges, are required in the district of Montreal. If this arrangement were not made, it would be quite open to the legislature, in the exercise of its functions, to provide for an additional judge or additional judges for the district of Montreal. If that had been done and two additional judges provided for that district, it would have imposed upon the country a charge of $14,000. Under these arrangements we get the services in Montreal for the bulk of the time of two rural judges tat an additional cost to the country of only $4,000. With regard to the persons who are appointed to
these new positions, this Government is quite prepared, in accordance with the understanding which has been arrived at, to assent to their appointment and recommend the voting of the salaries. With regard to the third gentleman, the situation which has brought about the present position is that under the legislation of the province of Quebec, so long as the court house was not finished at Mont Laurier, the new judge appointed to the district, Judge Chauvin, was to reside in the district of Ottawa. He was -in reality in the position of a second judge in the district of Ottawa. The legislation as originally passed provided that when the court house was completed at Mont Laurier the judge was required to live in that district. That left the district of Ottawa with but one resident judge. It was represented to me and to the Attorney General of the province, that the work in the district of Ottawa required the services of two judges; and certainly, from what knowledge I had on the subject there could be no mistake about that. I was asked whether, if the legislation providing for an additional judge for the district of Ottawa were passed, I would recommend the salary of a judge. I pointed out that as there were a number of judges in the province of Quebec whose districts called for comparatively little work, it would be desirable, instead of adding to the number of judges, that the judge of some other district where the work was not very heavy should be asked to share the work in the district of Ottawa. That view was apparently accepted, both by the Bar of the district of Ottawa who made representations to me and by the Attorney General of the province who in consequence provided that the judge in the district of Montcalm should be a judge for the district of Ottawa, that, in addition to his own work in the district of Montcalm, which is not very heavy, he should give some of his time to sharing the work of the present incumbent of the district of Ottawa. The pro-vinical Government and Legislature considered that the judge serving these two districts, instead of residing in one district and going to the other as occasion might require, could more conveniently reside in the city of Montreal. That is a matter with which this Parliament or Government is not concerned. Under the circumstances, here again is a case where by the combination of work we avoid the appointment

of an additional judge, which, in this case, would have involved $5,000. But as the two districts have been assigned to the one judge, it seemed reasonable that that judge should have .more remuneration than a judge of tout one rural district, and so it is suggested that Judge Chauvm should have $2,000 additional. So by this we economize $3,000, as by the other we economize $10,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: As I understand it, three judges are increased from $5,000 to $7,000?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: One being
Judge Chauvin, the new judge of the district of Montcalm?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: And who are the others?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Judge Bruneau of Richelieu and Judge Martineau of St. Hyacinthe.


Mr. BUREAU:: The Minister of Justice seems to be labouring under the impression that the rural judges can devote some of their time to either Montreal and Quebec, and for this reason two of these judges are assigned to Montreal at an increased salary. The rural judges receive $5,000 and the Montreal judges $7,000. I would like to ask the minister what is the basis of that salary distinction-is it on account of the work or is it on account of the higher cost of living in the larger cities? I may say that if it is on account of the amount of work, the judges in Three Rivers, as I have had occasion to say before, sit every day in the year except vacation, and even then they very often sit, and one has to be in attendance all the time. They have original jurisdiction in a wide range of cases; they hear appeals under municipal and school codes, and they sit as a court of review in the city of Quebec. They do not complain of the work. But I do not see why they should be discriminated against as they certainly are if the salary is based on the. amount of work. If you were to divide the number of cases tried or the judgments rendered at Three Rivers by the number of judges there, and the number of eases tried and judgments rendered in Montreal by the number of judges there, you would find that there is more work done by each of the two judges in Three Rivers than by any individual judge in Montreal. So,
I fail to see why they should not the TMr. Doherty.]
increase. If it is on the basis of the cost of living, then if that matter is investigated it will be found that the cost of living in Three Rivers is just as high in Three Rivers as it is in Montreal, if not higher. Then, as I have pointed out before, the judges in Montreal, being more numerous, have better opportunity to consult together. They have also a very large law library which is kept up by the Bar of the whole province, we may say, because all our students read in Montreal or Quebec and their fees on admission go to these libraries. Our judges have to subscribe for their own reviews, periodicals of jurisprudence and reports. Practically they must have their own library, for our Bar library is not extensive-we are only twenty-two or twenty-three in number in our district. I fail to see why these judges should not have an increase of salary to put them on the same footing as those of Montreal or Quebec.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The reasons which led to making a difference between the salaries of judges of the Superior Court sitting in the district of Montreal and Quebec and those sitting in other districts must, of course have been known to those who established that difference. The present scale of salaries was established under a law enacted during the regime of the Government of which the hon. gentleman for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) was the Solicitor General, and I should presume that he would toe in as good a position as any member of this House to indicate the reasons that influenced the Government of that day in making that distinction. For myself, speaking personally, if circumstances were such as to enable me to deal generally with the subject of the salaries of judges, I might be disposed to do more -than is proposed to be done under this legislation. But this legislation accepts the situation, as regards the district of Montreal, which existed when this Government came into power and merely is intended to facilitate the appointment in cases where this Government feels justified in nominating particular judges in rural districts to be judges in a special way of the district of Montreal without being entirely separated from their own districts. We are not modifying the principle upon which the distinction was originally made. As regards judges generally, I might personally be disposed, if circumstances made it possible to do more than is done here. But that would involve dealing with the subject of judges generally,

not only in Quebec, but throughout the Dominion.
I am limiting myself to making provision for additional judges and, with regard to this particular matter, to meeting an arrangement come to on the part of the province and on the part of the Government by which we believe that the administration of justice in the district of Montreal may be improved and, at the same time, an economy effected. I am not in a position to deal with the suggestion that the judges at Three Rivers do more or less work than the judges in the district of Montreal.


Jacques Bureau: The conditions that existed five or six years ago in the district of Three Rivers are vastly different from the conditions that exist there to-day. Since that time the population of the city of Three Rivers has jumped from eleven thousand to eighteen thousand. You know, Mr. Chairman, that the town of Grand Mere, which is in the district of Three Rivers, and which was a wilderness ten years ago, has now a population of 6,000 or 7,000. Industries are constantly springing up and water-powers being developed and no district in the province of Quebec has made such rapid strides forward during the last four or five years as has the district of Three Rivers. The judges in the city of Three Rivers have as much work to do as any judge in Montreal or Quebec. Besides, if it comes down to a question of the cost of living, it costs them as much-if not more -to live in Three Rivers as it costs the judges to live in Montreal or Quebec. The judge, as I have said, has the disadvantage of not having a library at his disposal, and he has to provide one out of his own funds. He has to sit in the Court of Review the same as the judge of any rural district, where the amount df work is not so great. They are sitting every day in the year except during vacation. I do not know why these men, who have to do this large amount of work and with living expenses as great as the living expenses of the judges in Montreal, should not get the same salary as the judges of the Montreal district. I am not talking about the other districts, because I know nothing about them, but I submit that under the circumstances no justifiable reason can be given for the difference between the salaries of the judges in the district of Three Rivers and those in the districts of Montreal and Quebec.


Georges Henri Boivin: I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that there is a judge residing in the
city of Westmount, near Montreal, who was originally appointed for the district of Pontiac, with residence at Bryson. I understand that the provincial Government has authorized his residence at Westmount in the district of Montreal and asked him to exercise his judicial duties in that district when he is not required in the district of Pontiac. This, it appears to me, places him in very much the same position as the judges of the districts of St. Hyacinthe and Richelieu, whose cases have just been dealt with by the hon. Minister of Justice. This judge would not foe included in this resolution, and I should be very glad if the hon. Minister of Justice would explain why this exception has been made. I believe the judge to whom I refer is Mr. Justice Weir.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I pointed out in dealing with the case of the judges of the Richelieu and St. Hyacinthe districts, the bringing about of a position whereby these two gentlemen enter upon the performance of the duties of the new position created by the legislature of Quebec and will become, if this resolution and the Bill based upon it be passed, entitled to this additional salary, involves action within the jurisdiction of the provincial Government and legislature and action which comes within the functions of the Government and the Parliament of Canada. The reason why the judge originally appointed at Pontiac does not figure in this resolution is that in regard to him there has been neither consultation with this Government nor action by it. The assignment of these _ judges to this new work involves an appointment going beyond the appointment granted by their original commission. It is the function of the Government of Canada to make those appointments; it belongs to the office of the Minister of Justice to make the nominations to those appointments. After looking into the conditions as to the locality of the districts of the two judges of Richelieu an'd St. Hyacinthe, from the point of view of proximity to Montreal, and after consideration of the qualifications of these gentlemen, I have come to the conclusion that I was perfectly justified in nominating them for these positions of wider usefulness and greater responsibility. Being ready to do that, and my nomination being acceptable to the Government of Canada, which must take the responsibility; we are proceeding accordingly. Not having been consulted at all about the arrangement which the legislature of the province of Quebec thought proper to

make with regard to the district of Pontiac, I was not, of course, called upon before it was ma>de either to form or to express any opinion. After its having been made, it is quite true that it might be possible, if I as Minister of Justice were prepared to take the responsibility of the nomination and this Government were prepared to take the responsibility of the appointment, that we might appoint the gentleman who fills the position under his commission of judge of the district of Pontiac to this new sphere of action. Without going into any discussion that would in any way be derogatory to the gentleman concerned, after full consideration of the circumstances-in the first place, that the district of Pontiac is very remote from the district of Montreal and, in ' the second place, that there are a number of judges in rural (districts much nearer to Montreal who could much more conveniently have been called to the performance of these duties-and after [DOT] considering also the question of whether in my judgment, and upon my responsibility I ought to nominate this particular gentleman for the position, I have not been disposed to take the responsibility of making that nomination.


Edmond Proulx: Are these three judges whose salaries are increased from $5,000 to $7,000 at present residing in the city of Montreal?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know whether Mr. Justice Bruneau and Mr. Justice Mar-tineau have changed their residences since this enactment of the Quebec Legislature, nor am I quite certain where they were actually residing before the change. I would assume that they were residing at St. Hyaointhe and at Sorel.


Edmond Proulx: Then in addition to receiving $7,000, every day they sit in Montreal they will claim ten dollars a day for living expenses.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The law already prevents that.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: Where will the new judges for the Superior Court in Quebec reside?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are to be two
judges in the district of Saguenay. My impression is that the one thus added is to live at Chicoutimi.


Mr. IOWLER:: What is the present necessity for this legislation? I understood a couple of months ago that there would be 
a revision of the salaries of judges all along the line. Now we find two or three judicial positions in Quebec singled out for special consideration. Have the judges in Quebec struck for more pay? There are judges in the other provinces doing their duty quite as well as those in Quebec, and if consideration is to be given to those in one province why should it not be given to those in the others? It seems to me that the minister is making an invidious distinction in favour of these judges in Quebec. The Supreme Court judges in Alberta are to receive $6,000 but these strikers are to receive $7,000. I want to know why these judges in Quebec are receiving this special consideration while those in other provinces are receiving no consideration at all. I think the salaries of judges, taken on the whole, are just about as large as they should be. I am a member of the profession-and I know something of what I am talking about. The salaries received by judges of the various courts throughout Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, are in about ninety per cent of the .cases considerably in excess of the amount the judges made at the Bar. Laymen are asking where this is going to stop and why these men, who are retiring usually into positions of comparative ease and munificence of the Government, receive salaries much greater than their former incomes, although they do much less work. Very good reasons should be given for an increase of $2,000 per annum in a judge's salary. Unfortunately, I was not present when the minister began his explanation of this resolution, but I would like to hear reasons strong enough to convince me that this is legislation for which I should vote.
At six o clock, the Committee took recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was about to say
when the House rose at six o'clock that if the hon. gentleman who spoke last had been present when I made my explanation he would have perceived that this is not a question of making an increase in the judges' salaries or of making any discrimination in favour of any province. This legislation is the result of an endeavour to improve the system, and by means of that improvement in the system to arrive at an improvement in the administration of justice in the district of Montreal in a way more economical than it otherwise could be arrived at. The great centre of legal

business in the province of Quebec is the district of Montreal. The population of that district must be in the neighbourhood of 800,000 people, and the judges are in large numbers scattered through the rural districts. If we proceeded in the ordinary way, what would happen would be that the legislature of the province of Quebec would ibe entitled, if the business of the Montreal district required it, to provide for two additional judges in the district of Montreal, and that would have made two additional salaries for the Dominion to pay. There being need for further aid, and there being men available the duties of whose districts do not take up all of their time, under this arrangement we aTe getting a transfer into the place where the work is to be done of two men at an additional cost of $4,000, instead of $14,000. Instead of the province of Quebec providing for two new judges and two full salaries, we are utilizing the services of men who are entitled to a salary of $5,000 a year at a cost to the Dominion of $4,000. After this explanation there can be no question of discrimination, and I feel sure that my hon. friend's terror of strikers will disappear.


Edmond Proulx: Will Mr. Justice Chauvin do work in the district of Montreal also?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As far as it may be possible, but I believe he will have enough to do in the district of Ottawa and in his own district of Montcalm. I do not anticipate then that he will have very much time after he has done his work in the district of Ottawa. If an arrangement had been made for a resident judge in the district of Ottawa there would have been also a judge in Mont Eaurier, and it would have been necessary to provide a salary for an aduitional judge, which would have meant an extra expense of $5,000 a year. Acting upon the suggestion I made, which was concurred in by the provincial authorities, instead of doing that arrangements have been made by the provincial authorities to have this judge take, in addition to the work of his own district, his share of the work in the Ottawa district. Again, instead of an additional judge with salary of $5,000 a year, we get an additional judge doing the same work at an extra cost of only $2,000. The whole thing has given me a good deal of thought. 1 was rather disposed to congratulate myself an having brought about a most economical arrangement, and I did not expect to be criticised as adding unduly to the expenses in this province.


Mr. MARCIL:: Has the minister been
able to make an arrangement with regard to the judicial work in Terrebonne, Joliette and Beauharnois?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In regard to the district of Terrebonne, there has been such an arrangement for a great many years. The judge of Terrebonne resides and works in the district of Montreal. Last year we made a similar arrangement in regard to the district of Beauharnois.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: How many Superior Court judges are there in Quebec, and how many Supreme Court judges?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The total number of the Superior Court judges is forty-one. There are no judges under the name of Supreme Court judges. The Superior Court in Quebec is a court that has entire jurisdiction in first instance save in regard to cases under $100. From $100 up the Superior Court has entire jurisdiction in all civil litigation in first instance.


Angus Alexander McLean: This matter has been coming up from time to time since it was settled some years ago, as appears by the Revised Statutes of 1906. Amendments have been made from time to time, and a few years ago the principle adopted was that judges should be appointed according to population. I suppose the amount of litigation among >a given number of people is about the same all over Canada. The number of judges would be 'about the same in different provinces in proportion to population. I think that there is just as much litigation in the eastern part of Canada as there is in the middle part, in Quebec, in Ontario, or in the West. But we find that there is a discrimination. We find that the chief justice of Prince Edward Island gets only as much as a puisne judge in Manitoba or in Quebec and that puisne judges in Prince Edward Island only get $5,000 a year. I do not think this is right. If we have about the same population to a judge as Quebec has, why should the judges in eastern Canada be discriminated against in this way? The judges in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick do just as much work as the majority of the judges in Quebec, Ontario or Alberta, but we find on the statute books a discrimination in favour of every one of these provinces as against the smallest province in Canada. I brought this question to the attention of the former Minister of Justice

some years ago and I also brought it to the attention of the present Minister of Justice but I was told that there was no change being made in the Act contained in the Revised Statutes of 1906. I cannot see it in that way. I find that there is a change made in judges salaries in this very resolution. The resolution reads in this way:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Judges Act, chapter 13S of the Revised Statutes, 1906, and to provide for the increase of the salaries of three judges of the Superior Court of Quebec from $5,000 each per annum to $7,000 each per annum and to provide for the salary for an additional judge of the said court at $5,000 per annum.
I would like to know how it is that these three judges are to get am additional $2,000 and that the new judge who is to be appointed will only receive $5,000 a year, the same as the puisne judges in Prince Edward Island. I suppose that probably next year another Bill will come in to give this puisne judge an additional $2,000 a year because there will be a lot of kicking over this matter on account of this discrimination. If you look up the statutes you will find that all the other puisne judges receive $6,000. This law in regard to judges should be put upon a proper basis. There should be no discrimination and they should receive equal salaries in all parts of Canada. Important cases come up in the smaller provinces as in the larger provinces, and the same care and attention have to he given them by the judge. In New Brunswick they have only one judge for fifty thousand inhabitants, while in Alberta and Saskatchewan they have one judge for thirty thousand inhabitants, so that these new provinces have been favoured in that way, and the judges receive large salaries as well. The reason given for these larger salaries is on account of the high cost of living, but I think you will find that the cost , of living is about equal in every part of Canada. There may be a difference for the man who wants to live high, but so far as the ordinary cost of living is concerned, not the cost of high living, it is about the same all over. There should be no discrimination and no favouritism shown in the salaries of public officials in this country who do their duty. I think you will find that the judges in eastern Canada do their duty as well and are just as competent as the judges in Quebec, Ontario, the middle west or British Columbia. I ask the Minister of Justice to withdraw this resolution and reconsider it, and I have no doubt this House will do
[Mr. A. A. McLean
justice to the judges from one end of the country to the other if a proper resolution is placed before it.


Mr. CARVELL:: I have had occasion to discuss this subject many times during the last six or seven years in this House, and I want to say to the Minister of Justice tonight what I have said to my own political friends when they were in power. I heartily concur in everything which has been said by my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. A. A. McLean). I am sure the Minister of Justice does not appreciate the position of the county court judges in the Maritime provinces. They occupy a different position altogether from the county court judges in the rest of Canada. I do not know exactly what the status of the Circuit court judges in Montreal is, but I assume they occupy somewhat the same position as do county court judges in the Maritime provinces. In the Maritime provinces we have only two classes of judges: Superior Court judges and county court judges. I appreciate that the minister meets with a great deal of difficulty in increasing the salary of the county court judges in the Maritime provinces, because of the rather peculiar anomaly which exists in the province of Ontario, where there are two judges for practically every county, and I suppose the minister feels that, as these judges have not very much to do, it would not be reasonable to increase their salaries to, say, $5,000 per annum. But the minister should remember that, in the Maritime provinces, instead of having two judges in a county, each judge has from three to five counties to attend to, and in the western portion of New Brunswick the judge of the county court has four counties under his jurisdiction.


Mr. BLAIN:: The hon. gentleman is not quite correct when he says that in the province of Ontario almost each county has two judges. That is not the case.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There may be instances to which my remark would not apply, but there must be a great many counties in Ontario where there are two judges.


Richard Blain: There are quite a number, but there are more which have only one judge.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, that makes no difference to my argument, because I say that in the Maritime provinces each county judge takes from three to five

counties, and is an important official. Besides attending to the holding of courts, he has to take speedy triads, and that necessitates travel over very great distances. I think the minister should take these things into consideration, and realize that, if there are different conditions in any part of the country, these conditions should be specially provided for. I know that the Minister of Justice has been importuned, the same as have other ministers of justice, in regard to this matter, but, notwithstanding what my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) says, if the minister would take the House into his confidence I think he would have to admit that his difficulty in doing justice to the Maritime province judges is because of the peculiar conditions existing in Ontario. If however the Minister of Justice can depart from the general rule and provide increased salaries for judges in Montreal and elsewhere in the province of Quebec, surely he can find means to give a reasonable salary to the judges in the Maritime provinces. It is unnecessary to argue the matter farther; I have called the attention of the Minister of Justice to it on at least two occasions since he became minister, and I do hope that before the Bill passes he will see his way clear to in some way arrange matters so that these important officials in our part of Canada shall receive a reasonable allowance for their services.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	Considering the large
number of judges in the province of Quebec, the advance is a small one, but no doubt it will be gratifying to the recipients of it. It is, however, a step in the right direction. I do not pretend to understand the divisions of the judiciary in the province of Quebec, but it appears from the Judges' Act that there are at least three classes of judges: the judges of the Superior Court, of which there are quite a number, the district judges, who do not preside in the Superior Courts and who evidently would correspond to County Court judges in the other provinces.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the province of Quebec, what the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) describes as district judges are judges of the Superior Court, but each has assigned to him <a particular district. Some of these Superior Court judges are assigned to the district of Montreal, some to the district of Quebec, and the others to rural districts. We have no County Court judges in the province of Quebec. All are Superior
Court judges with the exception of four Circuit Court judges in the city and district of Montreal. All of the judges who sit in the first instance are judges of the Superior Court, but although there is a difference in the salary paid that difference is based presumably upon the fact that in the large districts of Montreal and Quebec the work is vastly heavier than in the' rural districts.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	The Supreme Court
judges in Nova Scotia are supposed to live in the capital city of Halifax and they go on circuit and act as a court of appeal sitting en banc. There is a court of appeal in the province of Quebec which I presume is composed of some of the Superior Court judges.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The court of appeal in Quebec is a separate court called the Court of King's Bench.
Mr. MeKENZIE: That is, as I understand it, that they do not go on circuit. Those judges, whose jurisdiction is confined to districts, are doing what is really County Court work.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They do both Superior Court work and county court work.
Mr. MeKENZIE: The same thing is true absolutely of the county court judges in the province of Nova Scotia. The hon. minister knows that with very few exceptions a county court judge can try every kind of crime with the consent of the accused. Murder, or attempt to murder and a very few other cases cannot be tried without a jury. In the province of Nova Scotia a county court judge is a Master in Chambers of the Supreme Court. As such, almost every kind of work comes before him. As we have only one set of Supreme Court judges and that set residing in Halifax, it is very easily understood that everything that can bo done by our different Bars throughout the province of Nova Scotia before the local masters is done. For instance, in the county of Cape Breton we have a local Bar and a great deal of legal work is done. No lawyer goes to Halifax except to attend the Appeal Court; and consequently the county court judge is sitting every day, trying the cases in his regular courts, sitting as a Master in Chambers or sitting as a Criminal Court, trying criminals, so that every day in the year our county court judge is engaged in some kind of business in connection with the discharge of his duties. A salary of $3,000 a year for a man occupying a position of that

character, and requiring as a judge to have such a wide knowledge of the profession to which he belomw. is not sufficient pay. While it may be difficult to change the situation which has lasted for a great many years, it may he a good opportunity for the minister to deal with the matter at the present time. I was rather sorry to hear the comments made from the other sifde of the House that judges were being paid ample salaries at present. The fact must not be lost sight of that a judge is not in the same position as the ordinary man getting a salary, because there is a certain standing that a judge must maintain; there is a certain dignity of his calling that he must observe, and there is further a provision in the Judges' Act that he must not do other work. There was a time when he could take an interest in companies as a director or as a trustee, and could earn some money in that way; but under the present Judges' Act, passed in the year 1905, he is excluded from all such things, and is not permitted to do anything whatever except that which appertains to his calling as a judge. Therefore he has no income of any kind except his salary. Unfortunately we have only human beings and human nature to contend with in judges just as in men in other positions, and it is well and proper that the man who has to administer the laws should be absolutely independent of any temptation that poverty brings. We fortunately throughout Canada have no complaint to make in regard to the character of our judges, and it is well that we should maintain the dignity of the Bench as far as possible.
As far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, I suppose the hon. minister would have no complaint to make if we had a county court judge for each county in the province. In the province of Ontario there is an average of more than one judge for every county, whereas in the province of Nova Scotia we have eighteen counties and only seven judges. Supposing that in the beginning we had a judge for each county, that would be eighteen judges; and as they would certainly be paid $3,000 a piece, that would be $54,000. With the small number of jufdges that we have, if you give them each $5,000 a piece, it is only $35,000, as compared with $54,000. Seeing that we have cut down the number of judges to seven, I think we have a right to expect that they shall be decently paid, and $5,000 is certainly not asking too much.
In the province of Ontario, county court

judges earn something as surrogate judges; that is they discharge some functions as judges of probate, for which they are paid fees, and it makes a considerable addition to their income. They have also something to do with the assessment lists; they sit at a court of revision or appeal, and for this work they are paid something. In the province of Nova Scotia, however, the county court judge by way of his office is the court of appeal from the decisions of the probate court, but he gets no allowance for that work at all; he gets the bare amount of his salary. I mention this so that the minister will know that there is no analogy between the position of a county court judge of the province of Nova Scotia and that of a county court judge of the province of Ontario, so far as that is concerned.
I think the minister had a different idea in his mind some time ago, namely that he could deal in a general way with this matter, and assist the judges throughout the whole of Canada, particularly in the Maritime provinces. I am sorry to find that the prospects are not so bright as they were eighteen months or two years ago. I hope that the idea put forward by my hon. friend for Queens, Prince Edward Island (Mr. A. A. McLean), will be followed out and that this resolution will be withdrawn and a wider one submitted. We all understand that it is not competent for the minister to amend the resolution now before the committee, but it certainly would be competent for him to withdraw it and submit one dealing more generally with this question.
There is another matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the minister, as I did on a former occasion. I explained to the minister on that occasion that the county court judge for my district had been deprived of his allowance for travelling expenses under a regulation which assumes to discriminate between different classes of work performed by county court judges. It seems to me a poor matter that, when a county court judge is carrying out the demands of the legislature of the province he should be paid less than the regular travelling allowance. Section 18 of the Judges Act does not recognize any such discrimination. It is as follows:
There shall be paid for travelling allowances to each judge, whether of a Superior or county court, and to each local judge in Admiralty of the Exchequer Court, except as in this section otherwise provided, in addition to his moving or transportation expenses, the sum of six dollars for each day, including necessary days of travel going and returning, during which he is attending as such judge in court or

chambers at any place other than that at which he Is by law obliged to reside.
That is a broad provision that when a judge of the county court is sitting as a court-as he was in the case I have in mind-acting under the provisions of the statutes of the province of Nova Scotia, he certainly comes within the provision of that section. I was certainly surprised that under that regulation the judge was deprived of his proper fees. As I said, I brought this matter to the attention of the minister before. But he has many matters to attend to, and, I quite understand, tends to lose sight of small matters of this hind. But I remind him of it again in the hope that the regulation will be removed, and that when a judge of the county court travels in the regular discharge of his duty, he shall be given, without hesitation and without trouble, the fees allowed under the Act.
However, that is a matter of detail. I would again urge upon the minister the necessity of dealing liberally with the county court judges in the province of Nova Scotia, in the Maritime provinces generally, and indeed all over Canada.
. Mr. McCUBDY: Not having the pleasure and advantage of 'belonging to the legal profession, I cannot appreciate to the same extent as the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) the demands which are made on the time of a county court judge. It is quite evident that the demands made upon him call upon him to be self-sacrificing, and it becomes ingrained in has nature, for has not the hon. member himseif relinquished a position at $3,000 a year as county court judge to accept a much smaller honorarium in the service of his country? But, seriously, it seems to me- and I have made representations to the minister upon the subject at different times -that the remuneration given to our county court judges is quite inadequate. It has remained the same for many years, although, as hon. members are so often reminded, the cost of living has been increasing. There is no way, as the hon. member for North Cape Breton has pointed out, whereby the man who occupies the position of county court judge can increase his income, he is dependent on the salary attached to his position. He is expected to keep up a certain style of living and it seems to me that taking into consideration the constantly increasing expenditure, this is a matter which might well claim the minister's attention. Some of the districts
in Nova Scotia cover quite a wide area. One which I have particularly in mind covers three counties. I would like to add my word to that of others in support of consideration being given particularly to an increase in the salaries of the county court judges.


Mr. BICKERDIKE:: Why has the Minister of Justice left out the Superior Court judges of Montreal? I find there is no hope for them under the present ruling, though no man knows better than the hon. minister himself the amount of work these judges have to do. I think each of them does as much work as almost any two judges outside of the city. The judges all over the country ought to be well paid, there is no question about that. There is no use of this Government saying that they cannot afford it or that they decline to do it on the ground of economy. A government that has the reputation of burning the candle at both ends must not save on poor judges.


William F. Carroll: Our judges of both District and Supreme Courts are very inadequately paid. I believe that there are very few judges in Canada to-day who could not make double their salaries in the practice of their profession. The judges that I know anything about in the province of Nova Scotia and one or two of the other provinces, are men who were of the very highest standing at the Bar in their respective provinces, and who, had they remained in practice would be making salaries of from $18,000 to $25,000 a year instead of the $6,000 or $7,000. which they now receive. If there is one class of our public servants -and 1 suppose judges are to a greater or lesser extent public servants-who are very meagerly paid, that class is our judges both of the county and Supreme courts. The judges of the county court in our province and I suppose the same is true in other provinces-receives only $3,000 a year. Any man, if he has sufficient ability to be appointed county court judge, could make double that money in the practice of his profession. My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy) has referred to my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) having resigned his county court judgeship. If the hon. member for North Cape Breton had given the same attention to his profession that he did to the duties of his position as county court judge, he would have made $4,000 to $8,000 a year instead of the $3,000 he was paid-and

probably that had something to do with his giving up the job.


Mr. McCURDY:: My remark was entirely commendatory of the action of the hon. member.


William F. Carroll: I know. Especially in
the district of Cape Breton island, our county court judge does an amount of work that is worthy of double the salary that is paid him.
I need not repeat what 'has been said by the hon. member for North Cape Breton, but our county court judge is busy from Monday morning at nine o'clock until Saturday afternoon at three. He tries practically all criminal cases, with the exception of those of a more serious character; he assumes the duties of master of the Supreme Court at chambers; he hears all interlocutory applications that are made in the various stages of cases sent up to the Supreme Court for trial-my hon. friend the minister of Justice will know what that means in a district where there is a considerable amount of litigation. He is the taxing master and he has the jurisdiction to try civil cases of a very important nature. I mention his case not because I hold a brief for him, but because I know something of his duties, and I believe that he does more work than any other county court judge in the province, excepting, perhaps the judge at Halifax. I cannot understand why this or any other Government should pay a man in that position only |3,000 a year, an absolutely inadequate sum. Many of our tradesmen and smaller merchants, who have not had to go to the expense of acquiring technical knowledge, make more money than that in a year. The judges are absolutely unable to live up to the standard demanded by the dignity of their office on the salaries which they receive.


Mr. LANCTOT:: They can resign.


William F. Carroll: If it were not for the fact that I would probably be dealing in personalities, I could point out to my hon. friend very many cases where judges have resigned and taken up the practice of their profession simply because they could in that way earn double the amount which they received as judges.


Mr. C. A. WILSON:: What about the hon. Minister of Justice ?


William F. Carroll: I believe that if the hon. Minister of Justice would devote to the practice of his profession the careful attention which he gave to his duties as judge

of the Supreme Court, he would make double the amount of money which he received as a judge. But we have to have judges, and in my humble opinion the minister is going to have some difficulty in getting the very best men to act as judges of the Supreme Court if the salaries are to be left as they are at present.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Does the hon. gentleman really think that in this the twentieth century the whole trend of civilization and culture has been such that now everything is measured in dollars and cents?


William F. Carroll: The hon. gentleman is ahead of his time; he is living in the twenty-eight, not in the twentieth century. He is one of those men who can see the commerce of this country being carried on by flying machines; he is living in the twenty-fourth century at least. But, no matter in what century we are living, to my mind the question is: are the judges of our courts to be paid adequate salaries? The hon. Minister of Justice is taking a forward step in this matter, but I do not think he is taking a step that will commend itself to the country at large. It is all very well to increase the salaries of some particular judges from $5,000 to $7,000 and from $3,000 to $5,000, but I think the Minister of Justice and his department should go thoroughly into the whole question and come to the conclusion that an increase should be given to every judge in Canada, whether he be j udge of the smaller or of the Superior and Supreme Courts. If the minister will see fit to bring down legislation to that end, I believe it would have the hearty support of every gentleman in this House.


Mr. MORPHY:: I desire to congratulate the minister upon his attempt to make a forward step along the lines of economy in dealing with the question of the judges of our courts. As I understand the idea of the minister, he is going to enlarge the territorial jurisdiction of the county court judges and let them do work in adjoining or neighbouring counties. In that way, by a slight increase in their salaries, he will obviate the necessity of the appointment of a higher salaried judge in the county to which the judge in question is sent. I think that is commendable and should meet with the approval of this House, especially in an age when it is sometimes considered proper to attack men who sit on the Bench of the country. I pay tribute to the thoughtfulness of the minister in providing a little more work and a little more pay for some

of the county court judges. My own idea, being fairly well acquainted with the conditions in Ontario, is that there is gross inequality of pay, having Tegard to the labour performed. Leaving out altogether the rather unique and sensible idea to which the hon. member for West Peterborough has given utterance, I claim that many judges throughout the province of Ontario are doing three times as much work as they are paid for doing. There are a great many judges in Ontario who do not earn the money they are getting; yet no one could ask them to take less, because they have always to be on duty and to perform the services from day to day which a judicial officer must perform. In the county that I have the honour to represent the judge of the county court is a very estimable gentleman, formerly a member of this House, who is held in the highest esteem by the litigating public. He is a very busy man, as the county is a great litigating county; we call it the fighting county. I am quite certain that I could pick out throughout the province of Ontario six county court judges who together do less work than the judge of the county court in the county of Perth. That being the case, the principle that the minister is endeavouring to establish by this Bill might be fairly established to-day in respect of the county court judges in the province of Ontario. While I admit that as the province of Ontario is growing rapidly in industrial life, the work of the judges will increase very rapidly and the day may come when these men of whom I speak may have more than enough to do, still I believe that it would be worth the minister's while extending the principle not only to Quebec but to the province of Ontario as well.


William F. Carroll: And to Nova Scotia.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I cannot speak of the conditions in Nova Scotia, but I heard the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) eloquently speaking for the Superior Court judges a moment ago. So far as Ontario is concerned, I have heard no complaint about their salaries, but there is complaint at times from the public that while this Parliament has enacted a law which compels the retirement of county court judges at seventy-five years, it is entirely left open so that a judge of the Superior Court may stay on the bench until he is 175 years old, if he lives that long. I do (not think the discrimination is a fair one. I believe that the county court judge throughout Ontario and within the whole Dominion jurisdiction is in every 228
respect as estimable a man and as worthy of the consideration of Governments as any Supreme Court or Superior Court judge, and I, for one, feel that since the law has been applied, and I think in many eases well applied, that a judge having reached the age of 75 is forced to retire from the county court judgeship, his brother on the Superior Court bench, who has enjoyed more than double the salary all his life, sho'uld be put in the same position. While I will have to make exceptions, owing to the fact of men of 75, such as Chancellor Boyd in Ontario, retaining all their faculties in splendid shape so that they are able apparently to do their work as well as at any time, so that it would be a distinct loss to the bench if they were forcibly retired; there are to-day in Ontario some complaints at the non-retirement of Superior Court judges who have reached the age at which a county court judge would be forcibly retired. I congratulate the minister on his advance towards economy on this line and the application of the sensible plan of giving the county court judges a little more work and adding to their pay.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: I cannot say that I agree altogether with the remarks of the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy). It seems to me that the question of economy should not arise in connection with the salaries of judges. If the Government are going to practise economy, cutting down or keeping low, the salaries of judges would seem to me to be a very poor place to begin it. It would be better for the Government to begin in the Militia Department an'd cut down the construction of drill-halls, or perhaps in the Public Works Department, where the expenditure has been going up by leaps and bounds in the last three or four years.
There seems to be a general agreement between members on both sides that the salaries of district or county court judges in Saskatchewan should be somewhat increased. If that is true in Nova Scotia or in parts Oif Ontario or in Quebec, it is equally true in the western parts of Canada and particularly so in Saskatchewan, not only on account of the fact that the judges in that province are all working from morning until night, as there are not sufficient County Court judges in the province, but also because living is much more expensive in that part of the country than in any other part of Canada. In an ordin-



ary county town, in Ontario a man occupying the position of county court judge can live on much less than he could in a similar town in Saskatchewan. I attended a banquet given by the Bar Association of Saskatchewan to the Minister of Justice last fall. The minister was in particularly good humour on that occasion after he had been banqueted and treated to the best that the prairies produce. I understood from his remarks, and the impression was general not only in Regina but in Moosejaw, that he was going to do something
9	p.m. to increase the salaries of county court judges in Saskatchewan. I know that the minister's answer will be that he must deal with the whole of Canada; but the conditions are somewhat different in the West as it costs more to live and the judges there actually do more work than county court judges in Ontario. I hope the minister will devise some scheme by which he can be of some assistance to the judges of the county court in Saskatchewan. The minister is going to appoint four more District Court judges in that province. He will have trouble in getting proper men for those positions at $3,000. He shakes his head. I venture to say that a great many of the applications he has had for the position are from men not fitted to occupy the position of county court judge. I know that he cannot get properly qualified men for these positions at a salary of $3,000. Unless the salaries are made adequate to the position the minister will not be able to get the best men to occupy the positions of District Court judges in the western provinces, and I hope that some means will be found to give these men more salary than they are offered at the present time.


Roch Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, before
this resolution is put, I wish to once more state my views as to its purport. The hon. minister stated that the Judges-' Act should be amended. I must say, in the first place, that I am greatly pleased at the rapid spread of the views I expounded in the course of this session concerning the proposed increase in the Judges' salaries. Despite the lateness of the season, the seed which I have put in the soil is making good progress, if I am to judge by the statements forthcoming from the hon. member (Mr. Fowler) before recess, and I have reason to believe that before long it- will yield a magnificent crop.

I have several times addressed the House in this connection, and I must -say once more that I cannot agree with the views expressed by my hon, friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll); and neither can I agree with -the views expressed by another of my colleagues, who has just taken his seat (Mr. Martin of Regina) when he stated, as the previous gentleman had also stated, that the judges- were being paid starvation wages. Starvation wages, you say, with $7,000 for the Superior court judges and $3,000 for the County court judges of Ontario and the other provinces?
If such be the case, I wonder how many people we will lose in this country within a year or two, when those who are drawing such salaries aTe bound to disappear from the face of the earth on account of the increased cost of living. I wonder how many people there will be left in the country following on such a disaster. Is it not a fact that we have, in this country, a large number of people, earning less than, five-, six, seven hundred dollars, one thousand or twelve hundred dollars, while burdened with families to bring up and children to educate? However, not a single lawyer in this House has as yet risen from his seat to urge on the Government the desirability of increasing the wages of these people who are threatened with starvation. Not a single legal gentleman on either side of the House has done. so.
That question of the judges' salaries is entirely a novel one for the electorate, and I say that the people are ignorant of what is going on in this connection. But the people will -be informed of the facts, and I for one, have quite made up my mind to take up the subject whenever an occasion offers.
Most lawyers are willing to accept these judgeships at $7,000 or $8,000 per annum, realizing that in so doing, they are providing for their old age a pension, after fifteen or twenty years' service, without ever contributing to the fund. Is there in any part of the country people who draw superannuation without beforehand contributing to the fund off the-ir salary cheque? Only the judges enjoy that privilege.
As stated by my hon. friend from Queens and Albert, at the time of recess, many legal gentlemen who are promoted to the Bench never, while practising at the Bar, had the chance of drawing a monthly cheque of between $416 and $580, such as they receive from the Government. Far from it, I may say that to my knowledge, many lawyers who were eking out a mere living in Montreal, or elsewhere, were most happy to ac-

cept positions in the Civil Service, because they [DOT]could not make both ends meet out of their professional fees; and now we are told that the judges should be paid larger salaries. I say that is preposterous.
What example are you professional men setting for the people? I say that in taking such a stand you are abetting the other classes of .society against you; you are making yourself an object of envy to them, because you are keeping everything for yourselves and leaving nothing for others'. But the time is near when a stop will have to be put to it.
I have already spoken to the same effect on several occasions, but I wish to-day to make an exception in favour of the judges of the Montreal Circuit Court. I am in favour of increasing the salaries of those judges, the senior of whom has heretofore drawn only $3,600 per annum, while his colleagues drew $3,000. I say that those judges are not sufficiently paid for the work they are doing, and1 besides they have no right to a pension.


Charles Joseph Doherty: After twenty-five years.


Roch Lanctôt: Well, that is wrong. I
am against granting any pension to them. If both parties in this House are agreed as to the desirability of paying larger salaries to the judges, why not pay them while they are doing the work? There is no reason for that pension. It is . to that the people object.
Why is that pension granted to the Superior Court judges, instead of a larger salary? Why? Simply in order to enable the party in power to appoint as judges those who are unwilling to face public opinion, and that, by pensioning the retiring judges, so as to make room for others. The hon. Minister of Justice is posted in this connection. Possibly he will deny it, but 1 challenge him to come and discuss, that question on the hustings in the province of Quebec, and I am satisfied that he will not defend before the people the stand he is now taking.
The hon. Minister of Justice, stated that, by means of this resolution, he expected to effect a saving of $12,000 per annum by getting those three judges to sit in Montreal. The minister has thus adopted the right course; I may congratulate him right here, for those $12,000 will put us in a position to continue paying that pension to him for some time to come. But that pension will have to be dispensed with some day, and I beg of him to speak in my behalf to the right hon. Prime Minister, so that the 2281
House may be afforded an opportunity of discussing the Bill which I introduced at the opening of the session. The Government should not entertain any fears since they have the majority in this House.
I am not speaking for myself alone. True, I am not a lawyer, but what I say is in the interest of those poor people who work hard and strain every nerve to earn a few hundred dollars, and I am. waging war on the magnates who would gobble everything and leave nothing to others.
I see that the few hon. gentlemen who have taken part in this debate belong to the legal profession. I think they expect to be promoted to the Bench one of these days. Among them, there are some men of mature years, and others much younger. For instance, my hon. friend from Sourh Cape Breton is young; he is a good lawyer and he will be made a judge before long. My hon. friend from Queens, P.E.I., is anxious that the judges' salaries should be increased; I surmise that he will be made a judge pretty soon; his stand on the question would seem to indicate it. I must say in conclusion that I am strongly opposed tc any increase of the salaries of suen judges as are drawing just now $8,000, $7,000, or even $5,000, and I say that the country is at one with me on that point.


William John Macdonald: I was very much disappointed with the fact that the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) had not succeeded in dealing with this question of the judges' salaries in a comprehensive way, as he assured us last year he would do in the interval. I cannot follow my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy) in the congratulations which he has given to the minister wherein he says that some economy has been practised as a result of this resolution. I have always been under the impression that the constitution of the courts, the statement as to the number of judges that should exist, and all the provisions in that particular, rest entirely in the hands of the provincial legislatures, and all that is necessary for the Minister of Justice to do is to provide for the appointment of judges and fix their salaries. The minister, in dealing with this case, has devoted his energy entirely to one province of the Dominion. I need not repeat the arguments that have been made by the two hon. members from Cape Breton as to the necessity for a prompt ana early consideration of the conditions which exist in the province from which i come; but I apprehend that in other prov-

inces of the Dominion the question is quite as acute as it is in the province of Quebec or in the province of Nova Scotia. I think that the gentlemen who are on the bench were led to believe last year by the minister that this whole question of the revision of salaries would- have been considered between sessions and would have been dealt with this year. I have not heard any explanation from my hon. friend the minister as to why, in (dealing with this question, he has limited his efforts to one province. One does not need to repeat the arguments which have been made on behalf of the Opposition. On the other hand, we have had some suggestions as to the lack of any necessity for moving, but I am sure that the practice which has always characterized the payment of the judiciary in the empire, the custom that has been set for us in the Parliament of the mother country, where salaries which would almost be regarded here as princely accompany the filling of the judicial office, has marked a condition of affairs which I think might well be continued in this country. When we recall the fact that the life, the liberty and possibly everything there is in the world belonging to the individual may be destroyed or completely nullified as the result of the decisions of the men who have been appointed by the state to sit in judgment in regard to the particular issues involved, we will at once realize that we have a condition in which nothing but the most unswerving integrity and the highest degree of independence should characterize the occupant of the bench who has these questions to determine. Anything that would detract from that superb independence which is absolutely essential to the proper administration of the law and the maintenance of those high standards of legal jurisprudence on which the very best interests of our country depend would be the greatest possible menace to the state. These considerations which, I have no doubt, have been put by hon. gentlemen who have spoken before me, must have appealed to the minister, and I only desire to again express my regret that in dealing with this question he has only touched the fringe of it and not attempted to deal with it on those broad lines which we anticipated last year he would have done.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to point out to the minister that we are finding fault with the increases granted to certain judges in
[ Mr. Macdonald. ]
Quebec who, while it is true they are not county court judges, yet, from the information which we all have, we know are practically performing the same service as county court judges in the other provinces. I do not think the minister should go behind any such technicality as that. He may claim that there are particular circuit judges who are doing a large amount of work, but I venture the assertion that they are doing no greater amount of work than many of the county court judges are in the Maritime provinces. Take the county court judge of Sydney, the county court judge of Halifax, the county court judge of St. John, or the county court judges of many of the rural districts and compare the amount of work they do with the work that these judges do in Quebec, and the comparison, I venture to say, will be very favourable to the county court judges of the Maritime provinces. You have also to take into consideration the fact that in the Maritime provinces there are often three and four counties joined together in one circuit. I am afraid the minister does not appreciate the condition of affairs. The statement was made by one hon. member this evening that large demands were made upon their time. It is not so much the demands that are made upon the time of the county court judges, but it is the fact that, owing to the high position they occupy, they cannot do anything else and they are simply compelled to live upon their $3,000 a year or resign their position. They are prohibited from taking part in any other of the activities of life. The county court judge occupies, so to speak, just as high a position as the Lord 'Chief Justice of England does; that is, he is not in a position to engage in business, he cannot increase his salary by any outside transactions, he cannot even be a director in a joint stock company, and he has to live up to a standard just the same as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or the Lord Chief Justice of England. My hon. friend may say that they have no difficulty in getting men to take these positions. That may be true, but my hon. friend will find that he has a lot of difficulty in getting the right class of men to take these positions. I am speaking from the standpoint of the Maritime provinces practically altogether. The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) gave some little account of the way it worked out in Nova Scotia. It is very much the same in New Brunswick. Our Supreme Court in

New Brunswick is divided into two sections, the appellant division consisting of three judges, a chief justice and two puisne judges. Then there is the King's Bench division, which consists of a chief justice and three others. The two chief justices receive $7,000 a year and the others $6,000. The county court judges require just as much knowledge of the law and they must be just as able lawyers as are the judge of the King's Bench division, because exactly the same class of cases is brought within their purview. Under our arrangement civil matters up to $400 in contract and $200 in tort are decided by the county court judges. Beyond that the cases go to the King's Bench. The same amount of legal acumen is required in deciding a case involving an amount of $399 as that which is required in a case involving $400. My hon. friend does not seem to appreciate the fact that as far as the Maritime provinces county court judges are concerned they are exactly on a par with the King's Bench judges, except that they receive half the salary. I think the minister must be alive to the fact that this is an unfair basis. This is a position that these gentlemen ought not to be asked to sustain, and I trust that at an early period my hon. friend will be able to do something to remove this anomaly. Since this discussion commenced this evening I have been casting my eye over the Estimates in every department of the Government in Ottawa, and n you look at these Estimates you will find from one to eight or nine officials outside of the deputy ministers who are receiving salaries greater than those of the county court judges I have nothing to say against these gentlemen; they are doing the work assigned to them, but they are only clerks. I do not think the Minister of Justice can consider for a moment that a chief clerk in a department at Ottawa has anything like the responsibilitty devloving upon him as has a county court judge in the Maritime provinces; the two cases are not comparable.


Charles Marcil: And these officials are not satisfied.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No doubt they are not
satisfied, but I am only mentioning them as a matter of comparison. In this very building to-night there are eleven or twelve gentlemen, not including the Clerk of the House, the Clerk of the Senate, the Sergeant-at-Arms and important officials of that kind, who are mere clerks and who are
receiving a greater salary than the county court judges in the Maritime provinces. I am not going to say anything about the Militia Department; I had something to say about that last week, but if the Minister of Justice would look at the salaries of the officials of the Militia Department he would be ashamed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would find a good example there.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, you would find all the justification you possibly could require to increase the salary of judges who really are doing something for the country, who are a necessity to the country, and who are earning their salary. Again, I am not attacking the Militia Department; I am only mentioning this by way of comparison If it be necessary to keep this body of military gentlemen in their positions at enormous salaries, surely the Minister of Justice ought to be able to equalize the matter by raising the salaries of the county court judges to somewhat near what they should be.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In so far as we have listened to argument upon the general increase of the salaries of county court judges, and perhaps of judges, generally speaking, I have very strong sympathy with that view. The hon. gentleman from Regina (Mr. Martin) said that I was in good humour up in Regina, and that I intimated my feeling in that regard. I may say, as a matter of fact, that on that question I am always in good humour and I always entertain the same feeling. Unfortunately one is not always able to- do these things which in the best of humour he wishes to do.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why not?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not alone to deal with this matter, and there are other considerations than those which have been advanced this evening that appear to be paramount obstacles to the general dealing with this subject at this session. It is quite true that I promised to do my best, and I have endeavoured to keep my promise. But the circumstances have not been favourable, and we are not in a position to deal with the whole subject at present. I have explained the peculiar circumstances of what is being done in Quebec. This is not a matter of increasing salaries pure and simple. So far as the Superior Court judges are concerned, we are avoiding the appointing of two addi-

tional judges by making arrangements by which existing judges do considerably more work for a small addition to their (salaries. It is from that point of view that one hon. gentleman has been good enough to speak of it as being, what in reality it is, an economy.
I do not want to go into comparisons' which might seem invidious, but I do know of my personal knowledge the immense volume of work the circuit court judges in Montreal do. The province of Quebec thought there was so much work that there should be six judges in the circuit court, but I have so arranged matters that it is possible to do the work with four judges, and I am simply distributing between these four the six thousand dollars salary that would have been paid to two .additional judges at $3,000 each. I am not in reality burdening the treasury of this country with any addition to the salaries of particular judges. What I am doing with regard to the Superior Court judges who come into the district of Montreal, is, adding two increases of salary of two thousand dollars each, instead of paying salaries for two additional judges at seven tl uusand dollars each. In the case of the Circuit Court judges, I am getting the work done by four men, and paying the same as I would have paid if I simply folded my arms and made no effort, and added two judges at the suggestion of the legislature. I have to acknowledge the cooperation of the Government of the province of Quebec in this arrangement. An hon. member has said that it is for the province to fix the number of the judges, and I have to acknowledge that this arrangement could not have been come to without the co-operation of the Government of the province of Quebec.
As to the statement made by the hon. member for Prince Edward Island (Mr. A.
A. McLean), there is no doubt that the Chief Justice of that province receives less than the Chief Justices of the other provinces, but on the other hand the puisne judges of that province receive more than the rural puisne judges in Quebec. There are anomalies with regard to these salaries, Perhaps it is true that something ought to be done to remedy these anomalies, but they seemed quite satisfactory to a large number of gentlemen who have spoken this evening, at the time they were brought into existence, and so long as it remained in their power to change them. These hon. gentlemen seem to have discovered the great 
need for a change only when their power to make the change slipped from them. But that does not alter the force that attaches to the argument that there ought to be a change, and speaking for myself personally, I shall be glad if circumstances should put me in a position where I shall be free to deal with this whole subject. As I have said, circumstances have not appeared this year to be favourable to that being done, and I regret it as much as any of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken. The hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) touched a sympathetic chord when he spoke of the position of the judges in the district of Montreal. I am as sorry as he can be that we are not in a position to deal with the whole subject, and in dealing with the whole subject to deal with their case. The action that is being taken here now is purely and simply giving effect to an arrangement that enables us, while avoiding a larger burden on the treasury, to get a more effective administration in a particular district. It is not a matter of increasing salaries purely and simply, because for what we are doing we are getting a direct consideration of greater value than we are giving.


Charles Marcil: Is there any arrangement made with regard to the judge in the district of Gaspe?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I must confess that I know of no reason why the judge in Gaspe should be treated differently from the other rural judges in the province of Quebec.


Charles Marcil: His salary remains at
$5,000?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Charles Marcil: Does he reside in Quebec?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The judge in the county ol Gaspe exercises his functions also in Bonaventure, with residence at New Carlisle or at Perce, at his choice.


Charles Marcil: That is a requirement of the provincial law, I presume?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Charles Marcil: His salary is $5,000?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Charles Marcil: He sits in Quebec almost all the time.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That must be because of his own willingness to do so, and it must be remembered that he gets ten dollars a day for expenses when he does so.


Charles Marcil: Why should not the same arrangement be made in these two other cases?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the proposition should come from the provincial authorities to make the change, I shall consider what ought to be done; but I do not know the circumstances under which the hon. member says the judge of the district of Gaspe resides in Quebec. His residence apparently by law is fixed in his district.


Charles Marcil: I am not reflecting on
the judge of the county of Gaspe. He is a distinguished man and has had a very noteworthy career in judicial life, but he occupies the same position as other judges have before him. His immediate predecessor resided at New Carlisle.


Mr. PELLETIER:: He resides at
Rimouski.


Charles Marcil: The judge resides there in the summer time, but in Quebec in winter. I understand he sits very often in Quebec. The same thing might apply to the judge at Rimouski. I suppose the same thing applies to other judges who reside in the city of Quebec. The only objection I have is that there should be any discrimination. When a judge is appointed to the Superior Court Bench, he should obtain the same salary as his confreres. Ten, twelve or thirteen years ago Sir Charles Fitzpatrick brought a resolution before the House and by an error, according to his statement, no increases were granted to these judges and it was a source of conplaint for many years after that.	.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That has been remedied.


Charles Marcil: I am not blaming the
present Administration, but I think there is a discrimination against these district judges, if the salary remains at $5,000.


Charles Joseph Doherty: All the rural judges are on the same basis.


Charles Marcil: You are taking three rural judges now and making city judges of them. Why not do the same thing with the judges of the district of Gaspe as with the judges of the districts of Richelieu, St. Hyacinthe and Montcalm?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They are not all required in the district of Montreal, and it would not be a very practical arrangement that a judge should have a district down in Gaspe and also have a district in Montreal, thus spending a large part of his time travelling between the two places. Where
we have sanctioned this action, it has been in the cases of districts immediately adjoining Montreal, where a man living in Montreal can with equal facility serve his own district and the district of Montreal and because of the need existing in the district of Montreal, and the possibility of its being done with perfect convenience and without loss of time, we have sanctioned the arrangement with regard to these particular judges. Of course, we do not require all the rural judges in the district of Montreal, and we are beginning with those whose districts are nearest to the district of Montreal.


Charles Marcil: I am not objecting to the arrangement at all, but I think it might be extended to the other parts of the province. Gaspe may seem very remote, but it is now within a few hours of the city of Quebec.
I think that no discrimination should be made between judges occupying equal rank and doing equal work. If in their own districts the work is not sufficient, the Government should give them additional work, if possible, instead of increasing the number of judges. So far as the Circuit Court judges are concerned, I have the pleasure of knowing these judges from the day they were appointed. Three of them were originally appointed, and now the number has been increased to four; but our friends in the Maritime provinces may not know that last year there were before this court 18,000 cases to be tried, and because the role was so overcrowded, two judges of the Superior Court had to be appointed to assist these judges in catching up in their work. The court is presided over by Mr. Justice Leboeuf, who is certainly a very hardworking man and who is entitled to get all he is receiving, and the other judges are Mr. Justice Purcell and by Mr. Justice Dorion, of whom the same is true. I do not believe on the whole that the people of the province will object to reasonable salaries being given the judges, but I do not think discrimination is in the interest of justice. Instead of employing additional judges, the present judges should be given the work, but they should at the same time receive the salary.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I see that as regards
these judges who are to be appointed for the district of Quebec, Chicoutimi or RobeT-val are the places of residence. Where will they reside?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provision of the
Quebec statute is that the judge in the

district of Chicoutimi, shall reside at Roberval, or Chicoutimi, at his choice.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Is there any provision in the statute by which the Minister of Justice can compel a rural judge to reside in his district? If so, is it the intention of the minister to enforce the law so far as the rural judges are concerned?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The residence of a judge in the province of Quebec is fixed by the legislation of the province of Quebec. In what manner the Minister of Justice could exercise compulsion upon a judge to obey the law of the province, is perhaps a matter that might require some consideration. So far I have not had called to my attention a case or cases calling for action in that regard.


Edmond Proulx: The best way to enforce
the law would be to stop the salary unless the judge complied with the provincial law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are talking about
judges of the Superior Court of Quebec, and the only remedy of which I know, exercisable against judges of the Superior Court is impeachment before both Houses of Parliament. Whether it would be considered a case for impeachment that a gentleman was residing in one place rather than in another is a . matter which requires some reflection. Short of that I do not know of any authority that the minister has to compel a judge actually to sit down and stay in a particular place. I am not prepared to say that there is nothing that can be done under these circumstances. When such a case arises and is called to my attention, I shall look into the matter and see whether or not it is possible that something can be done to ensure that a judge performs the duty that the provincial law prescribes for him of residing in a particular place. It is not something incumbent upon him under the law of the Dominion of Canada, and therefore it may perhaps not be our function to compel obedience to that law.


Edmond Proulx: The legislature fixes a
district and it assigns the place of residence of the judges. Then, the federal authority provides the salary. I submit, the federal Parliament could impose conditions on the payment of these salaries. It could provide that the judge shall comply with the law made by the provincial legislature, and otherwise shall not be entitled to receive the salary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is possible, and
if the case arises we will see.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the minister tell
me whether or not he considers that one of his judges has the right to remain in the active command of the unit of the militia. The question might arise as to whether he might be called upon to order out the militia in the case of riot or disturbance. Has that matter been brought to the minister's attention?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman is asking for an opinion which turns on the interpretation of a section of the statute. In that case. I am sure he will allow me time to give the subject consideration. The only provision I recall that could be suggested as applicable is that which prohibits a judge from engaging in any other occupation and requires that he shall give his whole time to the duties of his office. I doubt whether service in the militia would be held as going into an * occupation ' within the meaning of the statute. When the case arises we will consider what the law is.


Mr. KYTE:: I desire to call the attention of the minister to an anomaly that exists in the County Court Judges' Act in respect to the travel and living allowance to county court judges who have to hold court in places other than the shire town of the county in which they reside. No provision appears to exist for payment of such an allowance when the judge has to travel from one town to another in his home county for the purpose of holding court. I called the attention of the minister to this matter before, and he suggested that I send him a memorandum with respect to it. This I did and I hope he will bear it in mind.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I received the hon.
gentleman's memorandum and will endeavour to see what can be done.


John Howard Sinclair: Can it be done without legislation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not quite recall.
I understand it is somewhat similar to the difficulty spoken of by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie). The difficulty of which hs spoke, I understood, arose under some regulation of the department, but the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), refers to the County Court Judges' Act. Do I understand that is a provision of our own Judges' Act?


George William Kyte: It is a provision under the Dominion statute.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will look into it, and when we come to deal with the Bill to carry out this resolution, if necessary I will see that an amendment is made to meet the case.


John Howard Sinclair: The case is where a
judge is presiding over two or three counties. As the law now stands the judge can get no travelling fees for attending courts in the county where he resides. This is a matter of considerable hardship and there is no reason why this anomaly should exist. I trust that before this Bill becomes law the minister will see that it is amended to meet such eases as I have referred to.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: The minister said that there were no complaints to his department about judges not residing in their districts. I wish to call his attention to the fact that in the district of Kamouraska the complaint is that the judge should resi'de at Fraserville, the shire town of the district. If I may rely upon what the newspapers in that district state, then it is against the best interests of justice in that district to have a judge who does not reside at the shire town. It is within my own knowledge that the judge was obliged to go away earlier than was expected to Quebec, and some witnesses were sent back to their homes and were obliged to come back at the next term at a cost of over $250-an expense uselessly caused by the fact that the judge had to go to another case at Quebec. If the hon. minister has no complaint from that district, I profit by the circumstance to be the first man to lay the complaint before him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Can the hon. gentleman tell me where the residence of that judge is fixed? I notice that in the Quebec statute, with regard to the district of Kamouraska, the provision is that the judge shall reside ' at the place assigned to him by law.' And I understand that under the Quebec law, that means that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may fix the judge's place of residence. . I will verify that if the hon. member is not able to tell me what action has been taken.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Judge Cimon nearly always lived at Rivi&re du Loup for the best interests of justice. He has been replaced by Mr. Justice Belleau, and it is all changed since Judge Cimon is gone.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. DOHERTY thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 190, to amend the Judges' Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 181, respecting the entrance of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian Northern Railway Company into their joint terminals at the city of Winnipeg.-Mr. J. D. Reid.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), Bill No. 168, to amend Part VI of the Canada Shipping Act, was read the second time and House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Mr. HAZEN:: This Bill was fully explained at the time of the first reading. It is to give effect to the recommendation of the Pilotage Commission with regard to the control of the pilots in the city of Quebec. It places the control of the pilots in the hands of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries instead of in the hands of the Corporation of Pilots, in that respect complying with the recommendation made by the Pilotage Commission, which, as hon. gentlemen will remember, was appointed last year to investigate this matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before this legislation passes I should like to put briefly before the committee a few of the objections urged by the pilots of Quebec against this Bill. The Bill is based upon the report of the commission appointed by my hon. friend a year ago, and, if I mistake not, is presented also at the request of the shipping federation and shipping interests generally. The Corporation of Pilots, which is composed of gentlemen whom my hon. friend the Postmaster General knows well, has sent to the members of the House an answer to the report of the Royal Commission.


John Douglas Hazen: What is the date ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: January 22, 1914. I shall not weary the committee by reading the whole of that document, but I wish simply to read seriatim the objections made by the Corporation of Pilots, in order that my hon. friend may give his answer. I may say that personally I approve the Bill; the shipping federation, the shipping interests and the public generally, I think, are in sym-

pathy with this legislation. As the pilots have a right to be heard, however, let me briefly state their objections. They use the following language with regard to the condemnation of the pooling system by the Dominion:
Page 10, section (c) reads as follows: The system of pooling pilots' earnings is vicious and removes all incentive, etc.
In answer they say:
We have experienced this system these last fifty-four years, and consequently we must be in a better position to appreciate it than those who judge that the system on hearsay or according to their interests or .their anxiety to pay less. We are glad to say that every member of our corporation is satisfied with it, and would not like to be deprived of it. We cannot understand why the system of pooling our earnings is bad for us and good elsewhere.
Then they proceed to quote -the usages which are followed by other pilots' corporations, the Sandy Hook pilots of New York and the Cardiff pilots of Wales, for instance. They say that these pilots' corporations adopted the pooling system which has been followed by the Quebec Pilotage Corporation.
Another grievance is as to the pension fund. On page 10 of the report -of the commission it is recommended:
That the pension fund be taken over and managed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Here is the answer made -by the pilots:
That question has not been discussed at all during the investigation and no complaints have been made by witnesses against the actual administration of the fund. This has been decided, ex cathedra, by two commissioners. We think that it is not sufficient to settle the matter without any proof of bad administration.


John Douglas Hazen: I desire to call my hon.
friend's attention to the fact that this- Bill does not interfere with the management of the pension fund.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Very well; I will pass to the next grievance. With regard to the appointment of an independent superintendent, they say:
We again regret to say that we do not agree with the commissioners' opinion expressed in section (a) about the superintendent of pilots.
When the Trinity House was the pilotage authority, they were superintendents and according to law they had to be pilots. What a curious thing to pretend that a pilot cannot fulfil his duty as superintendent because he hjas been a pilot and will not be independent enough. One might as well say that an advocate is not qualified to become a judge, because, having been an advocate, he will not be independent enough of his former confreres to deal with justice. Governments should do

better, we suppose to appoint notaries as judges, they know law and would be more independent.
They complain also of the suggestions made in the report with regard to the apprentice pilots. Then they give this answer with regard to the Quebec tariff of pilots:
The commission would like to point out that the pilotage tariff rates for the Quebec pilotage district are too high for the services rendered. That question of tariff did not come up during the investigation.


John Douglas Hazen: The Bill does not interfere with that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know, but the pilots have this opportunity of being heard. (Reading):
And consequently we have had no chance to discuss it and show that the rates are not too high, ff we consider the length of the pilotage, 157 miles.
They then compare the pilotage tariff of New York and Boston with that of Quebec, arriving at conclusions which are in favour of the Quebec tariff. These are the chief objections of the pilots to the report of the commissioners and to this legislation.
For many years this matter -has been a much debated question and I think that the hon. gentleman has at last taken the authority which should have been entrusted to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries long ago. Unfortunately, there are too many accidents on the river St. Lawrence, chiefly below Quebec, although there are some between Montreal and Quebec as well. Navigation has just been opened and there have already been at least three accidents, two of them very serious-the cases of the Saturnia and the Montfort. In respect of these cases the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries was kind enough to send me yesterday a copy of the judgments rendered by the commission. In both cases, if I mistake not, the masters and pilots were found in fault.


John Douglas Hazen: In the case of the Saturnia the pilot was suspended for three months and the master was censured. In the case of the Montfort the pilot was suspended for three months, but the master was commended. for his course at the time of the accident.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the case of the Saturnia, Mr. Meredith, K.C., who represented the Shipping Federation at the investigation, did not agree with the findings of the commissioner in this sense that whilst the master and the pilot are blamed he thinks that the department is also at fault. I quote from to-night's Star as saying:

A strong protest was entered yesterday at the sitting of the Dominion Wreck Commission when the judgment, read by Captain Dindsay, dismissed entirely the absence of aids to navigation as a factor in the grounding of the ss. Saturnia and ss. Montfort, April 28.
F. E. Meredith, K.C., counsel for the Shipping Federation in the case of the Saturnia, and for the Canadian Pacific railway in the case of the Montfort, in view of the fact that no recommendation was made in the judgment that the Government be advised as to the condition of navigation aids in the St. Laurence, made comment thereon.
' I have no intention of discussing the judgments,' said Mr. Meredith, ' nor to argue whether the absence of buoys and lightship had anything to do with the casualties, but I appear for the Shipping Federation of Canada and the Canadian Pacific railway, both of whom are tremendously interested in the St. Lawrence navigation. And, as no mention has been made in either judgment of the absence of lightships from their stations, I am instructed to ask you to bring the evidence in this regard before the minister. This is with the object that in future years there may not be a position where we find ocean steamers reported coming into the gulf and no lightships sent down In proper time, especially to what is regarded as one of the most dangerous spots in the channel, the Lower Traverse.'
Mr. Meredith also added that Captain Lindsay's successor on the commission should obviously not be a member of the Marine Department and placed in the position of condemning his superiors in office. He should preferably belong to the Department of Justice.
I leave this to my hon. friend to consider. From the first reports that were received of the accident to the oaturnia it would seem that if the lightship had been towed by a proper tow boat it might possibly have been in time at the proper place at the Traverse and the accident might have been averted. At the same time I wash to call the attention of my hon. friend to a judgment which has just been rendered by the Privy Council and which,I think, should affect in the future the legal position of the masters and pilots respectively on board a ship in case of accident. The decision is by Mr. Justice Bargrave, Dean of the British Admiralty Court, in a recent collision case. He decided that the master should never interfere with the pilot in pilotage waters unless there be an indication of absolute incapacity, drunkenness or mental difficulty of some sort. This is likely to create a precedent of far-reaching importance. Further, the judge added that in his opinion the master must assist the pilot and advise him but should not assume command. The pilot is supposed to know local conditions thoroughly and should be in a better position to navigate the vessel than the captain. This decision, given by the highest judicial authority in
marine matters in the British Empire, should interest my hon. friend and the navigators generally in the St. Lawrence where so many accidents have occurred, much to the detriment of our country and especially of the good old city of Montreal and generally the ports of Montreal and Quebec. The recent grounding of the Saturnia and the Montfort occurred while both these vessels were lin charge
10	p.m. of pilots. I am very glad my hon. friend corrected me just now in the case of the Montfort, saying that the master's action was commended. In the case of the Saturnia, although I do not know the captain personally, it seeims to me from the circumstances, if the case had been argued before the Admiralty Court in England the master would not have been found guilty as he was found guilty by the wreck commissioner in Montreal. I would like to have the opinion of my hon. friend on this point as I think this decision is likely to be invoked in future cases. I believe on the whole that the Bill which has been introduced by my hon. friend will give us a more modern and more able body of pilots than we have had in the past. I am not finding fault with the old pilotage system, ibut evidently, from the number of accidents which have taken place in the river St. Lawrence, the Government and the minister were justified in taking the pilotage system of Quebec under their own control as the pilotage between Montreal and Quebec is now. As regards the superintendent of pilots, I suppose there will still be a superintendent of pilots in Quebec. The present superintendent is Mr. Talbot. What are the functions of Mr. Lachance?


John Douglas Hazen: He is a pilot and was president of the Corporation of Pilots of Quebec. He was president when placed on the Pilotage Commission with Mr. Robib and Captain Lindsay.


Rodolphe Lemieux: To show that the shipping interests of the country are somewhat perturbed at the condition of the pilotage system below Quebec, I wish to read the following extract:
I have here the Canadian Railway an'd Marine World for September, 1913. A report on the grounding of the steamer Lake Manitoba is given in this paper. I read the following:
The court unanimously unites in its opinion that the cause of the casualty was entirely due to the negligence of Adjutor Lachance, the pilot, inasmuch as he totally disregarded the

rule of the road in porting for a bright light on his port bow, and also in not being aware of the exact position of his vessel with regard to the land. Moreover circumstances ultimately proved that there was not sufficient room for the execution of this manoeuvre. It is also of the opinion that had the pilot on seeing the bright light, at once stopped the engines and reversed, if necessary, the casualty would have been avoided. The court therefore suspends his license until the completion of the present season of navigation.
The pilot, A. Lachance, is president of the Corporation of Pilots of Quebec, and was one of the commissioners appointed by the Dominion Government, in the recent inquiry into pilotage matters on the St. Lawrence.
Commenting on this decision, the Canadian Eailway and Marine World used the following language in its issue of November, 1913:
The matter has given rise to considerable comment in marine circles, and a number of suggestions have been made to obviate what is becoming a ridiculous state of affairs. Some of these cover the entire removal of wreck investigations from the jurisdiction of the Marine Department, making the Wreck Commissioner's Court subsidiary to the Department of Justice, and depriving the Marine Department of any right to revise judgments and sentences, and also fining only of pilots for errors of judgment, etc., which result in the damage to, or loss of, a vessel, grading such fine according to the gravity of the offence, and extending payments over a stated period, by deducting a percentage from fees due the pilot for services rendered to each vessel during that period. There are certainly some good points in the suggestions mentioned, especially the bringing of the Wreck Commissioner's Court under the Department of Justice, leaving one of the superior courts of justice to be the final court of appeal in all matters pertaining thereto. In all cases where a pilot has committed any offence under the Pilotage Acts, in addition to a fine, the conviction should be endorsed on his license.
Since the foregoing was put in type, we have been officially advised that the Minister of Marine made a full and careful enquiry into all the facts of the case, and having satisfied himself that the period for which the license in question was suspended might be shortened, he so ordered and the license was accordingly returned to the pilot forthwith.
This confirms our opinion, as previously expressed, that decisions of the Wreck Commissioner should not be subject to reversal by the political head of a Government department, on whom political influence may be brought to bear, but should be only appealable to a judicial body.
I quite understand what influence is brought to bear on my hon. friend when similar cases happen, and I think he should be the first to give way to another authority ihan his own so as to protect himself against himself and the public also. I therefore hope that in future my hon. friend will not give way to the political influence which is brought to bear upon him, and

that he will see that, if a pilot is found guilty and if he is suspended, the suspension will run its full course. There is certainly among shipping men and the general commercial world in Canada great dissatisfaction as regards the administration of our pilotage in the river St. Lawrence. This affects the whole of the Dominion. It has affected the insurance rates. We have been clamoring for years and years that all possible advantages shall be given the St. Lawrence; and we have been trying to secure for Montral and Quebec all the orders possible, not only from the Canadian West, but from the American West. But, in view of the many accidents which have taken place, insurance rates have gone up and the trade of the St. Lawrence nas suffered accordingly. I hope, therefore, that this Bill will prove to foe a move in the right direction. My hon. friend, I am quite sure, will understand full well that he should be very chary about altering the decisions which are rendered by those who supervise the work of the pilots after an accident has taken place.


Robert Bickerdike: I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) on having taken a move in the right direction. There is one thing that has always struck me as peculiar and it is that, according to the law, you are not obliged to take a pilot, but you are obliged to pay pilotage. I know some captains of steamers who do not take a pilot at all. They consider themselves better pilots than any of the pilots we have on the river. It does seem strange that the captain of a vessel is obliged to pay pilotage whether he- takes a pilot or not. I am veTy proud that my hon. friend the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) has brought out the fact that all of these accidents or nearly all of them happen below Quebec. We have few, if any, accidents above Quebec.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the reason?


Robert Bickerdike: The pilotage system is a little better and there is little or no danger above Quebec. You could almost run a ship up the channel there as easily as you could drive a team up St. Lawrence Main street. There are lights on each side so that there can be no mistake. You are just about as safe there as if you had a barbed wire fence on either side. I cannot understand why pilotage should be compulsory while the taking on of a pilot is not compulsory. This system was in existence

long before my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries took office. I know *captains who have been coming here regularly for the last twenty years, and they know just as much about the route as many of the pilots, if not more, and it is not fair that these men should be obliged to pay pilotage when they do not require a pilot and do not take one on.
I do think the minister might be able to arrange that. I cannot understand that there is any argument in favour of making a man pilot his own ship and then making him pay pilotage.


John Douglas Hazen: I am glad that my hon. friend from Eouville (Mr. Lemieux) and my hon. friend from St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) approve generally of the measure that is now before the committee. My hon. friend from Eouville has pointed out that there has been more or less dissatisfaction for a number of years with the pilotage system, and perhaps with the administration of that system upon the St. Lawrence. We have two sets of pilots, one between Montreal and Quebec, and the other between Quebec and the ocean. Both these were * considered by the commision, which consisted of Mr. Eobb, the president of the Shipping Federation, Captain Lindsay, the Wreck Commissioner, and Mr. Adjutor Lachance, who was then president of the Quebec Pilotage Corporation. It is to carry out the recommendation in their report that this Bill is introduced. Nearly all the recommendations of that commision have been carried out, but as most of them were of a character that did not need legislation they could be made effective by regulations. This applies to all the recommendations respecting the Montreal pilots, which were of a minor character. Generally speaking, the commission found that the Montreal Pilotage Division was in a most satisfactory condition. It is true that very few accidents take place between Quebec and the city of Montreal, although the large vessels which come up to the port of Montreal have to traverse a channel which in some places is not more than a few hundred feet wide. The Montreal pilots discharge their duties so well, and the aids to navigation are so good that, as my hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike) said, very few accidents take place.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You can navigate between Montreal and Quebec, day and night, as safely as you can walk Sparks street.


John Douglas Hazen: The important regulation is with regard to the pilots who have jurisdiction from Quebec to the sea. The Bill before us places the control of pilotage masters in the hands of the Minister of Marine who shall make regulations with regard to the apprenticing of the pilots and all matters of that sort which are now in the hands of the corporation of pilots which was established in 1860.


Robert Bickerdike: A	family compact.


John Howard Sinclair: What about the pilots above Quebec?


John Douglas Hazen: They are under the control of a superintendent of pilots appointed by the Marine Department.


Robert Bickerdike: They are all good men.


John Douglas Hazen: The Pilotage Commission recommended the abolition of the Pilots Corporation, hut this Bill does not go as far as that. The corporation is an ancient institution, with traditions attached to it which are valued by the Quebec pilots, and I could not see any purpose in dissolving the corporation, because if you did abolish the corporation it would be quite open to these pilots to be incorporated for their mutual advantage and for social and other purposes under the laws of Quebec. This corporation has managed admirably what is called their pilot fund and which is a pension fund. They always invest their money for that fund subject to the approval of the Marine Department and the department of late years, before approving of the securities which the pilots might invest these moneys in have adopted the practice of asking the opinion of the Finance Department with regard to the investment. I could see no reason why that power should be taken out of this corporation, and without wounding unnecessarily the suceptibilities of these men and without interfering with their traditions we have placed the control of these pilotage matters below Quebec in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, as pilotage matters above Quebec have been placed for some years past. We have appointed Captain Lindsay, who is retiring from the position of Wreck Commissioner, to have superintendence over the whole pilotage and his office will be at Quebec. He will have superintendence over the Montreal pilotage replacing Captain Eiley, and also superintendence over the Quebec pilotage; Mr. Talbot continuing superintendent of Quebec pilots as at present.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who will take Captain Lindsav's place?
362P


John Douglas Hazen: No appointment has been made but it will have to be made soon.


John Howard Sinclair: Does this involve the dismissal of any of the pilots.


John Douglas Hazen: No, but if the pilots from year to year are unable to pass the examinations prescribed they will have to pass to one side. They are examined yearly with regard to eye sight and physical condition, and if a pilot cannot comply with these tests, then in the interest of the safety of life and property he cannot be allowed to continue.	-


John Howard Sinclair: Hints were thrown out that some of these pilots were incompetent, will we have to wait until they are dead to get rid of them?


John Douglas Hazen: There is an age limit of
sixty-five and while there are men over sixty-five who are quite as good as they were at forty-five, yet a hard and fast rule must be laid down in these matters, even though it should work hardship in individual cases. There are only three of the Quebec pilots in active work who are over sixty-five years of age. The objection taken by the pilots to the report of the commission was submitted to the department and considered by myself and my officials. We are not interfering at present with the pilots pooling their earnings. Their system is to pool all their earnings and divide them into equal shares amongst themselves. There is a misapprehension in some quarters, to the effects that if a pilot is suspended for a certain length of time it is no punishment to him because he gets his share of the earnings just the same as if he were at work. That is not the case. If he is suspended he does not share in the earnings during the period of his suspension. If the pilots are disposed to pool their earnings it is difficult to see how it could be prevented even though we thought it desirable to do so.
If they choose to enter into an agreement that they will pool the earnings and divide them amongst themselves, as is certainly done in other ports in the world, I do not see how you can make legislation that will prevent them from doing so. We do not think that we can do so for the present year at least, and we thought it better to wait for further developments before acting on the report of the commission so far as that feature of it was concerned. We hope that the changes made will have the effect of improving the pilot system on the St. Lawrence below Quebec, and that there will

be fewer wrecks than there have been in the past. There is no doubt that there have been too many wrecks. For two or three years there were very few wrecks, but these things seem to come in a rush. Misfortunes come not singly, but in battalions. For a few years there were so few wrecks on the St. Lawrence that Mr. George Davey, who had a bonus from the Government for conducting a wrecking plant, threw up the contract because he was making practically no money. The only earnings he was getting were the bonus he was receiving from the Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That was under the Liberal Government.


John Douglas Hazen: Perhaps my hon. friend may claim the credit for that. The year before last there were a good many wrecks on the St. Lawrence, but last year there were very few, and the damage that resulted was very slight indeed. This year, however, we seem to have started at the very opening of navigation with several disasters, although very little real damage has resulted from them. Yet they are most unfortunate, and, coming at a time when attempts are being made to get lower insurance rates on the St. Lawrence, they naturally fill the underwriters with alarm, and they say there must be something wrong when these disasters occur.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It never rains but it pours.


John Douglas Hazen: That is an old maxim, in which there is a good deal of truth. My hon. friend has referred to the accidents to the Saturnia, and the Montfort, the judgment of the wreck commission and also some remarks made by Mr. Meredith, who was counsel for the Marine Association at the inquiries that were held before Captain Lindsay and his associates. In my opinion, while I should not take a newspaper report too literally, I may say that I do not think there is- justification for Mr. Meredith or for any one else uttering such statements as are attributed to him in the Montreal Star in the interview read by my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). There was not a single witness at either of those inquiries who ventured to express the opinion that the absence of aids to navigation had anything whatever to do with the accident in either case. I would like to read to the House the judgment in the case of the Saturnia, which is comparatively short. I will only read the conclusion to show the House that the very

contrary is the ease, and I fail to see how Mr. Meredith could have made such a statement as attributed to him in the Montreal Star. The finding in the Saturnia case is signed by Captain Lindsay, Captain Francis Nash and Captain J. O. Grey. These two latter gentlemen will be known to my hon. friend from the St. Lawrence division (Mr. Bickerdike). I believe they are old shipmasters familiar with the St. Lawrence river. The finding is as follows:
After carefully considering and reviewing the evidence adduced, the court is of the opinion that the stranding of the steamship Saturnia, in the Lower Traverse, river St. Lawrence, on the morning of the 28th of April, was caused hy the action of Jules Lachance, the pilot, inasmuch as he appears to have no confidence in himself as to the manner of navigating the vessel through this channel, and apparently did not make proper use of the usual day marks for safe navigation, and it is the unanimous opinion of the court that the vessel touched the ground on the south side of the channel, and close to the old Lower Traverse block, and this probably accounts for the pilot not seeing the buoy moored off the block, as the vessel must have passed almost over it just before or after striking the ground.
The court also considers that when in doubt as to his position, and lacking confidence in his ability as a pilot, he should have sent for the master to assist him in the navigation of the vessel. The court therefore considers that the pilot did not show either ordinary skill or good judgment, in attempting to pass through the Lower Traverse channel under the existing conditions, and therefore suspends the license of Jules Lachance, the pilot, for a period of three months from this date.
In view of the master, David Taylor, knowing that the Lower Traverse lightship was not on her station, and the risks attending the naviga-ing of these narrow channels with a strong flood tide, the court is of opinion that the master ought to have been on deck after passing Cape Goose, and censures him for this negligence.
The fact of the Lower Traverse light vessel not being on her station at the time of the casualty, does not appear to the court to have any bearing on the matter, as the Saturnia had passed the position where the light vessel would have been moored, some minutes before the accident, and, had the lignt vessel been considered necessary for safe navigation, both the master and the pilot were taking undue risks in trying to navigate the Lower Traverse with the full knowledge that the light vessel was not there.
That is an absolute finding, which I think is the very reverse of the statement made by Mr. Meredith, as I comprehend it. The same thing occurred in regard to the Mont-fort.
The finding in that case is in part as follows:
The court therefore suspends the license of Francois Gaudreau. the pilot, for a period of three calendar months from this date. No blame in the opinion of the court can be
attached to the master and officers of the ship, as everything appears to have been done by them to assist in the proper navigation of the vessel, and the court considers that the master was perfectly justified in taking the ship out of the pilot's hands, although unfortunately not in time to prevent the stranding, and commends him for his action. The fact that all the aids to navigation were not in place on April 27, in the opinion of the court, has no material bearing on the stranding.
I will not discuss these findings, because it may not be proper that I should do so for the reason that, under the law as it exists there may come an appeal to me, by the captain or the pilot or any one else who has been censured, against the ruling of the court. Under the law a,s it exists at present, while there is a Wreck Commission appointed, whose duty it is to attend to these matters, yet the minister can appoint any one else who is an official of the department or who occupies a judicial position in the country to hold an inquiry, so that if an appeal came to me, I might, subject to the statute, try the matter myself, or I might order a rehearing before the same court under certain conditions laid down in the statute, or I might order a hearing before any one else in the classes I have specified who might be named for the purpose.
My hon. friend also referred to the judgment of the admiralty division of the high court as to the position of the captain. I do not think, as I caught the judgment as read by my hon. Mend, that it in any way changes the law as the law has been known to exist for a great many yeaM past. I think it has always been recognized that, when a pilot is on a ship, he is in command of the vessel, but the captain's duty is to assist the pilot.


Robert Bickerdike: I think the hon.
gentleman is in error. The captain is always in command of his ship, and the pilot is only there as an assistant to him.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not.think so.


Robert Bickerdike: I know it, or else
the law has been only recently changed. That was the law.


John Douglas Hazen: I think, when a pilot goes on ;a ship, he takes fulll charge of the ship. I know my hon. friend has a good deal of experience in shipping matters and I speak subject to correction, but I think I am correct in my statement. My hon. friend from the St. Lawrence division referred to the fact that a ship has to pay the full pilotage


Robert Bickerdike: Will the hon. minister tell us whether they are going to adopt the 'tour de role' system in Quebec?


John Douglas Hazen: As I understand the system in Quebec, the big liners that come regularly into the port, the Allan liners, the Canadian Pacific Railway liners and the others, are allowed at the first of the season to make a selection of the men they want to pilot their vessels up and down, and these men are employed by them for that purpose. The others are put on what is called the ' tour de ToleJ and take their turn. The men on the big liners, of course, earn more money, but under the system that is pooled with the others, as thie pilots consider it fair it should be. I think I have mentioned all the matters which it is desirable I should refer to, but il there are any others, I will be obliged to hon, gentlemen if they will let me know.


John Howard Sinclair: Will there be any reduction in the rates?


John Douglas Hazen: There is no provision for reduction. But, so far as I know, there is no complaint about the rates. The ship owners are satisfied with the rates. As a matter of fact, it was thought that the rates at Montreal were not high enough and they were raised. The commission having on it a representative of the Shipping Federation of Canada made a request for this increase for the pilots, in the Montreal division. What the shipowners want is 'to get more efficient pilots-it is not a question of rates but of more efficiency,


John Howard Sinclair: Will they get the same amount when the captain pilots his own ship?


John Douglas Hazen: On the St. Lawrence it is the same, but there are ports where the full amount is not charged.


John Howard Sinclair: I would suggest that it would be worth while to consider whether half the pilotage rate would not be sufficient to charge when the captain is so well versed in the river that he is able to navigate his own ship. I have heard that pilotage is considered an onerous tax on the coal trade, for instance, where the captains go once a week or once a fortnight up the river, and know the river as well, perhaps better, than many of the pilots. These men do not take pilots, but they have to pay the full pilotage rate. I think it would be fair to make the rates on the St. Law-

ren-ce in such cases half the regular rates, as is done in many other ports.


Robert Bickerdike: There was one point to which the hon. minister did not make reference. I asked a question whether the captains of most of the steamers coming here who could pass the examination would have a pilot's certificate the same as the pilot. That is a question we have had before us for a long time, -as the hon. minister knows.


John Douglas Hazen: Under the regulations as
they existed for a long time, and as prepared by the corporation of pilots, they would not.


Robert Bickerdike: Would they now?


John Douglas Hazen: That is a question to be
considered.


Mr. BOULAY (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) said, the pilots have had distributed to the members of this House a memorandum in which they bitterly complain of having been treated unduly by the investigating commission at Quebec last year. Here is, among other things, what I find in this memorandum:
What we desire is that any one who can suggest anything which may further the interests of the pilots, or of the shipping interests, or of the trade on the St. Lawrence will be welcomed before us, and we will be glad to hear the views they may wish to express.
To which the pilots replied:
We, pilots, were not long deceived by those honeyed words of the chairman of the commission, because we soon perceived the aim of this investigation which caused us so much trouble and expenses.
The very first evidences taken were sufficient to show that the end sought was not to discuss the dangers of the river St. Lawrence, and the aids to the navigation of the said river. The only danger seemed to be the Corporation of Pilots, and the way they manage their money so well earned. The real dangers of the St. Lawrence, lights, buoys, etc., went in the second place.
Were this assertion of the pilots true, it would constitute a most serious charge indeed against the commission entrusted, last year, with making an inquiry on their account.
As regards the management of their funds, I see that section 3 of the present law seems to give them justice-I mean the management of the pilots' chest. I notice, a little further, in this memorandum, the following remark:
Apprentices are required at present to be examined in both English and French. If the commissioners are of opinion that a man speak-229	-
ing and writing one language is superior to another speaking and writing both languages, let them cherish that idea, this will not surely increase nor diminish the rates of insurance on the St. Lawrence.
I understand that, according to the new legislation, the apprentices are required to be examined in both English and French. I do not agree with the commissioners on this point, since they seem to have ruled that one language is enough. Any man who is called upon to hold public office in the province of Quebec, whether in the Marine, Public Works or Customs Departments, should certainly be able to speak both languages. This is a drawback which is very often found with a good many public servants and, of course, .most serious inconvenience is derived therefrom. I would like to know whether the hon. minister has inserted a provision to that effect, and whether the apprentices who are preparing at Quebec or at other places below Quebec to become pilots, and who are all French-Cana-dians, shall be required, henceforth, to know both languages.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Just one word in reply to the hon. member for Rimouski, on the question which he has raised. This is a matter which should be regulated by the authority which governs pilotage, that is, by the hon. Minister of Marine. Of course, if a pilot wishes to be competent and able to understand the languages spoken on board of ships, he must know both languages.
A word, now, in reply to the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) who said that the Corporation of Pilots was a family compact. This is quite unfounded. This charge has been very well disproved by my colleague the hon. Minister of Marine. One has gone so far as to say that they continued to receive their pay even after being suspended. It is by means of such unfounded insinuations that one has succeeded in raising certain prejudice against the pilots of Quebec and of places below Quebec. I wish to say that the members of the Corporation of Pilots in Quebec and in localities below Quebec are, as a whole, as a body, most worthy, most devoted people, sticking like men to their duty. They get no pension, and when they have reached the age of sixty-five, their licenses must be renewed every year or else they lo-se the right to earn their living.
I wish to contribute my humble share of commendation to the career to which they devote themselves. They sometimes meet with accidents, but accidents happen to everybody, and I do not think that one
revised edition

could find such fault with them as is done generally.
I must also congratulate the pilots upon the fact that the Minister of Marine-be-comes the pilotage authority. Both parties in this House are agreed to-day that the pilotage authority shall, henceforth, be vested in the Department of Marine, as it appears from the remarks made by the hon. member for Rouville and by the hon. member for St. Lawrence. This will amend certain drawbacks with which the pilots have been reproached in the past, and the effect of this law will be satisfactory.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Must I understand
that the pilots get no pension after they have reached sixty-five years of age?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No. I stated that the pilots lose their license at sixty-five years of age, and that, from sixty-five to seventy, they are required to be examined every year if they wish to continue their service.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Surely, the hon. minister said that they got no pension. When he reads ' Hansard ' to-morrow morning he will find that he has said so.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If I have said so, I
made a mistake, or I did not speak plainly enough. I meant that they had the right to keep their license until they were sixty-five years of age.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I understood that
part.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: And that, after they
had reached sixty-five years of age, they were required to be examined every year until they were seventy years old, in order to get their license. And they get no pension from the state. That is what I meant.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: This surprised me so much as to call forth the remarks which I made, for I am satisfied that they get a pension and I wished to know whether I was mistaken.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend will remember that some months ago I called his attention to the fact that the Dominion Wreck Commissioner did not understand the French language. My hon. friend told me at the time that this was not the case; at all events he said that he would remedy the grievance. Personally, I do not know the fact, but I saw in the papers two or three days ago that during the investigation held in the case of the Saturnia a pilot represented by Mr. Choquette, one of the members of the Senate, complained very

bitterly that the commissioners who were investigating the matter did not understand the French language, and that some of the witnesses had to give their evidence in English, much to their discomfort. I wish my hon. friend would look into the matter.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend will find that the commissioner appointed to succeed Mr. Lindsay will understand English and French equally well.


Robert Bickerdike: If a man were a first-class pilot and could bring my ship safely into Quebec, I would not care if he could speak but Hindu. I would not like to see it provided that no pilot that does not understand both French and English shall get a license.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In my part of the country we are particularly interested in navigation on the St. Lawrence, and the more it is safeguarded the better we like it. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Rouville say that the navigating of the ships from Montreal to Quebec was as easy as walking along Sparks street, and I da not exactly understand why the conditions that prevail between Montreal and Quebec should not be extended down to the sea. We have in the county of Cape Breton a system of pilotage, but as the pilots seldom come here for legislation we do not often have an opportunity of dealing with their interests in this House. I would like to know from the minister whether any new pilots have been appointed to the Pilotage Board of the county of Cape Breton or of Sydney harbour during the last year or two. Last year I brought to the notice of the minister the fact that some dismissals of pilots had been made at the time of the change of government. I do not think the Board of Pilotage Commisioners had any authority to dismiss any of these pilots for political reasons. The minister was good enough, I understand, to have some of these pilots put back in their positions, but I never had an opportunity of learning from the minister how many were put back. The last time I was in Sydney attending the Supreme Court I noticed on the docket the case of McGillivray versus Kimber, which was an action brought by one of the pilots for his pay against the secretary of the Pilotage Commission. I understand that after this- pilot was put back on the service the secretary through whose hands the pilots receive the money out of the pooled earnings refused to pay him, and the matter found its way into court. I really do not know what became of the action, but

I would suppose that if a pilot were put back by authority of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, no secretary of the hoard would have any authority to deprive him of his share of the profits of his employment. Will the minister let me know what pilots were dismissed and put back, and whether they have the same status as they had before they were dismissed.


John Douglas Hazen: I am sorry that I cannot
give my hon. friend definite information about the matter to-night, as I had no idea that when we were considering this Bill matters affecting Sydney would come up for discussion. I shall be glad indeed, however, to give instructions to the deputy minister to prepare a memorandum on the subject giving the information my hon. friend desires, and to have it mailed to him at an early date. My recollection is that a number of these pilots were restored to their positions, but I would not venture to make a positive statement about it now.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Has the minister given any consideration to the very evident discrimination against Ontario vessel owners with regard to pilotage dues at Montreal? This matter has been the subject of negotiations in the past between the Ontario Government and the late Government, and of frequent representations on the part of the Dominion Marine Association. Section 477 of the Canada Shipping Act undoubtedly discriminates against Ontario vessels, which are obliged to pay pilotage dues from which vessels from the Maritime prov-
11	p.m. inces, Newfoundland and the Atlantic States as far south as New York are exempt. I think I am right in saying first that there is a discrimination; second, that that discrimination is not just, and, third, that it should be done away with and Ontario vessel owners put on a parity with the vessel owners of the other provinces, with Newfoundland, and with the Atlantic States,


John Douglas Hazen: I Temember that certain
representations were made several years ago with regard to this matter by the Dominion Marine Association. I think that certain arrangements were come to and certain concessions made which were satisfactory to that association and that as a consequence they ceased to press the matter any further.
I have not the details in my memory tonight, but I shall be glad to look into the matter. I understand that all coal laden vessels coming from the Maritime provinces pay pilotage dues just the same as any 229i
other vessels on the St. Lawrence river. I will get the facts for my hon. friend and let him know just what they are.


William Cameron Edwards: I introduced a Bill in the session of 1909, and again in 1910. I did so at the request of the Council of the Dominion Marine Association, who felt lhat Ontario vessels were not receiving fair treatment. Certain changes were made in the Act which, prior to June, 1908, gave exemption to vessels with a draught when loaded not exceeding sixteen feet, but that was changed, so that even that exemption was not allowed to Ontario vessels. The fact that Ontario vessel owners were obliged to take pilots on boafid their vessels at Montreal and to pay their dues and were not relieved of the slightest responsibility, seemed to me to add to the unfairness of the case. If any changes have been made since 1910 I am not aware of them.


John Douglas Hazen: Some arrangement was made. I shall look it up for my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-pilots' pension fund:
Mr. AMES:: Is it the intention to make it impossible for the Corporation of Pilots to hold the pilotage money and to share it?


John Douglas Hazen: I have explained that we are not at present interfering with the right of the pilots to pool their earnings; if they choose to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine) the following resolution was considered in Committee, reported and concurred in:
Resolved, 1. That it is expedient to provide that the Governor in Council may, from time to time, advance and pay to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, hereinafter called the corporation, in addition to the moneys, if any, heretofore authorized to be advanced to the corporation by the Governor in Council by any Act, and which have not at the date of the passing of any Act founded upon these resolutions, been so advanced, such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of nine million dollars, as are required:
(a)	To pay off and retire debentures of the corporation of the par value of two hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars, maturing in the year 1917, and
(b)	To enable the corporation to complete the
[Stage Direction]
construction of the terminal facilities of the port of Montreal, for which the plans, specifications and estimates have been approved by the Governor in Council, and to construct such additional terminal facilities as are necessary to properly equip the said port.
2.	That during the period of construction of
the terminal facilities mentioned in these resolutions, the interest payable on the debentures receivable by the Minister of Finance in exchange for such advance, shall be deemed to be money required to complete and to be part of the cost of construction thereof, and such interest may be paid out of the said sum of nine million dollars.	,
3.	That the corporation shall submit to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for approval, monthly applications for such advances, with statements showing total expenditure on different items in detail, and upon approval, authority for the payment of the amount applied for may be granted by the Governor in Council.
4.	That the corporation shall upon any advances being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance debentures of the corporation equal in par value to the advance so made, repayable within twenty-five years from the date of issue and bearing interest payable half yearly, at the rate of three and one-half per centum per annum.
5.	That the principal and interest of any sums advanced under any Act founded on these resolutions shall be payable, subject to the second of these resolutions, out of the revenue of the corporation mentioned in section 8 of chapter 10, of the statutes of 1896 (first session), and shall be a charge thereon as if the sums so advanced had been borrowed by the corporation under said chapter 10.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine) the following resolution was considered in Committee, reported and concurred in:
Resolved, 1, That it is expedient to provide that the Governor in Council may, from time to time, advance and pay to the corporation of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, hereinafter called the corporation, such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of two million dollars, as are required to enable the corporation to carry on the construction of such terminal facilities as are necessary to properly equip the port of Quebec.
2.	That during the period of construction of the terminal facilities mentioned in these resolutions, the interest payable on the debentures receivable by the Minister of Finance in exchange for such advances, shall be deemed to be money required to construct and to be part of the cost of construction of the said terminal facilities, and such interest may be paid out of the said sum of two million dollars.
3.	That the corporation snail submit to the minister of Marine and Fisheries for approval, monthly applications for such advances, with statements showing total expenditure on different items in detail, and upon approval, authority for the payment of the amount applied for may be granted by the Governor in Council.
4.	Tha.t the corporation shall upon any advances being made, deposit with the Minister

of Finance, debentures of the corporation equal in par value to the advance so made, repayable within twenty-five years from the date of issue and bearing interest payable half-yearly, at the rate of three and one-half per centum per annum.
5.	That the principal and interest of any sums advanced under any Act founded on these resolutions, shall be payable by the corporation out of all its property, assets, tools, rates, dues, penalties and other sources of revenue and income whatsoever, and shall be a charge thereon next after, and have precedence in regard to payment next after all debentures or bonds issued by the corporation amounting to the sum of one million, one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, under chapter 48, of the statutes of 1898, chapter 34, of the statutes of 1899, and chapter 36 of the statutes of 1907.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply.
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not intend to ask my fellow members to stay here any longer than they wish to stay. If my hon. friends on the other side of the House would like to refer to some particular matter at a later date when we again take up these Estimates, and if they would he kind enough to let me know what information they desire, I will have the papers here. As there are many branches i>n the department, 14,000 postmasters and 11,000 contractors, it is somewhat difficult for one to remember every case by itself. The main object in asking the House to go into supply was to enable me to make this request, so that I may be able, as far as possible, to give any information when we again go back into committee of supply.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I understand that the hon. Postmaster General wishes members to give him notice, not to-night, but at some future time, of the items which they would like to discuss?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is exactly what I mean. Hon. gentlemen may not have present in their minds the different points which they would like to bring up, but I would like to he given notice of all the matters wnich may be brought up, and about which papers have not been put on the table. As to postmasters or contracts, about which papers have been laid on the table, I take it for granted that the information is contained in those papers, but if there are some matters about which papers have not been asked, or, having been asked, have not been laid on the table of the House as yet, and in regard to which some information is wanted, as hon. members have the right to get information on

all these subjects, if they will write me a few words or let me know, I will do my best to have all the information at hand when we again go into committee of supply.


Frank Oliver: I would like to mention to the minister now some matters that I would be glad if he would give us some information in regard to. They are as follows: the establishment of a mail service and post offices on the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific westward from Jasper to Fort George; the establishment of post offices and post office facilities on the lines of the Canadian Northern main line construction between Tete Jaune Cache and Kamloops; the postal service and post offices on the line of the Edmonton -and Dunvegan railway, with a statement as to what arrangements have been made, if any, for the forwarding of mails to the farthest point of construction.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: In what respect?


Frank Oliver: When the railway is under construction the camps are strung out for twenty, thirty, forty, fifty or .a hundred miles ahead of the end of steel. It has always been a sore point on railway construction work that the men have to depend upon a mail service by the contractor, which is a very unsatisfactory way of serving the public of which these railway workers are a part. I wish to urge upon the department the desirability of taking care, on the responsibility of the department, of the forwarding of mail along the construction work instead of leaving it to the contractors. Hundreds, if not thousands, of men are employed in these construction camps, and they are entitled to a mail service. They do get a private service performed by the contractors. Naturally, it is not satisfactory, and I am going to urge upon the Government that they make it a public service on the line of the Canadian Northern from Tete Jaune Cache to Kamloops, a matter of 200 miles; on the line of the Edmonton and Dunvegan Tailway from Saw Ridge, 150 miles northwest of Edmonton, to the end of construction at Smoky river; and on the Edmonton and Great Waterways railway, between Edmonton and Lac la Biche. I would also like to get information as to the mail service in the Peace river country, not only the service to Vermillion on the north and Fort St. John on the west, but to Hudson's Hope, if there is a post office there; also the service down the Athabasca river as far as McMurray and
Chippewayan; also the service on the Grand Trunk Pacific between Edmonton and Calgary; also the service on the Canadian Northern between Edmonton and Calgary, and, generally speaking, the postal services on all the new railway lines radiating from Edmonton in all directions.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The notice given by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that he will ask for this information is very helpful to us in getting ready to give him the information when we discuss this matter at a later date, and if there are any other hon. gentlemen who are ready to refer to any of these points now, we might devote five or ten minutes to that purpose.


Mr. TOBIN:: Last year I moved for a return regarding the dismissal of the mail carrier between the station of Brompton-ville and the post office. I see that this return was brought down on June 2 last, but it does not seem to be complete. From the return brought down in June last some of the letters are miseing.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend and I have talked this very matter over several times, and 'he knows that there are some letters marked ' private ' which are not on the file.


Edmund William Tobin: When I went to see the minister last year about this case, he called me into his private office and showed me the file. I asked him if I could have a copy of the documents upon it and he said: You will have to move for them. I moved for them, but when they were brought down I found there were letters on that file which are not in the return. I do not think it is right that the Postmaster General should refuse information to the House. The same thing occurred with reference to the correspondence aibout the carriage of the mail between St. Francois Xavier de Brompton and Windsor Mills. I have certain information that letters were sent to the Post Office Department which were not on the file brought down, and I do not think that is right.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The rule has been
well laid down in this House by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, who was then Prime Minister, and everybody agreed to it, and I do not think it is possible to dissent from it, and that rule is that the papers which the minister has to bring down are those which are not marked ' private.' Further than that, Sir Wilfrid

Laurier said that a minister had a right to consider as private-and I speak now subject to correction, hut I am pretty sure- papers which were not so marked, hut the nature of which was private. That being the rule I do not see why I should be asked to bring down confidential letters. I have shown the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Tobin) as a personal friend, certain letters, but when it comes to placing papers on the table I do not consider myself bound to bring down confidential letters. No minister has ever done it, and I do not think I should.


Georges Henri Boivin: Some ministers read them in the House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Department of Labour is not included in that.


Edmund William Tobin: The minister showed me the file in his office and we read the letters over, and when I asked him about getting copies he said I would have to move in the House for them. I did move but they were not brought down. Will the minister show me these letters that are not on the file if I go to his office?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Did not my hon. friend state a moment ago that I had 3hown him these letters?


Edmund William Tobin: Yes, when I went to your office first.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I would show my hon. friend privately letters which I would not place on the table of the House, and I think that course is to be commended.


Edmund William Tobin: If I call at the office will the Postmaster General show me that file so that I would be able to look over the private letters. He showed me them last year?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Am 1 right in assuming that the hon. member wants to carry them better in his memory now than he did last time?


Edmund William Tobin: I would like to look at these letters once more; will you do it?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will have to think it over, but if I show private letters once to a friend and he wants to see them again I should like to understand first what his object would be.


Edmund William Tobin: The Postmaster General understands my object well enough. If I remember aright some of those letters on that file and which were not brought down were not marked 'private'. I think I could name some of them. I know something
fMr. Pelletier.]
about these private letters, and if I had not known, the minister would probably not have shown them to me.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will have the matter looked into.


Mr. ETHIER:: I moved for certain papers concerning the dismissal of a -postmaster and when they were brought down a petition asking for the dismissal of this gentleman and the appointment of another in his place was not on the file. Would, the minister consider such a petition private?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There would have to be some special circumstances about it.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: The postmaster .at Ste.
Scholastique, Mr. Raymond, has been dismissed and I know there were petitions signed in Ste. Scholastique asking for his dismissal and recommending two parsons in his place, namely, the actual postmaster and Mr. SauvA When I moved for all the correspondence, petitions, etc., with reference to the matter, the papers were brought down but those petitions were not included.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will look into that.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: There were many persons surprised that these petitions were not on the file. I am certain they axe not of a private character.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will instruct the
officer in charge of the branch to look into it to-monrow.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would like to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General a matter which I think properly comes under this item. I refer to the case of one William P. Tye, who was a mail clerk in the public service. On the 4th of February, 1911, while on duty between Richwood and Paris, I think on the Grand Trunk railway, this employee was on a train which was wrecked. The result of the wreck was that the car in which Mr. Tye was performing his duties was burned, and he lost his life. Nothing was found of the poor unfortunate man's remains, the only thing that was discovered being the bunch of keys that he had carried in his pocket. Application has been made to Mr. Clare, the hon. member for South Waterloo, by the widow who lives in that riding, and I have a letter from the son of the deceased who lives in the riding that I have the honour to represent. It appears that the car in which this man was performing his duties was of ancient construction; and the other cars being more modern were

stronger, and the impact was more felt in the car in which he was riding than in the other cars. As a result it was crushed in the impact, set on fire; and as I said before, his body was cremated. The widow was granted by this Government what is said to be the usual allowance, namely $200, equal to two months' salary. She has four children; and if she had been left to the tender mercies of the usual methods pursued by Governments, she would be rewarded with the $200 which she has actually received. The circumstances are rather harrowing in their details, and I do not intend to give them. It is sufficient to say that Mr. Tye had been thirty-three years in the public service as mail clerk for the various governments of this country, and he had paid into the superannuation fund during that period a sum of between $500 or $600. The widow gets back $200, and the Government keeps the rest. Under the circumstances it seems to me that a widow left to support a family of four children, having a husband burned to death in that manner and the remains cremated so that there was not even the opportunity for Christian burial, should at the hands of the Government receive some special treatment. If the man had lived two years longer he would have been entitled to superannuation. He was burned to death at the age of fifty-two years. His record, as shown by the department files, is honourable and absolutely flawless; he had been a faithful public servant.


William Cameron Edwards: What salary was he getting?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: $1,200 a year after thirty-three years' service. There is a sort of arbitrary rule that permits of the granting of some sort of gratuity when public servants die or leave the service, and I presume that is what this widow has received. I feel that I would be neglecting my duty if, on this item, I did not take the opportunity of asking the minister, according to the principles of equity that ought to govern governments and that would govern private individuals, to take this case into, not the ordinary formal way of putting it, his serious consideration, but his heartfelt consideration, and to place in the Estimates a substantial sum that would in some manner put the Government right in this case, perhaps by setting apart the sum of $5,000, an annuity to pay to the widow. I think that would	be a fitting recognition of faithful service performed to all governments by a public employee who
was so unfortunate as to lose his life under such harrowing circumstances. I therefore ask the minister to oblige the widow by rising to that height, to which I think the Government of this country ought to rise, and straining a point in this case. If he says: Where are you going to draw the line? If we do this in this case, we shall have to do it in some other case. In such an event I would make answer that these cases are very rare, and possibly all the members of this House will have passed away before such a thing occurs again. If you compute the interest upon the sums paid in for thirty-three years from year to year, and bear in mind that nothing whatever has been received and cannot be received, I submit that it should meet with the approval of every member if a substantial sum is placed in the Supplementary Estimates for this widow. Mr. Tye's father was a good Liberal, but that does not prevent me pressing this just claim. I hope the minister will take the matter into his consideration and act accordingly.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The case to which my hon. friend has referred is one deserving not only as he said of the ordinary form of consideration, but of special consideration. Mr. Tye was an old sen ant in the Post Office Department, who lost his life under very special circumstances. If that case bad stood exactly as given to us here by my hon. friend, there would not have been any hesitation in giving something to the poor widow. But there is one important fact which I have found on the file when my hon. friend (Air. Morphy) took up this matter with me. I may say that this is not the first time that he has taken up the matter. He has devoted to this cause a good deal of attention and care, and he is quite satisfied that he is right in what he says, because he is very keen in insisting cn it.
The man was burned to death and the family was left in poor circumstances, but I have found the practice in the department which my officers have informed me has existed for years without one exception, that when we are called upon to give some compensation in cases like this, we never do it when the widow and children have had some other compensation. In this case the widow has had damages awarded to her by the court, and which were paid to her by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, to the extent of nearly $10,000-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: To the extent of $9,400.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: -and that makes a difference, at least according to the department's usage. I may say that it does not entirely appeal to me as a conclusive reason for refusing the widow something. Of course, what we give under these circumstances we call a ' compassionate allowance '-that is how these amounts are always voted. And if it is a compassionate allowance, of course it is supposed to be the thing which the widow or children might have to depend upon. However, speaking for myself-because I intend to take this matter up with my colleagues, as I promised my hon. friend-I think there are two sides to that question. What the Grand Trunk Railway Company paid this widow she was entitled to by law, for it was given her'under judgment of the court. Now, whether under these circumstances this country is absolutely relieved of all its duties and obligations towards the widow and four children of a man who has been so long in our employ, I do not like to say in an absolutely definite manner. My own desire and inclination would be the other way. But, as the matter is to be discussed in Council, if there is to be an amount in the Estimates, I cannot go further than that at the moment. But what has fallen from, my lips shows my hon. friend that the matter has engaged more than the usual, formal, ordinary consideration. Further than this I am not prepared to go to-night.


George William Kyte: This afternoon, before the Postmaster General was in his place, I called attention to the fact that a return was not yet rdown, called for on the 16th of March, the correspondence relating to the carrying of the mails from Grand River to Grand River Falls, in the county of Richmond, and the awarding of the contract. I hope the Postmaster General will bring this down before his Estimates are again considered.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Pelletier the House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
Wednesday, May 13, 1914.