1915-02-12

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 31, respecting The British Columbia Southern Railway Company.- Mr. Taylor.
Bill No. 32, to incorporate The Brule Grand Prairie and Peace River Railway Company.-Mr. R. B. Bennett.
Bill No. 33, to confirm certain agreements made between The Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company, The Georgian Bay and Seaboard Railway Company and The Campbellford, Lake Ontario and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Blain.
Bill No. 34, respecting The Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Cash.
Bill No. 35, respecting The Niagara-Welland Power Company.-Mr. Blain.
Bill No. 36, to incorporate Northern Pacific and British Columbia Railway Company. -Mr. Taylor.
Bill No. 37, respecting Pacific, Peace River and Athabasca Railway Company.- Mr. R. B. Bennett.
Bill No. 38, respecting The Vancouver, Victoria'" and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr. Taylor.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE H. BRADBURY (Selkirk) moved the second reading of Bill No. 2 respecting the pollution of Navigable Waters. He said: This Bill is very similar to the one which I have had before the House during the last two sessions. We have taken a great deal of expert evidence, and the consensus of opinion of the experts of Canada is that a Bill of this kind is necessary to protect the streams and rivers of this country from pollution. That the House may understand thoroughly what I am asking for, I ask leave to read the Bill, which is a short one:
An Act respecting the Pollution of Navigable Waters.
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1.	No person shall put or cause or permit to be put, or to flow or to be carried, any sewage, offal or refuse or other matter that is poisonous, noxious, decomposing, or any injurious refuse or waste, into any navigable water or into any other water that flows into any navigable water unless such matter is disposed of or treated in accordance with regulations made under the authority of this Act.
1 Mr. Hazen.j
2.	Every municipal corporation convicted of an offence against this Act shall, upon summary conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than five hundred dollars and an additional sum of fifty dollars for each day during which the offence continues.
3.	Every corporation, other than a municipal corporation, convicted of an offence against this Act shall, upon summary conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than two hundred dollars and an additional sum of twenty dollars for each day during which the offence continues.
4.	Every person, other than a corporation, who is convicted of an offence against this Act shall, upon summary conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than fifty dollars and an additional sum of ten dollars for each day during which the offence continues, or to imprisonment not exceeding two months, or to 'both fine and imprisonment.
5.	The Governor in Council shall have power to exempt any water or waters from the operation of this Act for such length of time as may be prescribed, and may from time to time extend, withdraw, or vary such exemption.
6.	The Governor in Council may make such regulations and appoint such officers and employees as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. All regulations_ and orders made under this Act shall be published in the Canada Gazette.
One of the great objections urged against this Bill by different interests and by some of the lower province members in this House last year was that the legislation would work a hardship by its control of sewage placed in tidal waters. They contended that there was no necessity of interfering with cities along the sea-coast. For the purpose of expediting the Bill and of trying to make some headway with it, I have changed the wording of the fifth clause in such a way as to give the Government absolute control of the matter, power being given to it to exempt any waters or water from the operation of the Act and to extend such exemptions or withdrawal from time to time.
During the time this Bill was before the committee we took a great deal of evidence and examined, I think, every expert in Canada. During the first session of 1913 we examined Mr. James White of the Commission of Conservation and Dr. Hod-getts. Both these gentlemen, whose evidence was very full and complete, took the position that legislation of this kind is absolutely necessary if we are to prevent our rivers and lakes from being polluted as they have been during the last fifty years. We examined also Mr. Joseph Race, F.I.C., municipal bacteriologist of the city of Ottawa; Dr. W. T. Connel, Professor of Bacteriology and Hygiene at Queen's

University, Kingston; Mr. R. S. Lea and Mr. John Kennedy, civil engineers, both of the city of Montreal; Professor C. H. McLeod, Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Applied Science in McGill University; Dr. Bryce, Medical Inspector of the Immigration Branch, Department of the Interior. These gentlemen were examined at some length, and were all agreed as to the necessity of legislation of this kind.
Although this Bill was, very thoroughly discussed on a former occasion, I think it is due the House that I should refer for a few moments to some of the findings of the committee appointed to look into that matter. To that end I wish to read some of the evidence given by Mr. White of the Conservation Commission. The following is part of Mr. White's evidence:
Q. Have you any data or information as to how wide an expanse of water would be necessary to prevent 'pollution on this side, or can you rely at all upon the distance?-A. The Great Lakes undoubtedly act as great sedimentation basins. The public health authorities of Ontario have gone half way across Lake Ontario from Toronto collecting samples of water all the way. They found bacteria right out to the middle of the lake. Of course, we can concede that the chances of the sewage of a city like Rochester infecting the supply of a town like Port Hope or Cobourg are somewhat remote; but you cShnot say that it will not. The most important point of all is that the population on the shores of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence is increasing, and, as the population increases, the danger of infection also increases.
Q. What is the distance between Rochester and Cobourg?

A. The distance across the lake is approximately 40 miles, I should say.
Q. Is that sufficient to purify the water?- A. We have traced the pollution half way across the lake. Of course we assume that the pollution they get in the middle of the lake is Toronto's pollution, because, of course, Toronto is the largest city on the shores of Lake Ontario, and the pollution was found practically opposite that city. They were trying to discover whether by extending their intake pipe out a reasonable distance they would get beyond the polluted area; and they came to the conclusion that they could not.
Q. Is the water from the Great Lakes used for domestic purposes by the city? A. Yes, that is what the city of Toronto depends upon. They have installed a very large filtration plant, but other cities along the lakes are using the unflltered water.
Mr. Joseph Race of the city of Ottawa was also examined. He gave the following evidence :
The effects of the pollution of navigable waters have ohiefly been reflected in the abnormal death rates from enteric diseases, and it is these rates that have attracted public attention to this serious problem. At the outset it should be remembered that it is the use
of such water for drinking purposes without purification that is the cause of so many deaths, and that the sewage problem has become acute on account of the failure of communities to realize their responsibilities in that direction.
We come now to the other aspect of this problem. If the sewage pollution of navigable waters is allowed to continue and the population continues to increase, a stage must ultimately be reached when they become impossible as a source of domestic water supply.
Q. What is your opinion regarding the whole question of the prevention of the pollution of streams?-A I think that all sewage pollution and trade wastes ought to be prevented from running into the rivers unless thoroughly purified.
Q. Do you agree with other scientists that typhoid is a water borne disease almost entirely?-A. Not almost entirely, but a large proportion of it is.
Q. You believe that it is a disease that is preventable?-A. Yes, certainly.
Q. What percestage is preventable by legislation?-A. I should say at least 75 per cent.
Q. Then according to your statement your Opinion is that if we had proper sewage protection in the city of Ottawa we would have [DOT] had at least 75 per cent fewer typhoid cases and deaths during these epidemics?-A. Undoubtedly.
The evidence of Mr. Race is, I think, particularly important, inasmuch as he gives it as his opinion-and this opinion is corroborated by the opinions of a great many other scientists-that typhoid fever is largely preventable, and that it is a waterborne disease.
When we think of the awful ravages that typhoid fever has caused throughout Canada, we must realize the importance of passing some legislation that will protect our great fresh-water supplies in this country. Dr. W. T. Connel, one of the scientists connected with Queen's University, Kingston, was the next witness examined by the committee, and in connection with the pollution at Kingston he gave the following evidence :
Q. If there were typhoid fever at Kingston, would that not increase the danger of infection at the towns below?-A. I think that we can say that either typhoid fever cases or typhoid carriers are constantly present in every town and city, hence that a certain number of typhoid bacilli are being daily discharged with untreated sewage into the rivers and lakes by practically every town and city in this country.
Q. If there were anything of an epidemic, of course that danger would be increased?-A. Provided the excreta were not disinfected, as they are supposed to be by law.
Q. Speaking generally would there be any suggestion you could make which would be applicable?-A. Every city should treat its own
sewage in such a manner as to render it harm-
[Stage Direction]
less to any other cities or towns which may take their supply from helow.
Q. And harmless to itself also?-A. Of course, to itself, the selfish reason would apply first. As I have said, I think our own experience has been that the danger is very largely to one's own town first, and secondly to those below, and so for purely selfish reasons we should treat our sewage and thus not injure ourselves, and secondly, not to injure others.
There is a great deal more evidence which I need not inflict upon the House, hut I may say that at one of the sittings of this Committee it was suggested owing to the great importance of this question and the fact that it had been widely discussed all over the Dominion, that a conference should be called of representatives of all the provinces to meet in Ottawa to discuss the question, and I received instruction from the com-mitte to request the Government to invite such a conference. The conference was convened in the Tower room here on October 3, 1913, by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Among those present were the Hon. .1. D. Hazen, Minister of Marine and Fisheries; Hon. Martin Burrell, Minister of Agriculture; myself, as Chairman of the House of Commons Committee on the subject; Mr. Warnock, M.P., and Mr. Baker, M.P. The province of Manitoba was represented by Hon. Mr. Howden, the Attorney General ol the province; Prince Edward Island by Hon. Mr. Matlheson, Premier of Prince Edward Island; British Columbia by Hon. William R. Ross, Minister of Lands; the province of Quebec by Dr. E. P. Lachapelle, president of the Provincial Board of Health; Mr. R. S. Lea, member of the Provincial Board of Health; and Dr. E. Elzear Pelletier, secretary of the Provincial Board of Health. The province of Saskatchewan was represented by Mr. P. Aird Murray, C.E., and Dr. Maurice M. Seymour, Commissioner of Public Health for the province of Saskatchewan; New Brunswick by Hon. Mr. Flemming, Premier of New Brunswick; the International Joint Commission by Mr. C. A. Magrath and Mr. H. A. Powell, K.C.; the Conservation Commission by James White, Secretary and deputy minister and Dr. C. A. Hodgetts.
The subject was thoroughly discussed at the conference, and the consensus of opinion was that some federal legislation should be passed to control the disposal of the sewage of the Dominion of Canada. Mr. White in his evidence made this statement:
_ I have all that information and I could have it here at a later date. I would like to say
CMr. Bradbury.]
that the Conservation Commission is entirely in accord with Mr. Bradbury in his effort to prevent the pollution of streams.
That is apparently the opinion of all who are interested in this great question.
I do not wish to take up too much time of the House, but I should just like to say a word as to the death rate from typhoid fever in this country. When one remembers the great bodies of water we have in Canada, our great lakes and our great rivers, and then compares our condition with European countries, with their densely populated districts, and discovers that the death rate from typhoid is much higher in Canada than irx those European countries, the condition is alarming and one that ought to command and demand the attention of this Parliament. According to a table submitted to the committee by Dr. Hodgetts the death rate from typhoid-fever in Scotland was 6-2 per 1,000 population; in Germany 7-6; England and Wales 11-2; Belgium 16-8; Austria 19-9; Hungary 28-3; Italy 35-2; Canada 35-5; and the United States 46. These figures indicate the awful condition that prevails in Canada at the present time. It is positively alarming when we think of such great rivers as the one that flows by the base of this building. The Ottawa river is in an awful condition and has been so for many years. The condition of the Ottawa river ought to appeal to every man in this House; and it is but one of many of such rivers in Canada. In this city we have a great population of nearly 100,000, who are taxed for water, and the city of Ottawa supplies them with water that is utterly unfit for domestic purposes. It is unfit to drink, either for man or beast. It has been condemned, not only by the medical profession, but by the veterinary surgeons, who claim that the water of Ottawa is not fit for a horse or even a dog to drink. There have been a number of serious cases among the horses and dogs of this city on account of the dope that has been put in the water. Some scientists would have it that hypo-chloride is harmless, that it does not cause any serious trouble when put into water. But the medical profession of Ottawa will tell you that the continual doping of the Ottawa water supply has caused a great deal of sickness in the city, apart altogether from typhoid fever. No one doubts that hypochloride prevents typhoid epidemics for it kills the baccili; but while it kills the baccili, it ruins the constitutions of the people who drink the doped water. The con-

sequence is that the people of this city are forced to pay a high water rate, and an additional charge to get pure water. People all over the city are glad to go long distances to get pure water, just as they did five and thirty years ago before we had a water system. All this could have been prevented if Parliament had taken action years ago, as it should have done.
In view of the conditions that prevail I hope the House will not hesitate to adopt the Bill before it.
I trust that the Government will not feel inclined to send this Bill to a committee again. It has been in committee for two years. We have obtained all the information that can be obtained on it. The Bill is framed in such a manner as to leave it entirely in the hands of the Government to determine when it shall be called into operation; that is the Government can withdraw any of the waters from its operation whenever it sees fit. It empowers the Government to make regulations under which the Bill will be enforced so that the enforcement of the legislation will rest entirely in the hands of the Government. The point that it is an interprovincial question has been raised, but I-do not think it is a serious difficulty in the way of the adoption of this proposed legislation. I am not a lawyer but I have discussed the question with able lawyers and I have been assured that there is no reason why the federal power should not pass legislation that would control the disposal of sewage throughout this Dominion. There is no question to my mind that the federal Government have absolute control of navigable streams. That question was settled by the case we had up here some years ago, when the millmen undertook to deposit their sawdust and slabs in the Ottawa river. It was demonstrated then that the Government could control our navigable waters and prevent the miumen from polluting these waters in any way. The same thing prevailed in connection with our fisheries. We can prevent the millmen or anybody from polluting lakes by depositing sawdust or any material that would militate against the fisheries. I claim that we can enact legislation in this House to control not only navigable waters but every stream that runs into a navigable water and say whether sewage may or may not be deposited in the streams. The Bill has been discussed from every standpoint by the best informed men in Canada. There has been no source of information left uncanvassed by the committee. Every
man in Canada that the committee thought could throw any light upon this important question was summoned to attend that committee and to give his evidence and the summing up of the evidence -and we have two volumes of it-proves beyond a doubt that some legislation ought to be enacted by the federal authorities.
I noticed a few days ago that the International Waterways Commission, which has been doing some splendid work, has at last induced the nation to the south of us to join with that commission to prevent the pollution of the great rivers running between these two countries. This will also apply to the lakes. This is a move in the right direction. When this Bill was first introduced one objection raised against it was that it would be perfectly useless for this House to take any action until we could induce thq American people to take similar action. I did not agree with that contention. My position was that this condition that prevailed in Canada demanded redress, it was the duty of Canada first to take care of the situation in this country; in other words, to clean up the condition which existed in our country and then we could reasonably appeal to the nation to the south of us to join with us and do its share. But the International Commission, has, I see, accomplished a good work in securing the consent of the United States Government to join with Canada in preventing the pollution of the St. Lawrence and, I presume, the great lakes contiguous to their own country. In view of this fact I submit the time has come for this House to act and I venture to say that the Bill, while not perfect by any means, will be a step in the right direction and it can be amended if necessary from year to year. Therefore, I beg to move the second reading of Bill No. 5 entitled an Act respecting the Pollution of Navigable Waters.
Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), who has introduced this Bill, and who, during the past two years, has introduced Bills very similar in character, has suggested that the matter should now be dealt with by the House. In the session of 1913 a Bill of this character was introduced which was referred to a committee of the House and a similar course was taken in the session of 1914. The committee, as pointed out by my hon. friend, met on a good many occasions and gave a great deal of consideration to the matter. They heard the opinions and the

evidence of members of the Conservation Commission who had made a special study in regard to this question, and of sanitary experts, bacteriologists and other men of scientific training who had made scientific researches regarding it. They also, in the summer of 1913, had a conference with representatives of the different provincial authorities, and the health authorities of the different provinces, and they gave a great deal of thought and consideration to the matter. At the last session of the House they made a report to Parliament which report is found in the Votes and Proceedings of the 11th of June, and in which they made the statement that it was evident that sufficient time was not available to the committee for the completion of the task which had been committed to them, and therefore they reported back without amendment the Billg to the House. They took this course because there had been certain practical objections raised to the Bills yrhich they thought required serious consideration and further because they believed that it was well to ascertain, if they could do so, what action the International Joint Commission proposed to take in regard to the pollution of boundary waters. There is no doubt at all, I think, that this Parliament has the right to pass legislation preventing the pollution of waters that constitute the boundary line between Canada and the United States. But that was not the difficulty which they had to face. What the committee felt was that if Canada should pass legislation to prevent raw sewage from Canadian cities and towns being placed in the waters of boundary rivers, such as the St. Lawrence and the St. John, very little good would be accomplished thereby unless the United States passed similar legislation preventing sewage from the Republic going into these boundary waters, thus preventing the pollution not only of their own waters but of the waters that were on the Canadian side of the boundary as well.
As pointed out by the hon. member for Selkirk, the International Joint Commission representing the United States and Canada, regarding the pollution of boundary waters, have made an investigation of that subject. I hold in my hand the progress report which they have made thereon. Since then they have devoted a good deal of research and study to the question, and they considered it, I believe, at a meeting which was held by the members of the Joint Commission	in	the	city	of	Torontoa week or	ten	days	ago.	I	am told

they have practically come to a conclusion as to the recommendation they will make. While legislation in this direction should not be too long delayed, I think we should know before proceeding, the findings of the International Joint Commission, which I am led to believe will be of a very drastic character, in order that we may not pass any legislation that will conflict with or be inconsistent with the conclusions arrived at by that commission which represents the Governments of both countries.
While the Committee of this House was unanimous in favour of legislation to prevent the pollution of navigable streams, yet it was felt that to pass a sweeping law saying that no sewage should be put into any river or stream in Canada would work hardship in many cases. In the past, cities, towns, and villages, with full authority of law, have established sewage systems depositing their sewage in these streams, and were they to be at once ordered to cease this practice it would entail great financial responsibilities upon them. I am told that the city of Montreal alone would be put to an expenditure of seven or eight million dollars to change its sewage system, and of course the city of Toronto and other cities and towns would have to bear proportionately large expense.
My hon. friend has introduced quite an important provision in this Bill which was not to be found in his Bill of last year, a provision giving the Governor in Council power to exempt any water or waters from the operation of this Act, for such length of time as may be prescribed, and may from time to time extend, withdraw, or vary such exemption. That places very wide powers as to the administration of the Act in the Governor in Council, and practically makes them the judges as to the waters in which sewage can be put, and as to what time may reasonably elapse before cities, towns and villages shall be compelled to introduce some system of purification of sewage approved of by sanitary engineers. This makes a very considerable change in the Bill, as compared with that which was introduced by my hon. friend last year.
I believe this measure to be in the public interest, and that the public desire legislation which will prevent the rivers and streams from being polluted. Yet, in view of this change, and as the committee which dealt with the measure last year reported that they had not time to complete their findings, it occurs to me that the Bill
I

should go back to the same committee. With the information which that committee has already obtained, with knowledge of the change made in the Bill, and with the information they would have as to the action of the International Joint Commission, I think the committee should, at an early date this session, report the Bill back to the House with their recommendations.
I would suggest to my hon. friend, who has shown so much zeal in promoting this Bill before the House, that he should consider this suggestion. I think the Bill may properly be read a second time now, and in the meantime I will consult with my hon. friend as to the propriety of referring the Bill back to the same committee,	with	the	understanding
that the recommendation and report of the committee sat., be made, so that the House can possibly deal with the Bill at the present session.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The suggestion of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Hazen) cannot be received with very much favoui by my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury). That hon. gentleman has shown much zeal in promoting this legislation, which, in my humble judgment, is very much needed. I am sorry he has not received from his friends that encouragement which I think is due to the laudable object he has in view. 1 would have been disposed to support the contention of my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) that the Bill should be disposed of in the House and not referred to the committee, were it not that it is so framed as to present some objections. I am highly in favour of such legislation as this, which I believe to be most important, and which I think should have been placed on the statute books of this country before now.
My hon. friend in his Bill makes it a criminal offence to put refuse of any kind into any of the waters of Canada, and he gives the Government power to restrict the operations of the Bill in certain areas. .As the Bill is now framed, a man in any remote district in the country, where there is no population or a very sparse population, could not eredt a small sawmill on a stream and put the refuse into that stream. That eamnot be the aim of my hon. friend. He is anxious that his Bill should apply to certain densely-peopled areas, such as the city of Ottawa, the city .of Toronto, and others cities, towns and
villages. Thus, while my hon. friend is anxious to apply this legislation to a city such as Ottawa, he at the same time would subject to penalty any person who puts refuse in waters where no ill effect could possibly arise from that act. The drastic provisions of this Bill would apply to new and remote parts of the country where there could be no possible danger to the public health from putting refuse in the water, whereas in my opinion, they should apply only to the large centres of population where the evils which my hon. friend wishes to prevent are prevalent. Were I a member of the committee I would move to amend the Bill so that the Governor in Council would have the power to proclaim the area to which the provisions of this Bill would apply and to exempt all the rest of the country. I am of the opinion that that would be a more workable provision than the one now contained in the Bill.
I cannot see any force in the objection raised by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that we should not proceed with this measure until we get the report of the International Commission. If we had this legislation on this side of the line, it would assist the American Commission in obtaining similar legislation on the other side. It is very important that we should have joint legislation in this matter, but I would not be deterred from going on with the Bill by the objection that we should wait for the report of the International Commission.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: As one of
the members of the committee which, during the last two sessions, considered the Bills to which my hon. friend the member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) has referred, I would like to ask my hon. friend a question. Before doing so, let me say to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that the objection which he voiced from the point of view of certain cities, some of which he enumerated, was, I think, speaking from memory, met by the other Bill which has been referred to as having been before the committee, namely, the Bill introduced by Senator Belcourt in another chamber. Therefore I would like to ask my hon. friend from Selkirk whether the Bill he has now introduced combines the features of his former Bill with those of the Bill introduced by Senator Belcourt.


Mr. BRADBURY:: There is no change in the Bill now before the House from the Bill
I

which I introduced last year, except the last clause, which gives the Government power to exempt certain waters.
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM: When these matters come closely home to us, perhaps we take a deeper interest in them than we do when we are discussing them generally. This question of disease originating from our water supply is perhaps as important a one as can be discussed by hon. members, and one in which all are interested; if not just now, they do not know'when they will be. Possibly when in Ottawa they are all interested. The difficulty1 which confronts a good many towns on the banks of the St. Lawrence and towns on other rivers is that they have expended a lot of money in sewage plants and systems and sewage goes into the streams. Every town above on the same stream has done the same thing, so that some of these towns are liable not only to the troubles arising from their own sewage system, but to others originating from sewage systems farther up the stream.


Hon. J. D. REID:: On the American side also.


Mr. GRAHAM:: On both sides. In the
town of Brockville at present there are more than one hundred cases of typhoid due simply to the water of the St. Lawrence.
We have considered that water the
4 p.m. purest in the world and have used it very freely.


Mr. BICKERDIKE:: At times.


George Perry Graham: How long are we to wait for this matter to be remedied? While we are waiting people are dying of disease. At the present time examination is being made of the intake pipe of the town of Brockville, in which it is contended there is a break. The Board of Health tells us to adopt a filtration plant. Another expert says:	No, you must treat
the sewage as it goes into the river. We proceed to do one or both of these things under the Provincial Health Act, and a little later on we shall have a Dominion Act under which to take action. It is time that this House indicated in some way what it proposes to do. The measure need not be drastic; we may not insist on towns being bankrupted or put to great expense; but every day that this matter is postponed, a greater mileage of sewage systems is being constructed in these towns; greater quantities of sewage are being poured into the streams, and greater will be the expense of re-

adjusting whole systems a few years later. Therefore I think we have waited long enough. _
I do not intend to discuss the details of this Bill; but if the Government are anxious to handle this question in a practical manner, some measure can be passed which will be an indication to the people in the various towns that action is going to be taken, but that they will be given time to readjust themselves to the new condition of affairs. I am not in favour of sending this Bill to another committee if it is to be held over until another session. If it is to go to a committee, the committee ought to understand the gravity of the situation in many of our towns and investigate as far as possible all the conditions; there is plenty of material to afford them all the information necessary; and they can report a Bill which can be passed this session, letting the people throughout the Dominion know that we are going to stop the menace of pollution of our streams; because so long as something is not done to stop it, it will be continued, and no amount of talk will make the people change their systems. I have had considerable experience of injurious results from such pollution during the past few months. I hope the Bill will come before this House as a practical measure to be voted upon before this session closes.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.) :: I wish very briefly to endorse the sentiments of my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). I have also, like him, had a practical experience in my family of what putrid water means; and when we go through such experiences, we have perhaps a different view of the conditions than we would otherwise lhave. However, one does not require personal experience to have an understanding of what impure water means to a community, to a town, or to the country at large. The hon. member from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) deserves a great deal of credit for the persistence with which he has brought this measure before the House and for the large amount of information which he has been the means of disseminating amongst the people of Canada. Hon. gentlemen so far have been talking very largely about conditions in the city of Ottawa and other portions of the province of Ontario; but there is hardly a place in Canada at all fairly well settled but has to contend with the same problem. In my portion of the province of New Brunswick

exactly the same condition exists as in Ottawa. The problem is just as acute and just as urgent there as it is in the city of Ottawa. The whole thing resolves itself into two questions: one as to the cost, and the other as to the method to be adopted. The question of cost, of course, in a small community, is always important; but the difficulty it presents is not insurmountable. The great difficulty seems to be that there is no power to prevent the recurrence of the cause of the difficulty. Take our own case. We are taking water out of the St. John river. Now, this river runs through a number of small towns and villages above us, all of which are pouring their sewage into the river. It is not of much use for us to take means to improve conditions unless others are compelled, so to say, to behave themselves. But it may be done. There is a great deal in what my right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says, that the Bill might be changed so that the power to bring it into effect in any given district shall rest with the Government-not make it the general law with certain districts exempted. Otherwise certain districts might not be exempted that ought to be so treated, and some crank coming along could commence prosecution of an innocent user of the water. If the Government had the power to bring the Act into force by Order in Council, stating the portions of the country in which it should be effective, it would be much better. But that is a matter of detail; so far as the general principle is concerned, I think the Bill is entirely right. I am very much of opinion that some action ought to be taken to bring this matter to a head during the present session. Let us be men enough to stand up and vote upon it; let us take our responsibility. So far as I am concerned, I am ready to vote on the principle of the Bill; and I have confidence in the judgment and ability of this House to work out the details in such a way as to insure justice being done to all and injustice to none. It is pretty hard, from my standpoint, to conceive of injustice being done to any man by compelling him to keep pollution out of the river which is the water supply for all his neighbours as well as for people, it may be, hundreds of miles away from him. Personally I am ready to take responsibility in the matter. Therefore, I do not like the motion of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen). For, while I do not say it offensively, yet I do say, that this is a dilatory motion. We who have had some experience in parliamentary matters know that, in a session such as this which will
necessarily be short, if a matter like this is handed over to a committee to take some further action, that means that it goes over until next session. The hon. minister knows that there have been hundreds of Bills sent to the political bone-yard since he entered Parliament, and thousands since Confederation. And for a public Bill like this, which can only be discussed in the early stages, except with the leave of the Government, once it is sent to the committee, it might as well be put out of existence and its promoters told to come back next year. I do not say this in any controversial spirit. I do hope that some arrangement can be arrived at between the hon. member for Selkirk and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries by which this Bill will not be sent to the political bone-yard but a vote taken upon it,-and I hope that vote will be to-day. I believe this Bill involves one of the most economic questions ever brought before this House or that could possibly be brought before it. So far as I am concerned, I should like an opportunity to vote for this Bill to-day.


Hon. T. CHASE CASGRAIN (Postmaster General):: My excuse for taking part, even in a very brief way, in this discussion, is that until lately, I- was a member of the International Joint Commission, and one of the most important questions submitted to that Commission was a reference, under the Waterways Treaty, of the question of pollution of boundary waters. Two questions were submitted: First, whether pollution existed in boundary waters, and, if so, second, what means should be taken to remedy that pollution. The International Joint Commission has had this question under consideration for almost a year, I believe, and has expended vast sums of money, in conjunction with the United States, in an effort to find out whether pollution existed. The second question is now before the commission:	What are the best means to
remedy the pollution which, beyond doubt, exists in the boundary waters between the United States and Canada?
I believe my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) has brought down to the House this preliminary jot progress report of the experts who were charged by the commission to examine the boundary waters between the Lake of the Woods and the Atlantic. The Commission held a great many meetings in boundary towns from the Lake of the Woods almost as far as the Atlantic ocean, hearing witnesses', including

many experts. The conclusion to which we came was that this was one of the most momentous questions that could come before a commission of this kind. One -most important point'which struck us was the enormous expense which would be involved in the change of -systems in the different cities consequent upon any decisions given by the International Joint commission. For instance, take such cities on the American side as Buffalo, Detroit, Niagara Falls and Port Huron; and, on the Canadian side, Port Sarnia, Windsor and Toronto, all of which contribute to the pollution of boundary waters. But when you seek a remedy, you are forced to the conclusion that it would cost millions and millions of dollars. In some instances it would almost bankrupt those cities if you imposed upon them -stringent measures by which this pollution should be stopped. The commission examined some of the most renowned sanitary experts in the world to find the means by which this pollution icould toe remedied or altogether eradicated. I believe the -commission is just finishing a very important meeting in Toronto, and if my information is correct its report will be brought down in a very short time.
This question was referred to the International Joint Commission by the common consent of the Canadian Government and the United States Government. So far as navigable waters are -concerned, the question I put to my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) and these hon. gentlemen on the other side who are in a hurry to see legislation passed on the subject is this: Having referred this question to the commission by general consent under the treaty, how can this House proceed to pass in advance of the report, legislation which would affect that question ? It seems to me it would toe almost a breach of faith. The two governments having referred to the commission this question, which is a most intricate and complicated one, until that report is brought down, so far at any rate as boundary waters are concerned, I do not think this House could pass .legislation in face of that report. Therefore, I think the best way would toe to refer it to a committee. Nor is this reason I have given the only reason. If hon. gentlemen will study the report of the International Joint Commission they will see that it would be impossible-as it seems to me- for this House to pass legislation which

would be of value in the premises. You have to hear all the interested parties and see what can be done in the different cities, to learn what would be the cost. Otherwise we should run the risk of passing legislation which, by reason of the great cost it would entail, could not be enforced and would be inoperative.


George Henry Bradbury: In moving the second reading of this Bill, I was impressed with the importance of the question with which it deals. I have given a great deal of attention to the matter, and believe that it is one of the most important questions that this House can deal with. The fact that so many valuable lives have been sacrified because of the pollution of our streams, and that so many of our citizens are going through life with impaired health and weakened constitutions on account of the use at some time of polluted water should be sufficient reason for Parliament's taking some action in the matter. However, after listening to the remarks of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, I realize that there is good reason why this Bill should go back to committee. I had no intention of making the Bill so far-reaching as the right hon. gentleman pointed out it would be; nor had I any intention of making it a hardship on outlying districts. I felt that I had provided for that, however, when I inserted a clause under which the Government had power to withdraw certain districts from the operation of the Act. I am anxious that something should be done; consequently I am willing that the Bill should go back to the committee, with the understanding, I hope, that the Bill will be considered, and that the committee will make its report as soon as possible, and that the House will deal with the matter during the present session.
I realize that the hon. Postmaster General, as a member of the International Joint Commission ought to be well informed, but I am not prepared to agree with him that this House should not take any action until we know what the United States or the International Joint Commission are going to do. I think we ought to take care of our own country; we ought to make it impossible for our people to cause the pollution of our rivers and of the lakes which they are obliged to use for domestic purposes. I think we could appeal to our friends on the other sicle of the line with more force after taking action on our own part. However, as the hon. gentleman has

pointed out, a reference has been made to this commission with regard to the effect of the disposal of sewage in boundary waters, and I presume that to that extent the hands of this House are tied until we know exactly what the views of the commission are, as expressed in its report. I understand from the hon. gentleman that that commission has reported.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Two questions were
referred to the commission: first, as to the existence of pollution; second, as to the remedy. There is a report on the first question; in a very short time there will be a report on the second question, namely, the means by which the pollution may be either eradicated or remedied.


George Henry Bradbury: Even if the members of this commission should not be able to agree among themselves as to what should be done, I submit that for the protection of our own people we ought to take action. If we cannot protect the boundary waters, we can at least protect the other waters of Canada. However, as I have said, I trust that when the Bill goes back to the committee it will be with the understanding that the committee report this session and that the matter be finally dealt with.


Charles Murphy: May I ask the hon. Postmaster General how soon the report of the International Joint Commission is expected?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: So far as my relations with the International Joint Commission are concerned, of course I cannot say, but I believe-and I think my information is correct-that the report will be soon submitted to both Governments.


John Douglas Hazen: I will move for the appointment of a committee to-morrow.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT BICKERDIKE (St. Lawrence, Montreal) moved the second reading of Bill No. 18, to amend the Criminal Code. He said: When I introduced this Bill a few days ago I made the assertion that capital punishment is murder. I repeat that capital punishment is murder; legalized, if you like; but the state that puts capital punishment into force becomes a murderer.
Capital punishment is a relic of the dark and pestilential days of Nero's misrule of the Roman empire. I think I am safe in saying that the time has arrived when it is
the bounden duty of this Government and this Parliament to give consideration to this grave question, which is daily growing in importance all over the world, especially among Christian nations. The purpose of the Bill is to abolish capital punishment in the Dominion of Canada and to substitute life imprisonment for the different crimes for which capital punishment is provided in our present criminal code.
The opinion has gained ground very rapidly in recent years that the death penalty is nothing more or less than legalized brutal murder. I am aware that there are several members of this House who still cling to the idea that capital punishment is a deterrent, and to those I would say that if they really consider it to he a deterrent, our executions should be made as public as possible. If it is to be considered as an object lesson to the community, let us have a hanging bee in the public square. If it is to be an object lesson, it should be as thorough a one as possible; it will be better to hold it where every man, woman and child will be able to see the whole ghastly proceedings. If any hon. gentlemen in this House vote against the Bill, I hope they will feel a sense of personal guilt if Canada must continue to stand before the whole world as a barbarous country.
I submit that life is the immediate gift of God to man; man has no right to resign it, nor should it be taken from him, unless by the God who gave it to him. I believe that all the members of this House will agree with me on that point. Innocent individuals, as we know, are occasionally executed, and thus makes the state which orders his execution a murderer of the worst kind. Capital punishment prevents reparation in cases of subsequently proven innocence. I submit that two or more men organized under a form of government have no more right to break God's commandments or to take life than one man has. It is murder in either case. Is it not better that ninety-nine guilty persons should go free than that one innocent man should be hanged?
We all know That 1914 has been quite a hanging year; in fact, it will be known in history as the hanging year. It has been suggested that the authorities developed a mania for hanging in 1914 such as never has been known in Canada since the days of 1837 and 1838. In truth, it has been said by some that the authorities of 1914 went hanging mad. I am prepared to prove to this House by statistics-and my remarks
[Stage Direction]
will consist largely of statistics-that a great many guilty men go free, while a number of innocent men are hanged, especially if they are poor men. I say also that in 1914 three men were hanged whom the public believed to be innocent. One of them, we know, was innocent, and I am prepared to prove it.
Capital punishment, I say, is a legalized crime, and is morally indefensible. All who take part in it are tainted with blood guiltiness, from the judge down to the hangman, the crown prosecutor and his running mate, the crown executioner, as well as the nation which passively allows such things to he. If crime does not increase in other countries in consequence of the abolition of capital punishment, why should it increase in Canada? It is universally admitted that two wrongs do not make a right; yet the operation of our law would seem to indicate that the contrary is the truth. A man sins by taking human life; the state sins by taking his life, and two lives are sacrificed. I submit that this is a grotesque travesty of justice. In King John's time the whole injunction of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' was literally obeyed, as well as 'a life for a life/ For many centuries we have ignored the two first injunctions, whilst holding with firm tenacity to the third; yet we Canadians call ourselves a Christian nation.
Capital punishment has been abolished in a great many countries, states and provinces, and in every case with good results. The following countries have abolished it: Italy, Portugal, Switzerland, Holland, Tuscany, San Marino, Roumania, New South Wales, State of Michigan, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Maine, and Kansas.
In the early stages of society the man committing homicide was killed by the avenger of blood on behalf of the family of the man killed, and not as representing the authority of the state. This was the custom ' for centuries, till the mischief of this practice was mitigated by the establishment of cities'of refuge, and in pagan and Christian times by the recognizing of the sanctuary of the temple and of the churches. In the laws of Khamurobi, king of Babylon, 22852241 B.C., the death penalty was imposed for many offences; the modes of execution specially mentioned are drowning, burning and impalement. Draco, the first compiler of the penal code of Greece, made death the penalty for all offences. When asked why he did so, he replied; ' The least offences

deserve death, and I can impose no worse for the higher crimes/
Under the Mosaic code the law of vengeance was personified in the then prevailing doctrine of ' an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,' in many instances that rule being carried out literally. In the dark ages of the United Kingdom, under the rule of the Saxon and Danish kings, the modes of capital punishment most common were: hanging, beheading, drowning, burning, stoning, and precipitation from rocks. William the Conqueror would not permit the execution of the death sentence by hanging, 'but by mutilation. Death was the penalty for the most trivial offences; for example, the cutting down of a tree, poaching deer, or even stealing a loaf of bread. In 1800 there were over 200 capital crimes in Great Britain, and 180 in 1819. Men were hanged and quartered for offences which now would be regarded as misdemeanours, while the learned clergy and statesmen looked on with approval and applause. During the reign of Henry the Eighth 72,000 persons were executed. The author of Capital Punishment in the Encyclopoedia Britan-nica, vol. 5, page 279, says:	*
At the end of the eighteenth century the criminal laws of all Europe were ferocious and indiscriminate in their administration of capital punishment for almost all grave crimes... yet such forms of crime were far more numerous than they are now.
The best blood of England drenched the execution block, and Keeh, the legal executioner, became more infamous than Rob Roy, the bandit. Death was a panacea for all ills.
The United States adopted the common law of England replete with capital offences, but has finally limited the number of hanging offences, in practice at least, to two: murder and rape; but the statute names other offences, and hanging is the mode of execution.
In Belgium no execution has taken place since 1863; in Finland none since 1824; in Holland none since 1860, and capital punishment was totally abolished there in 1870. There have been no executions in Norway since 1876. Norway abolished capital punishment in 1905; Portugal in 1867; Roumania in 1864. Russia abolished capital punishment, except for military offences, in 1750, but later restored it for a short period, only to again abolish it in 1907. Only 7 out of 22 cantons in Switzerland have it. Italy revoked the law in 1888.

In the United States the number of capital crimes has been reduced in recent years to only four, and the following states have abolished the death penalty: Maine, where it was abolished in 1876, restored in 1883, and finally abolished in 1887, on the recommendation of the governor of the state; Rhode Island, in 1853; Wisconsin, in 1853; and Kansas, in 1901, but there have been no legal executions in Kansas since 1872; Michigan, in 1847.
I now propose to repeal the law of blood and vengeance in Canada, and to make life imprisonment the maximum punishment. The two main objects in enforcing our criminal laws are, first, to protect society; secondly, to reform the criminal. Some would add a third reason, namely, to punish the criminal himself, but in this day of brotherly love, when we are taught to love our enemies, and when charity and love have triumphed over vengeance and hatred, no one would seriously insist that this country has any more right to kill a man, in order to avenge the death of his victim, than has an individual.
Every man will agree with me on this one point, that, if social conditions will not be made worse by the abolition of the death penalty, then it should be abolished. The only way to determine this question is to compare the statistics of the states with and without the death penalty. The statistics are rather voluminous. I will just read a few of them, and, with the permission of the House, will hand the rest to the "Hansard" reporter.
Mr. SPEAKER:: It 'cannot get on "Hansard" in that way. The rule is to report only what is read.


Robert Bickerdike: Very well, Sir. According to the mortality statistics compiled
by the United States Bureau of Statistics and published in 1912, the latest I could get, the number of murders in California was 19 per 100,000 population; in Colorado, 21; in Connecticut, 7; in Indiana, 10; in Maine, where capital punishment has been abolished, only 2.


Mr. LANCASTER:: Do those statistics include eases of manslaughter, or relate only to murders committed with malice aforethought?


Robert Bickerdike: Homicide.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Homicide could be murder or manslaughter.


Robert Bickerdike: I think they include both.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is the hon. gentleman making any distinction in his Bill between punishment for manslaughter and punishment for deliberate murder with malice aforethought? Manslaughter to-day is punishable by imprisonment for life if the judge chooses to inflict it.


Robert Bickerdike: I. make no distinction. I claim that the greatest penalty that a Christian country should inflict upon any criminal should be life imprisonment, even for murder, which I suppose is considered the greatest offence. I was saying that in the states where capital punishment has been abolished, crime has decreased. Furthermore, no state or district or country that has abolished capital punishment has it in practice to-day. I challenge any one to find a single country in the world that has abolished capital punishment and inflicts the death penalty to-day. The following figures show the number of murders per 100,000 population for ten years in several states:
State.	1900. 1901.
New Jersey-
Cities	
1.7	0.9Rural	
0.1	0.1
New York-
Cities	
2.00	1.8Rural	
0.2	0.4
Ohio-
Cities	
Rural	
Pennsylvania-
Cities	
Rural	
Rhode Island-
Cities	
2.5	2.8Rural	
2.8	0.7
South Dakota-
Cities	
Rural	>	
[DOT]3 902.	1903.	1904.	1905.	1906.	1907.	1908.	1909.1.4	0.7	1.3	1.8	2.9	4.2	3.7	4.70.8	0.2	0.9	1.4	2.5	3.2	4.6 ,	l 2.92.0	1.4	2.2	3.5	5.0	6.1	5.3	4.40.3	0.5	0.5	0.6	1.8	3.3	3.6	3.37.42.85.8	6.5	5.0	4.74.5	4.8	4.9	4.12 7	2.3	3.5	2.5	3.9	5.5	4.2	3.04.0	1.9	1.9	0.6	2.3	1.1	3.3	2.17.4	7.22.1	2.6	3.8	2.2
State.
Vermont- Cities . Rural . Washington Cities . . Rural . Wisconsin- Cities . , Rural .
1900. 1901. 1902. 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909.
[DOT][DOT][DOT]	2 0	2.0	...	3.9	3.8	3.8...	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	2.0	1.0	1.3 ' 2.3	3.811.7	8.1
6.3	4.2[DOT]"	
3.1	1.9
1.6	1.7
It will thus be seen that for the ten-year period beginning with 1900 the average number of homicides in the States where capital punishment had been abolished per hundred thousand population was: Maine, 2-5; Michigan, 3-8; Rhode Island, 5; and for the two years, 1908 and 1909, for which Wisconsin reported her homicides, she averaged 4-1, there being a decrease in 1909 over the previous year. In some of the States where capital punishment prevailed we find that for a ten-year period, beginning with the year 1900, the average number of homicides per 100,000 population was: Indiana, 6-4; New Jersey, 4; New York, 4-8; and for the four years reported by Pennsylvania an average of 9-8. Ohio reports for the year 1909 only, giving 10-2; California for a four-year period shows twenty homicides per 100,000 population. While Massachusetts only shows an average of 2-57 for each 100,000 population, the increase in that State from 1905 to 1909 was 100 per cent. It will be further seen that California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Vermont, where capital punishment obtains, and where it is enforced rigidly, show an increase in the number of homicides for the period reported in the above statistics, while of the five states that have abolished the death penalty, only Michigan shows an increase, which is slight, but her general average for a ten-year period is less than either of the states that have retained the death penalty, with the exception of Vermont and New Hampshire; and that they have increased their homicide rate per annum continually, while Michigan shows a decrease in 1909 over the previous year. Besides the record shows that the death penalty has been abolished in Vermont and New Hampshire by practice for twenty years.
The general average for the period reported in the above table of statistics for the five states where the death penalty has been revoked is 3 85 per 100,000 population, while for the states inflicting the death
[Mr. Bickerdike.l
penalty for the period reported the general .average is 8-25, or nearly 115 per cent greater. The average homicidal rate in Tennessee was five times greater than in either of the abolition states.
While I was unable to get the statistics on this question from Kansas, I am reliably informed that the number of homicides in that state per capita is comparatively small, and in a recent letter from the secretary of the present Governor of that state he informs me that the people there are universally pleased with the workings of the new law abolishing the death penalty, and that there is no disposition to restore capital punishment in that state. It will be remembered that there has never been a legal execution in that state since 1872, the governors in their discretion failing to sign the death warrants at the end of one year's imprisonment, as the law required.
The results obtained in foreign countries from the abolition of the death penalty are no less beneficial than in the United States. I take the following facts and statistics from Report No. 108 on capital crimes of the fifty-fourth United States Congress, first session, printed January 22, 1896, by order of the House of Representatives:
Belgium.-The penalty of death has not been abolished in Belgium, but since 1866 it has not been executed. In order to appreciate the results, the following statistics are given. For the period from 1831 to 1S90, in the first thirty-five years, there were 321 capital condemnations, which was at the rate of 9.17 per year. In the twenty-five years following the cessation of executions there were 201, which was at the rate of 8.004, showing a decrease of 1.1696.
Costa Rica.-The results of the abolition of capital punishment for all offences in Costa Rica are considered very favourable, thus confirming public sentiment against capital punishment.
Hayti.-The constitution of 1879 abolished the death penalty for political offences. Since the period of said abolition political crimes have not been more frequent.
Holland.-There has been no increase ot crime since the abolition of the death penalty.
Italy.-Since the abolition of the death penalty by the new common penal code, which went into force January 1, 1890, the results obtained

up to this present time have fully realized the expectations cherished by parliament, by public opinion, and by students of criminal matters, that is to say, social security has not been disturbed or diminished by it, and consequently the conditions of high criminality have not been rendered worse.
Norway.-Since 1874 it is made discretionary with the courts of death or hard labour for life, since which time a majority of the latter cases have been imposed, and no bad consequences, so far as public safety is concerned, have been observed.
Portugal.-The death penalty was abolished by the law on the first of July, 1867, and the number of homicides to which this penalty was applied has diminished during ftie succeeding years.
Switzerland..-Since 1874 capital punishment has been abolished in fifteen of the twenty-two cantons in Switzerland.
The only light we have to guide our advancing footsteps in enacting progressive legislation is the unerring light of experience. The record shows that the death penalty has been abolished in Michigan for sixty-six years; in Rhode Island for sixty-one years; in Wisconsin for sixty years; in Maine for thirty-seven years, and in Kansas by practice for about fifty years, and recently by statute. And yet those enlightened and progressive states have discovered no good reason for repealing these laws that have been in force for over a half century in most instances. That alone should be sufficient to convince us that the abolition statutes have vindicated their existence. Besides, is it a mere coincidence that the states that have so long foregone the death penalty have less than one-half the number of homicides of the states that foster executions? Is it only a coincidence that homicides in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have increased over previous years, while in their sister, state of Maine, where life imprisonment is the highest penalty, the number of homicides have decreased in the same period? In 1909 the three states named above registered a total of homicides per 100,000 population as follows:	Massachusetts, 4-8; Connecticut, 7-9; Vermont, 7-6, while in Maine, for the same period 2-2 for the same ratio is shown.
Making further comparisons for the year 1909 we find registered homicides per 100,000 as follows:	Michigan, 4-4; Wisconsin,
3-6; and Rhode Island, 5-1 * as against the death penalty states as follows:	Indiana,
10-7; Ohio, 10-2; Pennsylvania, 8-8; New York, 7-7; New Jersey, 7.6; Colorado, 21-4; California, 20; Maryland, 7-2; New Hampshire, 2-9; South Dakota, 9-4; Washington, 94
12-3. Can all of the above facts, so favourable to the states that have abolished the death penalty, be attributed to mere chance?
In the same year the number of homicides per million people in the four abolition states was thirty-five; there were eighty-five in the death-penalty states per million population. In 1904, taking the whole United States, the ratio was 104-4 per million, while Maine, for the same year, registers 24 for each million inhabitants, Michigan 20, and Rhode Island 51, or nearly one-half the general average for all the states.
The record further shows that from 1885 to 1904 homicides increased from 32-2 per million people to 104-4 for the same ratio. There is no question that capital punishment increases the number of murders in any country. Crime begets crime just as thistledown begets thistles. In every case in which a man has been hanged, in Canada or any place else, immediately afterwards a large number of murders have been committed. This in the face of the fact that capital punishment was in full force in every state in the Union but .four or five.
The foreign States that have abolished the death penalty not only refuse to reinstate it, but the reports above quoted show that criminal conditions are in * all instances as good, and in some reported better than before the abolition of it. After centuries of observation and experience, the learned judges of England and America established a rule making a preponderance of evidence in civil cases the guide for themselves and juries in deciding questions of disputed facts. That is the only true rule. Then, have I not proven my case by an overwhelming preponderance of the proof? The evidence based on actual experience in foreign States is so near unanimous in favour of its abolition that it is a mere exception to a general rule that a fact militates against it.
But you may ask why do legal executions increase capital crimes? Because crime is largely a disease, and the demoralizing effect of a legal execution, and the example thus set by the state arouses the criminal nature and cheapens life in the estimation of the criminally inclined. Like begets like in this respect, as sure as night follows day. We cannot put it better than to quote from Mrs. Ella Wheeler Wilcox's beautiful poem on capital punishment:-


Wilfrid Laurier: Who were
they ?


Robert Bickerdike: One innocent man that we know of was hanged in New Westminster, B.C. In one case two men-I do not say they were innocent, and we know they were thieves-went into a sawmill office, stole a cash-box and went to the park to divide the spoils. It was getting dark, and one of them struck a match, and a policeman came along and one of them fired. Some said that both fired, but one of them claimed he did not fire, and the other claimed he merely fired to frighten the policeman, but the bullet struck a tree and glanced off and killed the policeman As a result of the exami-

nation it was found that there was only one bullet which struck that policeman, but British Columbia was determined to make an example, and in that case, as in the old days in Ireland, they gave both of them the benefit of the doubt and hanged the two.


Wilfrid Laurier: They were
both guilty.


Robert Bickerdike: They were not both guilty, SiT. I am sorry to have to contradict my leader.


Mr. PROULX:: The hon. gentleman
should know that, being on an unlawful errand, if one of them committed murder they were both guilty of murder.


Robert Bickerdike: That is because one of them was in bad company, and if every man in this House that was ever in bad company was hanged there would not be many of us here to-day. Of course, that remark does not apply to my respected leader. The fact is, that that man was innocent of the crime of murder for which he paid the death penalty; and, to the disgrace of that court, and to the disgrace of the judge and jury, they took the money for sending that innocent man into eternity; they took blood money and they knew it. Even the Tory papers that were entirely opposed to anything I said in the discussion on former occasions said they were surprised that the Minister of Justice did not see' that there was a reprieve in that case.
The Government itself is engaged in the vocation of killing the criminally inclined, and the criminals put no higher value on life than the Government does itself.


Mr. BURNHAM:: What happens to those who die in sin?


Robert Bickerdike: I am not able to answer that question; but no man, unless he is an infidel, will vote to send a squl into eternity when he cannot say what the result will be. If a man believes truly that there is an eternity of the soul, either saved or damned, he cannot vote to send his fellow-man into eternity. He will not do it unless he is an infidel. ,It is true, there must be a lot of infidels.
The Government say that capital punishment deters others from committing crime. If that is so, I ask: Why have the States which do not have capital punishment the smallest number of crimes? Why do such
crimes increase in number when the death penalty is put into force?
I would like to give a few opinions of great men on this question. I do not wish to detract from our good friend the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) at all. I have not his opinion here, but I will put it down next time. Thos. B. Reed says:
Capital punishment is injurious to society because the example is bad.
The Government says, very nicely, to the poor criminal: We are going to punish you; we are going to prove to you that murder is wrong, and we are going to prove it by murdering you; we kill to prove that killing is wrong. Why, they are a great deal worse than the butchers in Montreal who say:
' We kill to keep alive.'
Whittier says: 'All revenge is crime.' Lafayette says: ' I shall ask for the abolition of capital punishment until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me.'
John F. Fitzpatrick, of the Chicago Federation of Labour, says:
Organized labour everywhere stands for the abolishment of capital punishment, and if I cm elected sheriff (he was then a candidate for sheriff), I will do my best to further this civilized reform.
William Lloyd Garrison says:
The horror of inflicting the death penalty makes jurors violate their oaths.
General N. M. Curtis says:
During my four years and eight months of military service, I had opportunity to observe the effects of many executions under martial law, I came to believe firmly that they were in every case demoralizing and destructive of discipline. These convictions against the efficiency of the death penalty have been strengthened as I have become better acquainted with the evil effects of executions under civil laws.
Henry Ward Beecher says:
While the fear of hanging does not deter men from crime, the fear of inflicting death deters many a jury from finding a just verdict, and favours the escape of the criminal.
Rantoul says:
The strongest safeguard of life is its sanctity ;
and this sentiment every execution diminishes.
5 p.m. Bulwer says:
Society has erected the gallows at the end of the land instead of guide posts and directions boards at its beginning.
Seneca says:
Many hold death in contempt, regarding it at rest from evil, while they are much afraid of imprisonment.

Dr. Choevar says:
Had the state done its duty in his (the murderer's) education, he never would have been a murderer.
Blackstone says:
Life is the immediate gift of God to man, which neither can he resign nor can it be taken from him, unless by command of Him who gave it.
He also goes on to say that in Great Britain there is an average of three innocent men hanged every year. Channing says:
When I reflect how much of the responsibility for crime rests on the state, how many of the offences which are most severely punished are to be traced to neglected education, to early squalid want, to temptations and exposures which society might do much to relieve, I feel that the spirit of mercy should temper legislation, that we should not sever ourselves so widely from our fallen brethen; that we should recognize in them the countenance and claims of humanity; that we should strive to win them back to God.
I am sure my hon. friend will agree with what Benjamin Franklin says, namely:
Laws which inflict death for murder are, in my opinion, as un-Christian as those which justify revenge; for the obligations of Christianity upon individuals, to promote repentance, to forgive injuries, and to discharge the duties of universal benevolence are equally binding upon the state
John Quincy Adams says:
Gladly will I co-operate with any society whose object should be to promote the abolition of every form by which the life of man can be voluntarily taken by his fellow man. I do heartily wish and pray the success of your efforts to promote the abolition of capital punishment.
Father Matthew and Victor Hugo tell the same story. Robert Burns says:
Man's inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn.
William Shakespeare on one occasion out of curiosity visited one of these murder trials, and he says:
The jury, passing on the prisoner's life,
May, in the sworn twelve, have a thief or two,
Guiltier than him they try.
Cicero says:
Away with the executioner and execution, and the very name of its engine. Even the mere mention of them is unworthy of a Roman citizen and a freeman.
Some of my hon. friends who, when I first introduced my Bill a few years ago, thought I was in error, have since changed their minds. I would be pleased if all those who formerly opposed it would change their minds. One of th,em, I think my hon.
I Mr. Bickerdike. ]
friend from Frontenae (Mr. Edwards) was very strong on the Old Testament rule of Moses that there should be a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I think we have passed that stage. It is true that Moses did shed the blood of his enemies; but we have in place of him One, the Lord, who shed His blood for His enemies. To me there is quite a difference. My hon. friend claimed that the Scriptures say ' a life for a life.' I claim-and I challenge successful contradiction-that there is not a word in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelations that commands capital punisnment or even commends it. Example is surely better than precept; and I would ask, what about Cain, Moses himself, David, and twenty or thirty others mentioned in the Old Testament who committed murder and not one of whom was hanged? The man who will send a soul into eternity, whether he be a murderer or the state's hangman, does not believe in eternity. If he believed in eternity, he would not, he could not, commit such an act. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition says that this man was guilty of being in bad company-


Wilfrid Laurier: No, I said he was guilty of murder. But I did not say he should be hanged.


Robert Bickerdike: Was it not a case for reprieve?


Wilfrid Laurier: Possibly.


Robert Bickerdike: The right hon. gentleman knows it was; he would never have thought of hanging such a man. There was nothing against this man but that he was in bad company. He was in bad company, and probably was a thief; I think there is no question that he stole the money. But was that a reason why he should be hanged? The man did not commit the murder, and yet he was hanged as a murderer. We call ourselves a Christian nation, and we bow our heads in prayer. Yet we hanged that man though he was innocent of the crime for which he was condemned.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), when I introduced this Bill last year, had something to say about it. I am sorry the hon. gentleman is not here. He said:
And the time may come when it will be unnecessary to have such extreme punishment, as capital punishment is, and administered as it has been for the deterrence of great criminals.
The hon. gentleman thought we were doing better. I claim that we are not doing better. The ink was hardly dry on the

"Hansard" from which J have quoted when one of the most brutal murders ever committed in any country was committed in the Canadian city of Calgary, a brutal, legalized murder. It took twenty minutes to hang the victim, or rather to kill him. This took place in the barracks of the Northwest Mounted Police. The man was hanged and afterwards cut down, but it was found that he was not dead. The suggestion was made that they should hang him again, but the representative there of the mounted police said that that must not be done, it would not be legal. They dragged the man over and laid him beside his coffin, and he lay there for twenty minutes groaning. Why, there is not a member of this House who, if he owned a yellow, mangy, mad dog, would have the animal tortured in the way that poor unfortunate criminal was tortured to his death. The Minister of Trade and Commerce stated also that he believed there were countries that had abolished capital punishment-he could not remember which countries-and had afterwards reinstated it. I can tell the hon. minister he was misinformed. Of the twenty-eight states, countries and places that have abolished capital punishment, not one of them has reinstated it. I challenge the hon. minister or anybody else to contradict me.
My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Car-veil) was also misinformed as to the proportion of murders as between the State of Maine on the one side and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia on the other. He said there were not half as many murders in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as in Maine. My statistics show that there are twice as many. Of course, that was a mistake on the part of the hon. gentleman; he would not make a statement that he did not believe.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Have you the statistics of the State of Maine for the past year?


Robert Bickerdike: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think they would be against you.


Robert Bickerdike: But if my hon. friend will look into the figures given by him and by me last year, I think he will find my figures much better based than his own.
In the discussion on this Bill last year I was well treated-very well treated; I have no fault to find. None of the hon. members called down fire from heaven to burn up my Bill, though I must admit that some of the remarks had an almost sulphurus odour. The hon. member for Edmonton
(Mr. Oliver) was misinformed as to the historical facts in relation to British Columbia which he gave. He said that in that province Judge Begbie warned evil-doers: I am here to administer justice, and if there is a murder there will be a hanging. The hon. gentleman said there was a murder and a hanging followed; and murders stopped. There is where the hon. gentleman is misinformed. There was murder, there were hangings; and murders increased. And murders will go on increasing while the hangman's rope dangles over the heads of the people. My hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Wilson), who, I am sorry to say is not here to-day, drew the colour line at that time. I am sorry for that. The coloured man to whom he referred was hanged-the first man to be hanged in Bor-deau jail, I believe. And he was innocent of the crime for which he was condemned. Let any man who doubts that consult the Roman Catholic chaplain of that jail and he will be given to understand that that man was innocent. I do not say he was a good man; he was a bad man. He was a bad man, a poor man and a black man-and he was hanged.
Some hon. gentlemen tell us that the commahd was ' a life for a life.' There was no such thing as a command in it. And if it were a command, as I have said before, example is better than precept, and what about Cain, Moses, Lamech, Simeon, Levi, David and many others who committed murder, and not one of whom suffered capital punishment?
Now, if the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition would place their ears to the ground, they would learn that there is a demand all over this country for a little more mercy and a little less law. If you cannot go any further, let us agree that there is no reason why a poor man should be punished for a crime more than a rich man. But, if a man is wealthy-especially if he is very wealthy-when charged with crime,, he can be adjudged insane. Or if he has a fair amount of ' pull ' he will get off. Eminent jurists, like my hon. friend, would go to work and find means to get him off. But the poor man has to go. I tell you the poor men of this country will not stand it very much longer. Which Minister of Justice in Canada shall have the immortal honour of abolishing capital punishment in this Dominion? I sincerely hope that it may be our present Minister of Justice (Mr. COMMONS
Doherty). He is a good man; he has been on the Bench and he knows something about these things. If he does not, then one of his successors will. The time has come in Canada when legalized murder should be discontinued. As I have said, two alternatives are open to us: what Moses did, and what the Lord did. Which shall we choose?
I have asked the Government to give this legislation a trial. No harm can be done by making the experiment between the close of one session and the beginning of another. Let us make the experiment, and I venture to say that if we do so we shall never again go back to capital punishment. I will go further and say that if the Government will agree to give this legislation a trial and it is found that I am mistaken, I will resign my seat in this House. This shows how sure I am that if capital punishment is abolished in Canada it will never be reestablished.
I do hope that the Prime Minister will see the necessity of giving this legislation a trial. Let me close by saying that Moses shed the blood of his enemies, while the Lord shed his blood for his enemies.


Mr. F. L. SCHAFFNER (Souris):: Undoubtedly the hon. gentleman has given this question a great deal of thought and research. He made two very strong, if not bold, assertions. If I understood the hon. gentleman aright, he said that capital punishment is a stimulus to murder rather than a deterrent. I should like to know how the hon. gentleman came to that conclusion. One other question. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that if we are going to have capital punishment, the more public the form this punishment takes, the better.


Robert Bickerdike: I did not say that. I said that if you contend that capital punishment is a deterrent, then the more public it is the better.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Looking upon 'deterrent ' as applying personally to the individual concerned, I do not see how capital punishment would be a greater deterrent if the man who committed the murder were punished publicly than if the punishment were administered in private.


Robert Bickerdike: If the hon. gentleman himself believes-and I know he does -that capital punishment is a deterrent, then it should be made as public as possible; hang the por man up where everyone can see him.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: While I do not agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, I do him the credit-and I think every member in this House will do so-for the earnestness and sincerity with which he advocates what he believes to be right.
The question of capital punishment may be considered from several different viewpoints; I am going to deal with it only from one. Considering it from the viewpoint of punishment for a crime committed, I think there are worse things than hanging. If the hon. gentleman argues that the worst thing you can do to a man is to put a rope round his neck and by that means send him into eternity, then I take issue with him. After all, what are the circumstances ? Occasionally a man who has committed the crime of murder pays the penalty by being hanged. Why make a fuss about an occasional hanging ? Why make a fuss about the occasional taking of life in that way ? Men are being murdered by the dozen in a worse way than that in our penitentiaries-the result of the administration, or mal-administra-tion, of justice at the present time. If hanging is a crime, then I submit that worse crimes than that are committed against men. To place a man in a prison and take away from him everything but the breath of life-and that is being done right along, and apparently is being approved right along-is, in my estimation, even worse than actually to take a man's life. The hon. gentleman mentioned the case of a murder committed in the Pacific coast province, in which two men were involved. He says that only one shot was fired, and that, therefore, at least one of these men was wrongfully hanged. While I am not a lawyer, I think that the hon. gentleman is wrong in that respect; these men were both committing an unlawful act, and, consequently, were both responsible. But supposing only one of them had been hanged, and that the other had been mercifully saved and sent, we will say, to Kingston penitentiary. Let us follow the career of the poor unfortunate who goes to Kingston penitentiary. He is confined in a cell, and is allowed to go out for exercise and fresh air. He is not permitted to utter a sound; to speak a word to a guard or to a fellow convict is a misdemeanour. He is probably put on the stone pile, cracking stone month after month and year after year. He is subjected to tauntings and goadings and tor-

turings, and if he rebels against them he is taken to a specially-constructed cell, a hose pressure of 70 pounds is turned on the poor unfortunate wretch, and he is thrown and knocked about in the cell, until, as they say, he gives in. If that treatment sends him >to the hospital, on Sunday he gets three meals, the first at nine o'clock, the next at eleven and the third at one o'clock in the afternoon, and he receives nothing more until between eight and nine o'clock the next morning. Hon. gentlemen may smile at that, but I am stating what is the fact. If the man's health breaks down after that and his treatment in the institution drives him to insanity, as is frequently the case, he is taken to the insane ward, where the last final touches aTe administered. Forty or fifty persons are herded together in one room, the worst cases with the milder ones; the diseased persons with those whose only defect is mental derangement. They are herded together during the day and then sent into their cells, their food is handed to them- and they tear it to pieces with their fingers and teeth like wild animals. If any one of them dares to utter a protest against one of the guards or keepers, the unfortunate wretch is stripped, specially constructed harness is fastened on him, his legs are bound together and his arms fastened to his side and he is dipped into a tub of ice-cold water, being left there until, as they say, he gives in. That is how the insane are treated, or some of them at least. I am stating facts. Under this treatment the men, not merely one or two but dozens, have the life and soul crushed out of them. They become indifferent, they have no hope in this world, and are made incapable of any thought of the next. That, in my judgment, is a worse penalty than hanging.


Robert Bickerdike: If the hon. member makes it much worse, I shall have to ask leave to withdraw my Bill.


John Wesley Edwards: I am stating what 1
know to be facts. I repeat that in my judgment such a condition is far worse than hanging. It is a condition of affairs sanctioned apparently by organized society, and is a disgrace and scandal to this country and to all the men who keep silent in this House while this sort of thing goes on. That is how I feel. I regret that the Minister of Justice has shown an apathy in regard to this matter which to my judgment is not at all to his credit. It was three years ago
that I first directed his attention to the condition of affairs at Kingston penitentiary, and Kingston penitentiary is probably no worse than other penitentiaries in the country. It is high time that this state of affairs was remedied. It reflects little credit on the Department of Justice and on the members of this House to allow this state of affairs to continue. Later in the session I hope to call attention to it more in detail.
I shall not support the Bill of my hon. friend because I believe that in hanging a man you are doing him a kindness by taking him out of Kingston penitentiary.
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM:	I shall not
occupy the House very long, but 1 could not conscientiously let this discussion go by without expressing my opinion in favour of the measure. Since I became a man, I have always been opposed to capital punishment. I have always felt, and have no reason now to change my mind, that by legalizing the taking of the life of a fellowbeing we are making ourselves familiar with fine shedding of blood. I have no comment to make on the remarks of my hon. friend from Frontenac, except this: that a charge of that kinu having been made publicly by a member from his seat in this House, it is the duty of the Government to look into the matter and, if conditions prevail such as have been described, to provide a remedy. Perhaps I may be considered too humane in my views concerning the duty of one man to another. I maintain that we are our brother's keeper, and no law that can be placed on the statute book of Canada or of any other country can relieve us of that obligation to our fellow-beings. Did it ever strike a member of the House who is in favour of capital punishment that he does not hob-nob with the machinery that carries out the death sentence? None of us are ever seen hob-nobbing with the hangman.


Mr BICKERDIKE:: They take him to the club for lunch.


George Perry Graham: Not knowingly. Another thing that strikes me as peculiar in the administration of justice is this, and it shows our inconsistency. A criminal awaiting the death sentence in one of our penitentiaries is perhaps stricken with some disease of which he might die if he were allowed to do so. But no, the. greatest care is taken to keep him alive so that he may be executed a little later on. Now* if the object in the public mind was to rid society of this criminal, why not let him pass away peacefully of his disease? And the more I

study criminal law, the more convinced I am of this: the public is possessed of the idea of revenge upon the man who commits murder, and that is the only reason why his life is kept in him-in order that he may be reserved for the gallows. For if it were only a question of getting rid of the criminal he might just-as well be allowed to die peacefully of his own accord. Two things govern us: first, society should be protected; second, the individual should be punished. I go a litle farther and say that the criminal should be given an opportunity to reform. No man has the right to say to what length of time that opportunity should be extended. Bo we, by hanging a man, protect society? Most certainly we do. Would punishment of another kind protect society just as well? On this point there is a great difference of opinion. I have given some study to the question during the years I have been in public life, and before. I have seen how many countries, one by one, have abolished capital punishment. I am not at all surprised at the figures read by my hon. friend to-day, because I am firmly convinced that capital punishment is no greater deterrent than life imprisonment, and I think the experience of the countries that have done away with hanging fully bears me out in that.
Now, as to the punishment of the individual. I would not go so far as my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) and say that imprisonment is a greater punishment than hanging, but I do believe that imprisonment is as thorough a punishment as hanging. It is only a matter of degree anyway, and only those who have had the experience could give an absolute answer. For the purposes of society, a man is punished just as thoroughly by imprisonment as by hanging, and history shows that criminals consider it just as great a punishment. Some dread it even more than execution.	"
I shall possibly be called a sentimentalist for the remarks I. shall make as to the reclamation of criminals. I know is is much more popular to say, "Away with him; he killed somebody, so he ought to be killed," than to intimate that the criminal might possibly be reclaimed and made a good citizen. I believe that no product of the Creator s handiwork but has some good in him. In most cases the surroundings of an individual in his youth have a great deal to do with his after-life. But, I repeat, I am a firm believer that there is in every man an element of good which can be de-
veloped and fructified if found and properly nurtured.	If	it be true	that	society isprotected	as	thoroughly	by	imprisonment as	by	hanging,	and	that imprisonment is a sufficient punishment, you do not by imprisonment deprive the individual	of	the opportunity	of being
reclaimed and made what the Creator intended he should be made, in a measure at least-a respectable man, before he is called to pass from this life. By capital punishment we say: "You must die on a certain day, and, in the words of the judge, may the. Lord have mercy on your isoul." We undertake, as a human agency, to give a man so many days to get ready for heaven, and if he cannot then he takes the consequences. We have no right to take that position, and I do not think we protect society any more by doing it. I do not believe that we punish the individual any more, and we do take from him every opportunity that he would otherwise have, perhaps during the long years of imprisonment, of becoming a man again and of making himself right in so far as possible with his fellow men in this world and with his Creator in the eternity that is before him.
I go as far as my hon. friend goes in saying that I do not believe that any human being under any guise of law, under any statute that he may invoke, has the right to step in and assume the prerogative of the Creator himself and take life, with the giving of which he has had nothing to do. This may be a sentiment, but it is a sentiment I strongly entertain. I entertain it conscientiously, and so long as I am in this House I shall vote for the abolition of capital punishment, because I believe it is wrong and affords no protection to society.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond, N.S.):: I was not present when this Bill was- discussed on a former occasion, but the grounds I take for opposing the Bill are as sincere as the sentiments that have prompted the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike), to propose this legislation. It speaks well for his humanity and his philanthropic disposition that he should present this legislation to the House. His description of execution by form of law as being legalized murder has its counterpart in another obligation which rests upon the Government in respect to the raising of revenue for carrying on the affairs of the country. I have heard in days past a certain form of taxation described as being legalized robbery, in the same way as the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal,

describes executions under forms of law as being legalized murder. If we go to Great Britain for a precedent in this respect, what do we find? We find that fifty years ago they abolished that form of legalized robbery, but that up to the present time they have adhered to this form of legalized murder. I think we may fairly go to the mother country for our precedent and guidance in this particular. My hon. friend has quoted figures calculated to show that in certain states of the American Union where capital punishment, has been abolished, the number of charges of homicide has very considerably decreased. But I have listened to temperance orators describing the advantages of total prohibition in certain of these states, and they have attributed the extraordinary decrease of crime within these states to the existence of total prohibition. Michigan and Wisconsin axe two of the states which my hon. friend has referred to as being examples of those where crime has decreased by reason of capital punishment having been abolished. I think that Michigan and Wisconsin are also states that are enjoying the advantages of a prohibitory law, and the advocates of prohibition lose no opportunity of attributing the decrease in these forms of crime to temperance legislation. My hon. friend also refers to several countries in Europe where capital punishment has been abolished. I remember that on more than one occasion during the last three years the hon. gentleman having charge of the administration of justice in this Government has felt himself called upon to propose legislation in this House calculated to reduce the number of crimes committed particularly in the city of Montreal by reason of the privileges hitherto enjoyed by certain citizens there in respect to the carrying of concealed weapons. How is it that the crimes of murder, manslaughter and the various forms of homicide which this legislation was designed to suppress were committed largely by the subjects of those countries in Europe that have abolished capital punishment?


Robert Bickerdike: They do not commit them where there is no capital punishment but they come here and commit them.


George William Kyte: It does not indicate that the abolition of capital punishment in these countries has had a very salutary effect upon the character of their subjects. I might say, in regard to the criminal statistics in Nova Scotia, that it is quite true
that in the last ten years crimes have increased in the province. But who committed them? They are committed by subjects of those countries in Europe where capital punishment has been abolished. I respect the humane instincts of the people of the United States who have been led to adopt the reform which my hon. friend from St. Lawrence, Montreal, is endeavouring ,to bring about, but we do know that crime and sentimentality are inextricably interwoven in certain parts of that country. There is a certain degree of sentimentality in respect to these things that is not at all creditable to those indulging in it. We hear of cases where men who have committed the most degrading crimes are, while awaiting sentence of the court, the subjects of the most touching marks of favour and sentiment. We do know that criminals who have been convicted of the most revolting crimes, while awaiting in prison the period of execution, have been visited by respectable people who have bestowed upon these criminals presents and testimonials of a character which do not suggest that these people are actuated by purposes or motives' altogether calculated to put an end to these grave offences. There are certain forms of sentimentality which have been manifested that it is not well that we should copy in this country. We know that in the United States they have a record for defences on behalf of those who are charged with these grave crimes. It has been given to the legal profession of the United States to create the brain-storm defence and the defence of the higher law when their clients are charged with offences which are most revolting and which ought to be punished in the severest manner.
If we desire to take our example from any country it should be taken from the mother country which has a record for humanity and philanthropy not excelled by that of any country in the world. There they exercise the right to enforce capital punishment, but capital punishment is limited to three offences only, and as a matter of fact it is only meted out in respect to one, that is murder. With respect to manslaughter and other forms of homicide capital punishment is not inflicted. I think the humanity of the British people ought not to be challenged or inhumanity attributed to them because throughout the ages for the highest good they have 'adhered to capital punishment in respect to that offence. It is quite

true that in days gone by capital punishment was inflicted in England in respect of many offences which to-day appear to- us trivial, but the fact that they have eliminated capital punishment for all other crimes except murder goes to show that the criminal law has been developed in the direction of the widest sympathy for erring humanity, and the reasons that they adhere to capital punishment in the administration of the criminal law of England, as respects murder, ought to be sufficient for us to follow the examples which have guided us for so many years. We may, therefore, be pardoned if we fail to accept the reasoning or the sentiment applied to the question by my hon. friend.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I appreciate, in common with the other members who have listened to the hon. member (Mr. Bicker-dike), the earnestness and sincerity with which he has presented his views, even if we do not concur in all the conclusions he has reached after his consideration of the subject. All the members of the House are impressed with the very great importance of this question. I do not purpose debating the matter this afternoon, because it is desirable that the Minister of Justice should speak on this motion before the debate is concluded. Before moving the adjournment of the debate, I would like to say to my hon. friend that we shall see that an opportunity shall be afforded him of having the debate continued.
With regard to the observations of my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), I may say that I remember that an investigation was held into the condition in the Kingston penitentiary, and that the report of that commission, after careful investigation disclosed that certain abuses prevailed. I would be surprised if the abuses to which my hon. friend has alluded have been allowed to continue in Kingston penitentiary since, and I would also be surprised to learn that they exist in all the penitentiaries in Canada. However, that is a matter as to which I have no personal knowledge. It is a subject peculiarly within the knowledge of the Minister of Justice, who unfortunately cannot be here to-day. For that reason also it is highly desirable that the debate should be adjourned, in order that the attention of the Minister of Justice may be directed to the observations of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). As to the insane who have been

confined in penitentiaries, I understand that negotiations have been going on for some time past, between the Minister of Justice and the various provincial authorities, with the view to an arrangement by which insane prisoners should be transferred to asylums under the control and jurisdiction of the provincial authorities. Although the information comes to my knowledge indirectly in the absence of the Minister of Justice, I understand that arrangements have been consummated with all u.ie provinces of Canada except one, and from that province there are only two insane persons confined in the penitentiary, as to whom a suitable arrangement will be made. However, I am not in a position to give the House this afternoon a full explanation which will be afforded by the Minister of Justice iater on. I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions to be answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]

Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	With what persons, firms or corporations has the Department of Agriculture, or any other department of the Government of Canada, contracted for hay for the British Government, since the first day of August last past?
2.	How much hay has been delivered by each of the said persons, firms or corporations since that date, and the places of delivery thereof?
3.	What price, or prices, was paid to each of the said persons, firms or corporations for the hay when delivered to the Government, and the several ports or points of delivery?
4.	Into how many cubic feet per ton was the said hay to be compressed, and what was to be the size and weight of each of the said bales?
5.	Has the Government, or any department thereof, paid any such persons, firms or corporations, for the compressing of the said hay, the actual article having been furnished by the Government, or a department thereof? If so, what persons, firms or corporations did the compressing, and what price per ton were they paid for so doing?


Robert Laird Borden: I would ask that this question stand as a notice of motion for a return. There is some question as to the extent to which it should be answered in view of the precedent which was laid down some years ago, and there are other considerations which I shall be glad to mention to the House when the motion comes up at a later date.
Question to stand as notice of motion for a return.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-RIVER DU LOUP SHOPS.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	How many persons were employed at the River du Loup car shops of the Intercolonial railway, in the locomotive sheds and in the repairs establishment, respectively, from September, 1911, to 1st January, 1915?
2.	How many of such persons were discharged, dismissed or suspended during the said period of time?
3.	How many of such persons willingly accepted superannuation, and. how many demurred when superannuated?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Car or repair shop, 38; locomotive sheds, 114.
2.	Car or repair shop, 3; locomotive shed,
11.
3.	8 willingly accepted. Two demurred, but were superannuated on account of their age and disability.


MR. F. P. GUTELIUS.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: *
1.	Has the Department of Railways and Canals, the minister, or the Government any information regarding the nationality of Mr. F. P. Gutelius, general manager of Government railways? If so, what is his nationality? If not, will such information he obtained?
2.	Has the said F. P. Gutelius sent in his resignation, or has notice been sent him to this effect? w


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	British subject.
2.	No.


BAGOT COUNTY1 POSTAL SERVICE.
Mr. MARCILE:: 1.	Has the post office at Royville, county of Bagot, been permanently closed? If so, for what reason?
2.	Have the citizens of the said post office district protested against its closing and will said post office be re-opened?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Yes, the Royville Post Office has been closed, the establishment of rural mail delivery in the district having rendered its further maintenance unnecessary.
2.	No protest has been received.


Mr. MARCILE:: 1.	Has the Moose River post office, county of Bagot, been permanently closed? If so, for what reason?
2.	Who recommended the closing of said post office?
3.	Does the Postmaster General know that the closing of said post office is said to be detrimental to the inhabitants of this district?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	The Moose River Post Office has been closed owing to the establishment of rural
mail delivery in the district, which rendered the Post Office unnecessary.
2 and 3. The Post Office inspector reported that the closing of this office would not inconvenience any of the patrons, as all would come within the scope of rural delivery.


Mr. MARCILE:: 1.	Has a rural mail service been established in the parish of Ste. Christine, county of Bagot If so, when?
2.	Were tenders called for said service? If so, what are the names of the tenderers, and the amount of each tender?
3.	Who obtained the contract and was he the lowest tenderer?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Yes, on the 20th January, 1915.
2 and 3. Tenders were invited. Only one tender was received, ' that of Barthelemi Bisaillon at $800 per annum. This tender was considered too high and Mr. Bisaillon agreed to reduce the amount to $775 which was accepted.


Mr. MARCILE:: 1.	Has the post office of the village of Emile-ville, county of Bagot, been permanently closed? If so, for what reason?
2.	Was a petition received by the Postmaster General requesting that said post office be maintained? If so, is it the intention of the Postmaster General to authorize its re-opening?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	No, the Emileville Post Office has not been closed.
2.	No petition has been received.


Mr. MARCILE:: 1.	Has the Britannia Mills post office, county of Bagot, been permanently closed? If so, for what reason?
2.	Has a petition, signed by a large number of citizens requesting the maintenance of said post office been received by the Postmaster General? If so, is it the intention of the Postmaster General to accede to the said petitioner's request?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	No. Britannia Mills Post Office has not been closed.
2.	A petition asking for the maintenance of this Post Office was received at the Department and steps have been taken to have further inquiry made before a decision is given.


PROPOSED WAR PENSIONS.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	In case of death of a member of the Canadian overseas contingent, what consideration is received by his dependents?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government at this session to provide by legislation or otherwise, for pensions for disabled members of

Canadian overseas contingents or to the dependents of deceased members of such contingents?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	There are regulations in force at present governing the consideration that is to be received by way of pension. A revision of those regulations has been under consideration for some weeks past, and 1 anticipate that a final conclusion will be reached at a very early date.
2.	I am advised by the Minister of Justice that it will not be necessary to pass any additional legislation.


SOUTHAMPTON RAILWAY INVESTIGATION.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	What is the total amount paid to date re Southampton railway investigation?
2.	According to the claims filed, what amounts are still demanded?
3.	How much has been paid respectively to each of the following persons, viz :-E. J. Walsh, A. J. Milden, James K. Pender, David W. Brown and Titus J. Carter?
4.	What amounts claimed by each of the above persons still remain unpaid?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	$8,482.02.
2.	None.
3.	E. J. Walsh, C.E., $2,029.55; A. J. Mil-den, C.E., $840.70; Jas. K. Pender, paid nothing by the department; David W. Brown, paid nothing by the department; T. J. Carter, K.C., $941.85.
4.	None.


Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	With reference to paragraph 14 of the findings of R. A. Pringle, a commissioner for investigating certain charges re the Southampton Railway Company, has the Government or any department thereof taken any steps to recover the sum of $34,607.50 which amount was found to have been overpaid to the said company ?
2.	Has the Government commenced criminal proceedings against James K. Pender or David W. Brown in connection therewith?
, 3. If not, is it their intention so to do?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	The Department of Justice has the case under consideration, with instructions to proceed for the recovery of any moneys which the Government is entitled to recover.
2.	No.
3.	This matter is also under consideration by the Department of Justice.


THE VALLEY RAILWAY.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Under the present agreement for the operation of the Valley railway, so called, between Fredericton and Centreville, in the proviMr. Oliver.]
ince of New Brunswick, what proportion of the gross receipts are retained by the Intercolonial railway?
2.	To whom is the balance of the said gross receipts to be paid?
3.	In ease of a loss in the operation of the said railway, what portion thereof is borne by the Intercolonial railway?
4.	In such case, who bears the balance of said loss?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	None.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Fifty per cent.
4.	Province of New Brunswick.


RIVER JOHN CUSTOMS SUB-COLLECTORSHIP.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has any appointment been made to the position of subcollector of customs at River John, Pictou county, vacant by the death of Mr. Henry?
2.	Does the Government intend to maintain
said office?	,
3.	If so, when do they intend to make an appointment?


Mr. REID:: 1.	No permanent appointment has been made to this position.
2.	Yes.
3.	The position of sub-collector will be filled ere long. The duties of the position are now attended to temporarily by an officer from the customs house, Pictou.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-OXFORD JUNCTION-NEW GLASGOW BRANCH.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Why was one of the regular trains taken off the short line between Oxford Junction and New Glasgow on February 8?
2.	Has the department received any representations to objections to same?
3.	Does the department intend to put on said train again? If so, when?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No schedule train was taken off the short line between Oxford Junction and New Glasgow. The way freight was taken off and its work is now being done by the regular mixed train.
2.	No.
3.	Way freight or extra freight trains will be run as business requires.


AVRENTHAM, ALTA., POST OFFICE.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Was a post office established at Wrentham, Alberta?
2.	Is it still in existence?
3.	If not, for what reason was it closed?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: A post office has not yet been opened at Wrentham, and therefore the office has not been closed. Complaints were made against the person nominated as postmaster; but on inquiry no evidence was adduced to sustain the charge, and shortly afterwards he left the locality. Another nomination has been made, and the office will be opened immediately.


LETHBRIDGE POSTMASTER.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Who is the postmaster at Lethbridge, Alberta?
2.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
3.	What is his salary?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Mr. Alvin Ripley.
2.	On recommendation of Mr. W. S. Ball, president of the Conservative Association, Lethbridge.
3.	$2,200 per annum.


IMPORTATION OF OIL FOR FUEL.
Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: 1.	How many tons of oil for fuel has been imported into Canada from April 1 to December 31, 1914, and what was the value of the same?
2.	Has any duty been paid on such importations?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Imports entered for consumption in Canada of petroleum, crude, fuel and gas oils, -8235 specific gravity or heavier at 60 degrees temperature, amounted to 149,419,923 gallons, valued at $4,217,336; under provisions of tariff item 267.
2.	No duty was collected on the above.


PICTOU ISLAND TO MAINLAND PROPOSED TELEPHONE LINE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works or Marine and Fisheries received any requests for the construction of a telephone line between Pictou Island and the mainland?
2.	What action is proposed to be taken in regard to the same?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The matter is under consideration.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	What was the total receipts of the Intercolonial railway from April 1, 1914, to December 31, 1914?
2.	What was the total expenditure on the Intercolonial railway in the same period?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	$8,913,100.11, exclusive of free shipments for Belgian relief, amounting to $44,600.
2.	$8,859,950.80.


FORT ERIE SHOOTING CASE.
Charles Murphy: ^
1.	Has the Government retained counsel to defend Corporal Archie Kaye and Privates Leslie Kinsman and Edmund Macintosh, now awaiting trial for the shooting of the American duck-hunters, Smith and Dorsch, at or near Fort Erie on the 28th of December last?
2.	Will the Government also provide counsel for the defence of Constable Thomas Delaney who was committed for trial with the three militiamen on the same charge? If not, why not?


Robert Laird Borden: The answer to the both questions is in the negative.


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Has the Government paid, or agreed to pay, any sum to the legal representatives of Walter Smith, who was killed, and to Charles Dorsch who was wounded by three militiamen, at or near Fort Erie, on the 28th of December last?
2.	If so, what are the terms of the statement?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Government have paid $10,000 to the mother of Walter Smith, and $5,000 to Charles Dorsch as an act of grace for the shooting which occurred at Fort Erie on the 28th December, 1914. The sum of $2,250 has been paid for legal and other expenses incurred by the parties.


CANADIAN PATRIOTIC FUND.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the persons employed to administer and distribute the Canadian Patriotic Fund?
2.	What salary is paid to each?
3.	What was the total amount paid for salaries and expenses up to February X, 1915?


Robert Laird Borden: The Government has no information on this subject; but it can easily be procured by application to the Association. The Association carries on its work under chapter 8 of the Statutes passed at the last session of Parliament, by which His Royal Highness the Governor General, the Lieutenant Governors of each of the provinces, the Prime Minister, and the leader of the Opposition of the Parliament of Canada, the Prime Ministers of the several provinces, and a number of other gentlemen were constituted into a body corporate under the name of

the Canadian Patriotic Fund. The objects of the corporation and the purposes for which it was formed have been fully set forth in the Act alluded to.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Delisle: For a return showing how many persons of German nationality are employed in-the several departments of the Federal Government, in what official capacity they are employed and the salaries they receive respectively.
Mr. McCraney: For a return showing how many applications for seed grain have been received from residents of the three Prairie provinces since June, 1914; how many bushels of grain were included in the applications; how many acres of land were to be seeded by the grain applied for; how many bushels of wheat, oats and barley, respectively, the Government has on hand with which to meet the applications ; if arrangements have been made under which the several provincial governments will assist in meeting the needs of the settlers for seed grain.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Monday, February 15, 1915.