1915-02-18

PRIVATE BILLS INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 41, respecting The Athabaska Northern Railway Company-Mr. R. B. Bennett.
Bill No. 42, respecting The Canada Pre-N ferrcd Insurance Company-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 43, respecting The Huron and Erie Loan and Savings Company, and to change its name to " The Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation Mr. Marshall.
Bill No. 44, respecting certain patents of The Lohmann Company-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 45, respecting The Vancouver Life Insurance Company-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 46, respecting The Western Dominion Railway Company-Mr. R. B. Bennett.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the year ended March 31, 1914.-Sir Robert Borden.
Detailed statement of all bonds or securities registered in the Department of the Secretary of State of Canada since last return (21st January, 1914)-Hon. L. Coderre.
Annual return under Chapter 125, R.S.C., 1906, intituled An Act respecting Trade Unions-Hon. L. Coderre.

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. VERV1LLE:
1.	Was there a fair wage clause attached to the contract for the erection of the Grenadier Guard armoury building at Montreal?
2.	Was there any representation made to the Government in that respect? If so, by whom?
3.	What action, if any, has the Government taken1 in that respect?
4.	Was there a fair wage clause attached tp any or all the contracts at Valcartier and Petawawa?
5.	Has any representation been made to the Government? If so, what action was taken?
6.	Has there been any fair wage clause attached to the contract for the supply of clothing, boots or other supplies given by the Government for the soldiers now gone or to go to Great Britain, or was there any representation made to that effect?
7.	What is the intention of the Government in that respect?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	No.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) To the Department of Labour by J. Poulin, Secretary- of the Montreal Branch of the Journeymen Stone Cutters' Association of North America.
3.	The plans and specification for this drill hall were prepared by local architects, employed by the officers of the regiment. Tenders were invited by the local architects, and contracts were prepared by them, on their form, and on plans and specifications approved by the officers of the regiment, and then returned to the department, duly signed, in order to ensure the payment of the Government grant after an Order, in Council authorizing the tenders had been passed.
4 and 5. A fair wage clause was attached to the contract governing the work on the rifle range and camp construction works at Valcartier camp. A fair wage clause was also attached to the contract governing the work of construction of buildings at Petawawa camp.
6 and 7. The printed forms of tender and of contracts for military stores, clothing and necessaries, used by the department, contain a fair wage clause; and much of the material purchased for the expeditionary forces was supplied under contracts containing this clause. In some cases, however, owing to the great pressure of work, and in order to save time, the printed forms were dispensed with. In such cases, the contract was not subject to the fair wage clause. These exceptions were the result

of the unusual circumstances, and were not due to any change of policy.

*Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	With what persons, corporations or firms has the Government, or any member, official or department thereof, contracted for the compressing of hay for military purposes in the province of New Brunswick?
2.	What amounts have been contracted for with each such person?
3.	Where is the said hay to be delivered?
4.	What prices are to be paid each such person, firm or corporation at such point or ue-livery?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I am informed by the Department of Militia and Defence that the Government of Canada has not purchased any hay for military purposes in the province of New Brunswick. If the question refers to purchases by the British Government, the hon. gentleman might recall the question and put it in more distinct form.


LEASES OP OIL AND GAS RIGHTS.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Has the Government decided to extend the time within which the lessees of oil and gas rights would have to commence operations?
2.	If so, for how long, and from what date does the extension apply?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	For one year from the 12th of November, 1914. An Order in Council was passed, and every publicity given to the extension through the press and otherwise.


OTTAWA AND HULL TOWN PLANNING COMMISSION.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the Ottawa and Hull Town Planning Commission?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the engineers and other persons employed by the commission, and what salary is paid to each?
3.	What was the total amount expended by, or on account of, the said commission up to February 1, 1915?
4.	Has the commission made a report to the Government?
5.	If so, will the report be submitted to Parliament, and when?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: 1.	Sir Herbert S. Holt, chairman; Sir
Alexander Lacoste, Frank Darling, R. Home Smith, Mayor of Ottawa, Mayor of Hull.	'
2.	E. H. Bennett, consultant on city plan, professional fee, $15,000 (for complete report), of which $10,000 has been paid, together with all office and travelling expenses; E. L. Cousins, consulting engineer, salary, $2,000 per annum, together with travelling expenses; A. E. K. Bunnell, assistant engineer, Ottawa, salary, $200 per month; N. W. Birkett, acting secretary, Ottawa, salary, $75 per month. Previous to the first of the year the staff in the Ottawa office was larger and averaged about ten men.
3.	Total appropriation, $63,000; total expenditure from December, 1913, to February 1, 1915, $57,039.44. Balance, $5,960.56.
4 and 5. The report of the commission is almost completed, and will, it is expected, be ready for presentation to Parliament before the close of the present session.


HYMAN BENJAMIN.
Mr. CARROLL:: Is Hyman Benjamin, of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, employed by the Militia Department or by any other department of the Government? If so, what are his duties, and what is his salary?


Mr. CODERRE:: Not in the employ of the * Government.


EDGAR KELLY.
Mr. CARROLL:: 1.	Is Edgar Kelly, of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, employed by the Militia Department, or by any other department of the Government?
2.	If so, what are his duties, and what is his salary?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


LEVIS QURANTINE STATION.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	What was the cost of labour on the buildings of the LSvis quarantine station up to January 1, 1915?
2.	How many buildings were erected at said station, and what is the cost and the purpose of each such buildings?
3.	Were tenders called and received for the construction of such buildings? If so, what is the name of each tenderer, and what was the amount stated in each tender?
4.	In connection with the contracts of such building operations were any extras allowed? If so, for what amounts and to whom were such amounts paid?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	$9,283.83.
2.	Three dwelling houses, for certain employees to live in; one office.
The three dwelling houses and one office were contracted for at a lump sum of $21,255, plus extras amounting to $1,605.90. The architect's charges amounted to $917.40.
18 cattle sheds. These sheds were composed of buildings at the old quarantine station, which were taken down and rebuilt at the new station by a staff of labourers



working under the supervision of our superintendent at the Ldvis Quarantine Station. They were built for the accommodation of import stock. The cost of taking down and rebuilding these cattle sheds amounted to $9,283.83.
3.	Tenders were called for the construction of three dwelling houses and a small office at the new cattle quarantine at Levis. Only one tender was received, and that from Messrs. Lagueux & Veilleux, of Levis, P.Q., for the sum of $21,255.
4.	The following amounts were allowed for extras: To Messrs. Lagueux & Veilleux, $1,480.90; to Beal Giguere (for wiring the office and one house with electricity) $125.


ALBERTA RELIEF DISTRIBUTION.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Who were the parties appointed by the Government to direct the distribution of relief in the drouth affected districts of Alberta?
2.	What was the remuneration paid in each case?


Mr. ROCHE:: Lethbridge Land District.
Name.	Address. Salary per month.
Boyd, Hugh, Lethbridge	$150
Stuart, G., Lethbridge	 75
Ingram, C. E., Sundial	 25
Patton, W. F., Coutts	 25
Salvage, Wm, Grassy Lake	 25
Peterson, Louis, New Dayton .. .. 25
Burr, C., Kippenville	 25
Ringwood, R. H., Foremost	 25
Mantle, Isaac, Milk River	 25
Benningfield, A. E., Barhill	 25
McLellan, J. J., Purple Springs .... 25
Karren, C. H., Magrath	 25
Maxwell, W. J., Burdett	 25
Thomas, F. S., Retlaw	 25
Hunt, W. J., Iron Springs	 25
Wride, Geo. T., Raymond	 25
Russell, Wm., Taber	 25
Couper, Geo. V. Brunetta	 25
Hilliard, R. H., Macleod	 25
Medicine Hat Land District. Brown, H. H., Medicine Hat .. .. $150
Power, Geo., Medicine Hat	 75
Brown, Geo. T., Medicine Hat .. .. 60
Oard, Jas. S., Medicine Hat	 60
Bentley, W. D., Cyan	 50
Jackson, Annie, Medicine Hat .... 50 McPherson, P. G., Medicine Hat .. 50
Drummond, A. J., Carlstadt	 50
Cotton, W. P., Bow Island	 40
McKetrick, C. W., Brooks	 25
Bond, W. A., Jenner	 25
Posey, A. L., Seven Persons	 25
Reid, J. S., Suffield	 25
Carson, J. H., Whitla	 25

Parker, G. W., Winnifred	$25
Crews, F. J., Irvine	 25
Cruickshanks, W. A., Foremost .... 25
Edwards, E. H., Faith	 25
Rogers, M. J., Minda	 25
Cussack, Jno., Empress	 25
Purves, Geo., McNally's P.0	 25
Jonah, Gordon, Youngstown	 25
Cooper, W. W., Youngstown	 25
Johnson, H. S., Bassano	 25
Stone, E. L., Redeliff	 25
Campbell, David, Ryremore	 25


FENIAN RAID BOUNTY ACT.
Mr. MACDONALD:: Is it the intention of the Government to introduce legislation at this session to extend the provisions of the Fenian Raid Bounty Act so as to provide for the payment of the bounty to the widows or personal representatives of those veterans who died previous to April, 1912?


Robert Laird Borden: The necessary
announcement in regard to this inquiry will be given to the House in due course.



FIRST CANADIAN CONTINGENT- SUPPLY OF CARTRIDGES.

["But Bills of this character, which require very careful and special consideration, such as this Bill and the one already introduced by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), could I suppose be referred by the Committee on Railways to a smaller sub-committee, and in that way the same advantage could be obtained as if the Bill was referred to a small committee in the first instance. I have a distinct prejudice in 19i\nfav.our of small committees in this House, and perhaps it would have been better to' have referred both these Bills to a small committee, but I deferred to the proposal that it be referred to the large Committee on Railways, with a view that such a course might eventually be adopted if it commended itself to the members of the railway committee. I am speaking in the absence of the Minister of Railways and Canals, but I know it was his intention to move that the Bill should be referred to the committee after having passed its second reading."]
Robert Laird Borden: I am informed by the Department of Militia and Defence that the answer to the first question is in the affirmative and that the answer to the third question is that no cartridges were discarded by the British military authorities. It is not desirable in the public interest that any answer should be given to the second question.



Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	How many settlers from the western provinces left Canada for the United States during the year 1914?
2.	What is the number in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia respectively?


William Roche: No statistics are collected by the Canadian Government of persons leaving Canada for the United States.


CHAPLAIN TO OVERSEAS FORCES.
Mr. LAW:: '
1.	Was Rev. E. E. Graham, of Arcadia, N.S., recommended for appointment as chaplain in the first or second Canadian expeditionary forces?

2.	If so, by whom was he recommended?
3.	Has he received his appointment, and when?
4.	If not appointed, why not?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	Yes.
2.	By many estimable gentlemen.
3.	He has not an appointment.
4.	There are already upwards of five thousand applicants for positions of chaplains. There are twenty-two chaplains now in England, besides only eleven permitted to accompany the force to the continent. Permission has not yet been obtained for the sending of further chaplains.


TORONTO HOME GUARD.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	Were rifles supplied by the Government to the Home Guard of Toronto?
2.	If so, under what terms and conditions?
3.	Is it the intention to supply all home guards with rifles?
Major-General HUGHES:
1 and 2. No rifles were supplied.
3.	No. Rifles firing service ammunition are reserved exclusively for militia.


SUSPENSION OP IMMIGRATION OFFICERS.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Were Chas. C. Genik, Robert Adamson, M. Mitchell, John Beckett, J. M. Boyd, and - Johnson dismissed from the staff of the Immigration Hall at Winnipeg in the fall of 1914?
2.	How many years service had been performed by each of the men so dismissed?
3.	What was the reason for the dismissal in each case and under whose direction was it made?
4.	Was Baron Von Amorengen appointed to a position in the immigration offices at Winnipeg after the said dismissals?
5.	What experience had he to qualify him for the position to which he was appointed?


William Roche: I,	2 and 3. On September 17, 1914, it appeared unnecessary, on account of decreased immigration, to have entire staff at Winnipeg under pay and consequently the following officers were suspended indefinitely :
Charles C. Genik, 17 years in service; Robert Adamson, 13 years in service, reinstated December, 1914; M. Mitchell, 5 years in service, given other work during December, 1914, reinstated January, 1915; John Beckett, 5 years in service, reinstated January, 1915; J. M. Boyd, 3 years in service.
With reference to - Johnson, if question refers to Arthur Johnson, this party is employed in Grain Exhibit Warehouse at Winnipeg under the direction of 161
the Commissioner of Immigration whose accounts show that Johnston was not at work between September 13, 1914, and October 15, 1914.
4 and 5. The Commissioner of Immigration at Winnipeg reported the necessity of engaging some person of suitable experience and education to conduct foreign correspondence and mentioned Baron Amorengen as one who would no doubt fill the requirements of the position. Baron Amorengen was accordingly appointed and entered on his duties November 2, 1914.


FOREIGN TRAWLERS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Have the provisions of chapter 14 of the Act of 1913 been enforced as against foreign trawlers who make Canadian ports a base for their fishing operations?
2.	If not, why not?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


VILLAGE OF RIBSTONE.
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	Has patent been issued for that portion of the northwest i of section 17, township 43, range 2, west of the 4th meridian on which the village of Ribstone is situated?
2.	If not, what is the cause of delay?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Yes, and was sent to the Registrar at Edmonton by whom it was returned, as the land was described therein as shown upon a certain plan of survey attached thereto instead of by metes and bounds. Such patent has in consequence been cancelled and steps are now being taken to issue a new patent in lieu thereof, describing the land by metes and bounds.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


OIL LEASE TO GEORGE McRAE.
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	In whose name does oil lease comprising east half of sections 21, 28, 33, and west half of sections 22, 27, 34, township 73, range 24, west 4th stand?
2.	What date was the claim filed on and by whom?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	In the name of George McRae.
2.	Location was staked on the 22nd of November, 1913, by George McRae. Personal application for a lease was made to the Recorder at Edmonton on the 28th of November, 1913, by George McRae.

MAIL ROUTE! FROM KIDLAM, ALTA.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	Has rural mail route No. 1, starting from Killam, Alberta, and running south and east, been put in operation?
2.	If so, when? If not, why not?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	No.
2.	Inquiry into the matter has just been completed and tenders for proposed route will be invited at once.


PRINCE OF WALES FUND.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has a loan of five million dollars been made to the Dominion Government by the controllers of the Prince of Wales Fund in England ?.
2.	If so, at what rate and on what terms?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: 
WAR SUPPLIES-BOOTS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	How many ankle boots were purchased from each firm which supplied the first contingent?
2.	How many canvas shoes?
3.	How many slippers?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	Ames, Holden, McCready, Ltd., 20,000; Tetrault Shoe Mfg. Co., 20,000; Louis Gauthier Co., Ltd., 10,000; Hartt Boot and Shoe Co., 6,000; John Macpherson Co., 6,000; Amherst Boot and Shoe Co., 2,000; Slater Shoe Co., 1,000.
2.	Louis Gauthier Co., 17,000; Ames, Holden, McCready, Ltd., 16,500; Tetrault Shoe Co., 16,500.
3.	Ames, Holden, McCready, Ltd., 600.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Have any purchases of boots been made from any of the following firms for the first expeditionary force, namely: Coolr-Fitzgerald Company, London, Ont.; Western Shoe Company, Berlin, Ont.; Valentine & Martin Company, Waterloo, Ont., and Relindo Shoe Cam-pa ny, Toronto, Ont.?
2.	What is the quantity of boots purchased from each of the above'firms and the price per pair?
Major-General HUGHES:
' 1. No.
2.	Answered by 1.


IRON ORE IMPORTS.
William F. Carroll: What was the number of tons of iron ore imported into Canada in the calendar years 1914 and 1913 from the colony of Newfoundland?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1913, 869,669 tons; 1914, 389,850 tons.


ANTHRACITE COAL IMPORTS.
William F. Carroll: What was the total quantity of anthracite coal imported into Canada in the calendar years 1914 and 1913?


John Dowsley Reid: 1913, 4,642,057 tons;
1914, 4,435,010 tons.


SQUID IMPORTS.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	What was the total value of squid imported into Canada during the calendar years ending December 31, 1912, 1913 and 1914, respectively?
2.	What was the amount of duty collected on same in each of said years?
3.	At what ports in Canada was said squid entered and what was the amount of duty collected at each of such ports?


John Dowsley Reid: Squid is not separately enumerated in the customs classification of imports, and therefore no information as to value of imports, duty collected thereon or ports of entry is available from the statistical records.


PICTOU COUNTY POSTAL SERVICE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	How many rural mail routes have been established in Pictou county, and what are the names of such routes?
2.	How many post offices have been closed in said county, and what are the names of the same, since January 1, 1912?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	19. Beaver Bank No. 1, Eureka No. 1, Glengarry Station No. 1, Glengarry Station No. 2, Hopewell No. I, Hopewell No. 2, Meadowville Station No. 1, Merigonish No. 1, New Glasgow No. 1, New Glasgow No. 2, New Glasgow No. 3, Pictou No. I. River John No. 1 (authorized but not yet in operation) River John No. 2, Salt Springs No. 1, Scotsburn Station No. 1, Stellarton No. 1, West Branch River John No. 1 (in part), West River Station No. 1.
2.	Twenty-four post offices have been closed in Pictou county, N.S., from January 1, 1912, to February 15, 1915, viz: Abercrombie, Burnside, Churchville, Concord, Elgin, Granton, Heathbell, Iron Rock, Island East River, Lome, Lome Station, Lower Barneys River, Marshdale, Minto, Mount William, Murrayfield, Ponds, Rock-

lin, Royal Centre, St. Paul's, Scotsburn, Stillman, Union Centre, White Hill.


Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who were the tenderers for the mail contract from Barneys River Station to Barneys River, Pictou county, for which tenders closed on January 8, and what was the amount of each tender?
2.	Has the contract been awarded?
3.	If so, to whom and at what price?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1, 2 and 3. The contract has been awarded to the lowest tenderer. As the contract has not yet been executed, it is not considered advisable to furnish the names of the tenderers and amounts until this has been done. This information will be given later.


TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
William John Macdonald: Does the Government intend to introduce at this session any legislation to carry into effect the recommendation of Commission upon technical education?


Robert Laird Borden: The information in regard to this will be given in due course.


INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT.
William John Macdonald: Does the Government intend to introduce this session the amendments to the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, asked for by the Deputation from the Trades and Labour Council in January last?


Robert Laird Borden: Any information necessary in regard to this matter will be given in due course.


THE VALE RAILWAY.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has any agreement been arrived at between the Department of Railways and the Acadia Coal Company as to taking over the railway from New Glasgow to Thoburn, in the county of Pictou, known as the Vale Railway?
2.	If so, what was the price agreed upon?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Has the Minister of Public Works been able to reserve space in the new public buildings in Ottawa to enable the Royal Society of Canada to hold its meetings therein, and for its library?


Mr. ROGERS:: No space has been reserved as yet, but the society is now using a portion of the library at the Royal Victoria Museum building for their library.
Icl. Ry.-ENLISTMENT OP EMPLOYEES.


Mr. COPP:: -
1.	Was the following notice posted in the General Offices and shops of the Intercolonial Railway at Moncton, county of Westmorland, on or about the day of the date of said notice:
"Canadian Government Railways.
Office of General Manager,
Moncton, N.B., Oct. 30, 1914,
Circular No. 16.
To Officers and Employees:
All officers and employees of these railways enrolled in the active militia, called out for active service, and all officers and employees who, with the consent of the management, enlist for Overseas service, shall receive their regular salary or wages while in the said service, subject to such regulations and conditions as to the payment of such salary or wages as may be prescribed by Order in Council or by the management, and all officers and all employees in active military service shall, upon their immediate return from such service, be reinstated in the same position as held by them at the time of their being called out for enlistment.
All officers and employees desiring to enlist for the Second Contingent should make application for leave and pay during such absence on forms to be obtained from the heads of departments and similar forms should be presented for all such officers and employees who are already in military service.
P. P. Gutelius,
General Manager.
2.	At the time of the posting of said notice, were any officers or employees of the said Intercolonial Railway enrolled in the active militia called out for active service?
3.	After the posting of said notice did any officers or employees of the said Intercolonial Railway enlist for Overseas service?
4.	If so, have the said officers or employees who were so called out, or who so enlisted, been paid their regular salary or wages by the Railway Department?
5.	If not, is it the intention of the Railway Department to pay such salaries and wages to such officers and employees who have been called out for active service or enlisted for Overseas service in defence of the Empire? .


Mr. COCHRANE:: 3.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.


PICTOU FISHERIES GUARDIANS.
William John Macdonald: What are the names and Post Office addresses, with amount paid to each of the Fishery Guardians in the county of Pictou during the year 1914?


Mr. HAZEN:: Guardians 1914-15.
Name, Address	$20.00
Wm. Conley, Alma	$20.00

J. R. McDonald, Pictou	$25.00
Alex. Fraser, Watervale	 25.00
Roderick Martin, Westville	 50.00
Angus D. McDonald, Lourdes	p 50.00
Jas. Cameron, River John	 16.00
James McKenzie, Alma	 20.00
J. T. McGregor, Eureka	 20.00
Philip V. Long, Springville	 20.00
J. D. McKinnon, Bailey's Brook . .	..	15.00
Alex. D. McDonald, Ponds	 20.00
D. W. McGregor, Avondale	 20.00
John Roberston, Marneys R	 20.00
J. W. Foote, French River	 20.00
David Simpson, French River	 20.00
W. A. Campbell, Sutherlands R	 40.00
Joseph Mason, E. Br. St. Marys	 10.00
Daniel McLaren, Eden Lake P.0	 10.00


PICTOU FREIGHT HANDLING.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	How much has been paid each week since the beginning of the season at Pictou, N.S., for labour at the winter boats in connection with handling of freight?
2.	How much has been paid each week at same service for the loading of coal?
3.	Who is the foreman in charge of labour at Pictou on said service, and what is being paid to him?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1. For week ending-
December 26	.. ..$215	15January	2	.. ..393	00ft	9	. . . . 198	68"	18	.... 386	85"	23	.. ..270	74[DOT] t	30	.. ..226	49February	6	.. ..210	14ft	13	.. .. 535	602. For week ending-	December	26	.... 29	25January	2	.. ..195	30ft	9	.. .. 195	30"	18	.. ..116	7823	.. .. 120	03ft	30	.. .. 107	74February	6	.. ..223	5813	.. .. 100	693.	The work is done under contract with David A. Morrison, who paid 50 cents per ton for discharging and loading freight on Minto, and 60 cents per ton for loading coal on same steamer; and 50 cents per ton for discharging and loading freight on Stanley and 75 cents per ton for loading coa] on same boat.


TRAWLERS AND FISHING BOUNTY.
Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: 
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	Yes; in 1909.
4.	No bounty has been paid to such trawlers by the present Government.


HORSES FOR FIRST CONTINGENT.
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	How many horses purchased for .the first contingent were sold at Quebec before the departure of the first contingent?
2.	What was the reason of the sale of the said horses?
3.	What amount was realized upon the same?
Major-General HUGHES:
1. None.
. 2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


ARTICLES EXEMPT FROM INCREASED DUTIES.
Mr. McCEANEY:: ports of religious or benevolent associations, etc.
175.	Text books, etc., which are on the curriculum of any university, etc., in Canada; and books specially imported for the use of incorporated mechanics' I institutes, public libraries, etc.
176.	Books, bound or unbound, printed and
manufactured more than twelve years.
178a. Goods specified in item 178, imported by mail, and duty-paid by customs revenue stamps.
180a. Photographs sent to the press for use only as news pictures.
184. Newspapers, magazines and literary papers, unbound; fashion plates imported with magazines or periodical trade journals.
196. Printing paper, in sheets and rolls valued at not more than 21 cents per pound.
201. Matrix paper, not being tissue paper, adapted for use in printing.
209b. Nicotine sulphate.
329. Ores of metals, n.o.p.
329a. Iron ore.	'
348a. Works of art in bronze, cast from models made in Canada and designed by sculptors domiciled therein.
352a. Bells when imported for use of churches only.
359 Gold and silver, in ingots, etc., unmanufactured ; gold and silver sweepings; and bullion fringe or gold fringe.
360. British and Canadian coin and foreign gold coin.
369. Chronometers and compasses for ships.
373. Scrap iron and scrap steel, old and fit only to be remanufactured, recovered from vessels wrecked in Canadian waters.
441. Typecasting and typesetting machines, etc.
443. Newspaper printing presses, etc.
445. Mowing machines, harvesters, binding attachments, reapers, etc.
445a. Malleable iron castings when imported by manufacturers of mowing machines, harvesters, etc.
446a. Traction ditching machines adapted for tile drainage on farms, etc.
464. Tools and machinery, and materials or parts in the rough, unfinished, etc., for the manufacture of rifles for the Government of Canada.
466 Surgical and dental instruments of metal, etc.
466a. Glassware and other scientific apparatus for laboratory work in public hospitals, etc.
470. Goods as specified for the manufacture or equipment of ships or vessels.
483. Sterotypes, electrotypes and celluloids of newspaper columns in any language other than French and English ,and of books, and bases and matrices, and copper shells for the same.
544. Binder twine and twine for harvest binders.
544a. Articles which enter into the cost of the manufacture of binder twine or twine for harvest binders.
576. Silk, raw or as reeled from the cocoon, not being doubled, twisted or advanced in manufacture in any way; silk cocoons and silk waste.

595.	Locomotives and railway passenger,
baggage and freight cars, property of railway companies in U. S. crossing the frontier, etc.
596.	Materials to be used in Canada for
construction of bridges and tunnels crossing the boundary between the United States and Canada, etc.
676. Metallic tubes, etc., for manufacture of vaccine points.
682. Fish hooks for deep sea or lake fishing, and all other articles enumerated in this item.
688.	Artificial limbs and parts thereof, artificial teeth not mounted.
689.	Life boats and life saving apparatus
specially imported by societies to encourage the saving of human life. 689a. Miners rescue appliances, and automatic resuscitation apparatus.
690.	Clothing and books, donations of, for
charitable purposes, and photographs, not exceeding three sent by friends and not for sale. I
690a. Casual donations from abroad sent by friends, and not being advertising matter, tobacco, articles containing spirits or merchandise for sale-when duty does not exceed fifty cents in any one case.
691.	Communion sets of metal, glass or wood.
692.	Coins, cabinets of; collections of medals
and collections of postage stamps; medals of gold, silver or copper and other metallic articles bestowed as trophies or received as prizes, etc. 692a. Articles presented from abroad In recognition of saving of human life.
693.	Collections of antiquities, for public
museums, public libraries, etc.
694.	Models of inventions and of other improvements in the arts.
695a. Paintings in oil or water colour and pastels, valued at not less than twenty dollars each; paintings and sculptures by artists domiciled in Canada, but residing temporarily abroad for purposes of study.
696.	Philosophic and scientific apparatus,
utensils, instruments, and preparations, including boxes and bottles containing the same: maps, photographic reproductions, casts as models, etchings, and lithographic prints or charts- when imported under conditions of tariff item 696.
697.	Globes, geographical, topographical and
astronomical.
698.	Typewriters, type, tablets with movable
figures, and musical instruments, for schools for the blind.
699.	Botannical and entomological specimens
and all other articles in this item.
700.	Animals and articles brought into Canada, for exhibition or competition for prizes.
701.	Menageries, horses, cattle, carriages,
and harness of.
702.	Carriages for travellers and carriages
laden with merchandise.
703.	Travellers' baggage.
704.	Apparel, wearing and other personal and
household effects, not merchandise, of British subjects dying abroad, but do-

miciled in Canada; books, pictures, family plate of furniture, personal effects and heirlooms left by request.
705.	Settlers' effects as per item 705.
706.	Articles for the personal of official use
of Consuls General, etc.
707 Articles for the use of the Governor General.
708.	Arms, etc., property of the Imperial
Government as per item 708.
709.	Articles growth, produce or manufacture of Canada, returned-under conditions in item 709.


FHILIPSBURG-ST. ARMAND MAIL.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	Why was Willie Rivers dismissed as courier between Philipsburg and St. Armand Station, Quebec, and how long a notice given?
2.	Who asked for his dismissal?
3.	Who recommended the appointment of the present courier?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Willie Rivers has not been an employee of the Post Office Department in connection with the mail service between Philipsburg and St. Armand Station. In view of this fact, Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be answered.


HORSES FOR CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
Mr. J. A. ROBB (Huntingdon):: I desire to draw the attention of the Minister of Militia to ia condition that may lead to a scandal almost equal to the boot incident that has caused so much injury to Canadian industries. In the Montreal Gazette of February 18, reference is made to the recruiting camp at Sherbrooke, and I wish to draw the attention of the minister to this statement in particular:
A number of horses have also arrived a'c Sherbrooke for the regiment being sent on from Ontario by the Remount Commission, under Sir Adam Beck. The Ontario horses have not all shown themselves suitable for cavalry work and it is not improbable that some changes will be made.
In the Toronto Globe of February 17, this statement is made in regard to the Salisbury camp:
They brought' two or three hundred Clydesdales down from Scotland, as our general purpose horses were too light to haul the heavy transport wagons.
Our friends from Ontario may sit quiet under this charge, but we from the province of Quebec will not sit dumb while an incompetent purchasing commission is buying all the old hacks throughout the country and sending them out as Canadian-bred horses.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I beg to remind the hon. member that it is not in order at
this stage to read an article from a newspaper and found an argument upon it. It would be in order to ask a question or to deny the correctness of a statement, but not to commence a discussion.


James Alexander Robb: I have made the statement I wish to make, and I want to know from the hon. minister if this remount commission is to be continued in office?
Major-General HUGHES:	There is
absolutely no foundation in fact in the statement, and the remount commission remains.


THIRTIETH OVERSEAS BATTALION.
[Stage Direction]
MAJOR-GENERAL HUGHES: I wish to announce the fact that the Thirtieth Overseas Battalion from Victoria, B.C., will pass through this city to-morrow en route to Halifax, to join the other corps of the brigade in preliminary training for overseas work during next month. The regiment will be paraded for review in front of the parliamentary buildings to-morrow at 10.30 a.m. I am requested to invite all the members of Parliament, the press and friends generally of the service to come and witness the review. The regiment is a very fine one, and I am sure the soldiers will be delighted to see the members and the members will be delighted to see the soldiers.

William F. Carroll: Has Dr. J. C. Morrison, of Waterford, been dismissed as medical examiner at that recruiting station?
MAJOR-GENERAL HUGHES: If my hon. friend will send in his question in proper form, I will attend to it. I endeavour to keep in my head everything that comes under my notice, but it is rather difficult to do so.


INLAND NAVIGATION RATES BILL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton) moved the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Railway Act. He said: This Bill will, I believe, be of great benefit to producers and shippers in western and eastern Canada. It calls for the placing of vessels on our inland waters under the control of the Railway Commission. The transportation problem is one of the most important with which Canada has to deal. We have a vast territory and a small population. Our lines of communication in many instances have been built in advance of the needs of the districts through which they run. With the most wonderful water transportation facilities in the world and with a
[Stage Direction]
people who are ready and willing to develop these advantages, we have the duty imposed upon us of assisting this development.
In Europe artificial and natural waterways are developed to an enormous extent. The great bulk of the grain and grain products are never carried by rail. The port which has behind it a navigable stream or canal has a wonderful advantage over its competitor that depends entirely upon railway transportation. When the Welland canal is completed the Canadian Government will have expended since Confederation $350,000,000 in developing our waterways. This is an enormous sum of money, and it is the duty of Parliament -to sui'round the people who have been so generous, with legislation that will mean every safeguard in the transportation of our products both east and west. This expenditure is increasing year by year, and the charges of maintenance and operation are being borne by the people. We have great fleets of dredges, ice breakers, and barges, that are constantly assisting navigation, and practically all these advantages are free to the vessel-owners, who are not compelled to make any sacrifices for them. Notwithstanding this enormous outlay freight rates keep steadily increasing.
A commission, - appointed by the Saskatchewan Government two years ago for the purpose of investigating the freight rates from the producers in Saskatchewan to the Liverpool markets, made some startling statements. One statement was that the lake-carriers' charges have doubled since 1909. If hon. members will look at the report placed in their hands by the Joint Commission appointed by the Senate and the House of Commons for the purpose of investigating the consolidation of the Railway Act, they will find on the last page of it a statement made by the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals which practically supports the statement made by the Saskatchewan Commission. If this statement is correct, and I have no reason to doubt that it is correct, then, it is the duty of this Parliament to surround the producers in western Canada with such legislation that they may receive a reasonable service for a reasonable rate.
The Liverpool mark d, we know, regulates the price of grain products for the whole world. Every dollar that we add to the cost of transportation of our products to that market means that the producer in Canada receives one dollar less. Another statement made by the commission appointed by the Saskatchewan government 
was that our ocean freight rates have increased since 1909 to an enormous extent. They say that, while in 1909 the cost of transporting a thousand bushels of grain from the port of Montreal to Liverpool was only $40, the present charge for that service is no less than $75. They say that the grain of Canada costs more per ton delivered to the Liverpool market than does the grain of any other country in the world. If that be true, the^ sooner we adopt the Bill which I have presented to the House and allow the Railway Commission to deal v ith this question the better it will be for the producers of Canada. Is it possible that grain can be collected at the ports of the Argentine Republic with its territory very similar to our own, and transported a distance of about 5,000 miles across the ocean, practically double the distance that our grain has to be transported, and delivered in Liverpool at a less cost than we have to pay with all our splendid facilities? Is it possible that grain can be carried from Australia and New Zealand, 12,000 miles from Liverpool, at a less cost than from Canada?
The governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have built hundreds of elevators in these western provinces. This Government, also, has built large elevators in Saskatoon and Moosejaw, and others are in course of construction. The Railway Commission has control of freight rates from the time the grain leaves the producer until it arrives at Port Arthur or Fort William. But there it is handed over to the vessel owner who is free to make any charge he pleases, to enter into any arrangement he wishes. We have appointed a Grain Commission to assist the producers in the West to secure a fair and adequate return for their efforts. But after we have expended the 'enormous sums I have already stated on the maintenance and improvements of our inland waterways, the vesselmen can take that grain, carry it where they please, and charge what they please without restriction.
The building of elevators at our ports has materially assisted in the handling of gram. Montreal has elevators with capacity of about nine million bushels. And just a word with regard to the port of Montreal, because men who are interested in the carrying of grain on our inland waters have placed some definite statements on that subject before the committee that had this Bill under consideration. They stated that last season vessels had to remain in the port of Mont-

real, ten, fifteen and even twenty days before they could be unloaded. They said that the elevators of the Montreal Harbour Commissioners at the port of Montreal in 1907 only handled a little over a million bushels of grain, while owing to their greatly increased elevator capacity they were able last year to handle sixty-two million bushels. That is an enormous increase. But the president of the Marine Association and others declare that the port of Montreal is not yet capable of taking care of the grain that comes to that port. If that be the case, it is up to this Parliament, it is up to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, to put forth every effort to remedy that state of affairs. Those of you who will read the book that has been placed in your hands by the Gazette Publishing Company of Montreal during the last few weeks, a book for which that concern deserves a great deal of credit, will learn that vessels containing 1,500,000 bushels of grain after reaching the port of Montreal could not be accommodated there, and were compelled to return to Buffalo to unload their grain rather than lose the twenty days or more of waiting in Montreal harbour during the two months when there was a blockade in that port. This is another reason why the Railway Commissioners should have control over our shipping rates. They should be able to force the speculators who hold up grain in the port of Montreal to send that grain forward; and should be able also to provide sufficient elevator capacity for the handling of our products from the West.
It is estimated that when the Welland canal is completed we shall save one cent a bushel in cost of transportation. But if this Parliament will not surround the producer with such legislative protection as I am proposing, the whole of that saving will go, not to the producers but to the transportation interests.
One great difficulty is that grain is held in Montreal by speculators, and the Harbour Commissioners seem to be powerless to force these men to export it.
The port of Buffalo handles about 150,000,000 bushels of wheat per annum. The bulk of that wheat is not exported, but is for consumption in the United States.
The carrying trade of this country, especially water transportation, is capable of wonderful development; Canada is only at the beginning of the development -of her industries. It has been stated that only two per cent of the arable land in Alberta is under cultivation, and it has also
been stated by members of this House that only ten per cent of the arable land in Saskatchewan is under cultivation. I remember listening to a speech made by a former minister of the province of Manitoba, during the course of which he said that the province of Manitoba-then without its increased area-was capable of producing at least 500,000,000 bushels of wheat in addition to other grains. I have no reason to doubt that assertion. In the face of these facts, is it not wise that we should enact such legislation as I am proposing, in order that we may assist the western producer as much as possible?
I know that the Government have received many urgent requests to defeat this legislation. I understand that this very day we have men here representing the shipping interests who assert that every member of the Joint Commission of the House of Commons and the . Senate are opposed to this Bill. I wish to say to these visiting gentlemen that that assertion is' untrue. I feel confident that not half a dozen members of the committee will oppose this legislation, and I feel sure that it is not too much for the producers to ask that their interests be protected, and that whatever is done by the vessel men be done in the interests of the public.
There are 8,500 vessels registered in Canada, and the Department of Marine and Fisheries report that 42,500 men and boys are working on those vessels. The Department of Railways and Canals reports that during 1913 the total tonnage passing through American and Canadian canals was 79,000,000 tons, and that 55 per cent of that was carried through Canadian canals. The people of Canada furnish every means to assist transportation on our inland waters, and they protect the marine interests against foreign shipping. Our coast regulations give Canadian vessels advantage over vessels of other countries ; in other words, we retain for our vessel owners the exclusive right to enjoy the coasting privileges. All vessels owned, constructed or operated in connection with the railway system in Canada are compelled to file their tolls, rates and tariff arrangements with the Board of Railway Commissioners, and the Railway Commission have absolute control over those arrangements. Only a small proportion of the vessels on our inland waters come under the jurisdiction of the Railway Board. If the ships carrying freight on our inland waters and connected with our railways are compelled to come under the jurisdiction of the
[Stage Direction]
Board of Bailway Commissioners, what reason can be given why other vessels should not be willing to come under that same jurisdiction? The railway men have not 'complained because (they have been placed under the jurisdiction of the Board of Bailway Commissioners, and there is no reason why the vessel men should not be fairly treated by the Board if they were placed under their control.
This Bill simply asks that all other vessels plying between any port or place in Canada to other ports in Canada and handling produce of any kind in Canada shall be considered common carriers and come under the jurisdiction of the Bailway Commission. The vessel men protest strongly against being placed under the jurisdiction of the board, and assert that it will result in increased freight rates and lack of competition. Increased freight rates? Is it possible that these men object to increased freight rates. Increased freight rates means increased profits for these men. I feel that I am justified in making the assertion that there is mighty little competition on our inland waters to-day. I want to make use of a statement made before'the joint committee by Mr. Henderson, Chairman of the Marine Association, in which he said that 90 per cent of the vessels on our inland waters are under the control of the Marine Association. He also said that with regard to rates, charges tolls and agreements they had no combination. But it seems very strange that these men are ready and willing to organize and band themselves together, unless it be for their own mutual benefit.
Bemember that we must take into consideration not only the large shippers of grain and products from western Canada, but the small manufacturer; the small producer from eastern Canada who is anxious to ship his goods to the West to compete with similar products coming in from the united States. These men are seriously handicapped because of the restrictions surrounding them and forced upon them by the vessel owners. I am informed that unless *some definite action is taken by this Government during the present session, increased freight rates will be charged to the shippers both in the East and in the West. I hope that the Government will see to it, therefore, that this Bill becomes law and that a reasonable service and reasonable rates are granted to shippers, both east and west. It cannot with justice be said that the Bailway Commission

has not the right to control in this matter, and that the Marine and Fisheries Department of Canada is likely to interfere. I have made a thorough investigation into this pha£e of the matter, and I have the most definite assurance from the best legal advisers-men who are thoroughly posted in regard to the marine laws of Canada-that nothing can interfere with this legislation if it once becomes law. I, therefore, respectfully urge the Government to place this legislation on the statute book at the earliest possible moment giving to the Bailway Commission control of all freight charges, and tariff agreements made by vessel men. By doing this they will enable manufacturers and producers to do business on a basis of reasonable service. They will make the boat owners liable for any failure in their duty. The Board will fix penalties, and provide for fair and equitable treatment of all interests using our navigable waters. Vessel men giving service need not fear this legislation; those who do not give such service should be compelled to do so.
Mr. HEPBUBN:: If an individual is
operating small steamers, say in the bay of Quinte, and giving perhaps a tri-weekly service, and you endeavour to force him to give a weekly service and he says; rather than do that I shall withdraw my steamers; what would you do?


Mr. ABMSTBONG:: It is not my intention to attempt to answer questions such as that because it is a matter which, if this Bill becomes law, would come before the Bailway Commission and there is no reason to doubt that the Bailway Commission would deal fairly and reasonably with any proposition placed before them. The Bailway Commission have shown that they will be most reasonable and fair towards the transportation companies and also towards the people who are using transportation facilities. I am satisfied that the Bailway Commission are a reasonable body of men who will do justice to any matter that comes under their jurisdiction.


Mr. CABBOLL:: This applies only to
steamers carrying some passengers?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: To both freight and passenger boats.


Henry George Carroll: Would a steamship or
vessel carrying only freight come within the meaning of this amendment?


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Most assuredly.
There is another clause dealing with certain

25o
privileges granted by railway companies to shippers and manufacturers in the eastern provinces especially. I have received petitions and letters from numerous shippers and manufacturers who feel that they are seriously handicapped by the privileges which are being granted to other shippers and manufacturers in the eastern provinces, and of which they cannot take advantage. For instance, before the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, it was shown that the Board of Trade of Toronto had formulated several objections to the privileges granted by railway companies to millers and speculators whereby large quantities of grain are stored in cars at Port Arthur or Fort William or in Winnipeg, the rolling stock which should be placed at the disposal of the producers in our western country being thereby tied up and the advantage which should accrue to the producers
4 p.m. through the handling of their grain seriously lessened. I might also refer to the privileges granted to real estate speculators, particularly in western towns, who are also interested in railway companies who have been able to induce the railways to pass by communities which are thickly settled and to establish town-sites at points where there is no reason or justification for their establishment. The Board of Railway Commissioners have distinctly stated time and again that they have no control over the privileges granted by the railway corporations in this respect. This clause merely provides that all these privileges shall come under the jurisdiction of the Railway Board. Questions such as cartage should also come under their jurisdiction. I am satisfied that the matters which I have laid before the House call for a remedy, and I believe that the remedy is to be found in the Bill that I am now proposing. There is not a farmers' organization in western Canada that will not support this Bill nor is there a fruit or vegetable growers' .association in eastern Canada that will not be enthusiastically for it. Boards of trade, shippers and manufacturers in different parts of our country have been calling for just such legislation as this, and I am confident that it is tlje duty of the Government to place it on the statute book at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia) :: I am glad the hon. gentleman has brought forward this Bill. Most members will agree that it is a very necessary one. The principle was discussed and received very general acceptance in this
House a year ago. There is absolutely no reason why the' steamship companies should not come under the Board of Railway Commissioners. No decision of the Railway Board has ever been challenged as unfair. The railway companies themselves are satisfied with the board. I was told by one of the biggest railway men in Canada about two years ago that if they had a choice they would not go hack to the position in which they were before, for one of the very reasons that my hon. friend is trying to remedy this Bill of his, that is that they much prefer the decision of the Railway Commission that enables them to do away with the granting of any privilege to any particular class of shipper or class of people, While at this moment the rates on western grain may not appear so very burdensome simply because the grain is double the price it was a year ago, yet the grain was practically all out of the hands of the farmers before the rise in price came about.
Things had reached such a point a year ago that there was no profit or mighty little, for the farmer who produced the grain. The cost of taking a bushel of wheat from Winnipeg to Liverpool was from 6 to 8 cents higher than for two years previously. This was all brought about by mergers and amalgamations among the lake and ocean transportation companies, and the farmer had to pay every cent of the increase. The Bill my hon. friend has introduced will remedy this to a very large extent. The steamship companies cannot suffer; for no one can make me believe that the Railway Commission is not absolstely fair, or that it will deal unfairly with railroads, steamship companies or the public. We can safely leave the matter to them. I trust the Minister of Railways will accept this Bill and see that it becomes law this session.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina):: I desire to make a few remarks in regard to this Bill, and to say at the outset that I approve of the principle of bringing navigation companies on the lakes, and their tolls, under the control of the Railway Commission just as railway rates are under its control.	I have not been able to
gather from my hon. friend's remarks the relative charges of the railroads, the lake and the steamship companies. Personally I do not know exactly how much the lake companies charge for carrying a bushel of wheat from Fort William to Montreal, for instance, or how much the ocean companies charge for carrying it

from Montreal to Liverpool. If we had that information we should be in a better position to know exactly- where the high rates come in. In western Canada we have been inclined to blame the railroads more than the steamship companies, and we have had the idea that ocean rates are perhaps higher than they should be; but as a rule, I have not heard much criticism in western Canada of the companies operating on the Great Lakes. My hon. friend spoke about competition, and would have us believe that there is no competition on the Great Lakes; but I have always understood, although I may be wrong, that there was competition between American companies and American ports and Canadian companies and Canadian ports. It is a matter of great importance that our tolls on the Great Lakes should not be too high, and I am sure that if the navigation companies are put under the Railway Commission they will be fairly dealt with. If the companies are not charging too much I cannot see why they should not at once agree to come under the commission, but if they are charging too much I can see why they would be afraid to come under its jurisdiction. It would be a most fortunate thing for the people of Canada to know that they were being charged fair rates by the navigation companies. It has always seemed to me that any great corporation using the public utilities whether canals, lakes, or the right of way, should be under the control of the Parliament of Canada through a commission of some sort. That is only due to the people of this country, who are paying for these great public utilities. It is important that our rates on the lakes should be low, not only for the purpose of building up our Great Lake ports but, as my hon. friend from Lambton has said, for the benefit of all the producers in this country. For these reasons I think every member in this House might well give his support to this Bill.


Mr. EDMUND BRISTOL (Centre Toronto) :: I was present before the committee, and had the opportunity of hearing some of the vesselmen who would be affected, presenting their views to the committee. I have also listened with some attention to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, and to the hon. gentleman who has introduced this Bill. It seems only fair to the House, to the country, and to the enormous interests which would be affected, that I shoulu give, in the briefest possible fashion, the reason why the vesselmen believe it is not in the interests of the Canadian people that

this particular legislation should pass. And as I understand it manufacturers and shippers take practically this view. I have not the evidence before me, but I understand that is the case, and it is very easily explained.
Obviously the rates of the shipping companies on the Great Lakes have to be lower than railroad rates, because if they were not, the shipping companies would not get the business. They must beat the railroad rates, whether American or Canadian. Consequently, although the Railway Commission may fix reasonable railway rates in view of water and other competition, shipping companies have still to get under those rates. That is the first point. Secondly, the competition on the Great Lakes is not merely among Canadian shipping companies themselves but also with American shipping companies via Buffalo and New York. Consequently, to get grain from the head of the lakes to Montreal and thence to Liverpool, the rate on Canadian vessels has to be lower than on American vessels, or otherwise the grain would go via Duluth, Buffalo, and New York. Every one knows that the Buffalo and New York route, so far as the ocean end of it is concerned, has a great advantage over the Canadian route. New York is on what is called the Atlantic triangle. Vessels going from London to the Argentine come up the coast to New York, and then cross to London. The ocean rate is the one that very largely affects the situation, and over that rate, unfortunately, we have no control. From day to day and hour to hour during the grain season in this country, the competition is against New York and the New York route, and if by any chance the rates happen to be reasonably high, you can res.t assured that the Atlantic combine will take over all there is from Canada via New York; and we cannot touch them.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: We do not permit that.


Mrh BRISTOL:: This Bill does not touch them in any way. What the Canadian vessel owners say is: We want to get freight away from Buffalo and New York and into Canadian ships, Canadian channels, and Canadian ports. The only way to do that is from day to day and hour to hour to give a better rate, and we have done it this season. We have taken over ten millions of grain this season out of Chicago via Montreal, and it is the first time it has ever happened. If their view is correct,

how would iit be possible for the vessel owners of this country to give a better rate practically from day to day and hour to hour on grain, which is the most important product shipped out of this country, and on which every one wants to see the best possible rate given to the Canadian-farmer? We must make transportation as cheap as we can in this country. Farming is one of the most vital industries of Canada; more important than transportation, and unless we can give cheap rates the farming industry will not advance. The vessel people say: You will hinder us from doing the very thing you want to see brought about, because we have to be in a position to beat the Buffalo and New York route.
What has happened this year? Atlantic rates are higher to-day than they have ever been and the reasons for that are obvious. The rates on the Great Lakes have been lower than they have been for years We have had the spectacle of grain being carried from Port Arthur to Montreal for three and a half cents a bushel as against five, six and seven cents a bushel in other years. If there have been any combinations on the Great Lakes that have affected the matter they have affected it very beneficially for the Canadian farmer because if the Cana dian farmer had been getting anything like the same rates from the head of the lakes to the shipping point in the Canadian west or from Montreal to Liverpool he would have had a lower rate than that in force in any other country in the world.


Mr. WEICHEL:: Is it not a fact that
more Canadian tonnage was under the jurisdiction of one company this year than in any other previous year?
' Mr. BRISTOL: Absolutely; there is no doubt about; it, but the result is that the company has been able to save nearly $300,000 in cost of operation and the Canadian farmer is getting his share of the benefit in a lower rate than has ever been known in this country before.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I would ask whether the American ships on the Great Lakes are under the control of the Inter-State Commerce Commission?


Edmund James Bristol: I understand that those operated by railways are and that the others are not. But the boats we have to compete against in the grain trade are not operated by railways but by private shipping companies. Anybody can get into the shipping business. You can incorporate a
company; the Great Lakes are free to everybody and competition is absolutely keen. There is no opportunity to do anything different so long as Buffalo and New York are competing with Canadian shipping. We are deepening the Welland canal and I am sorry we are not also deepening the St. Lawrence. When you deepen the Welland canal what do the Americans do to meet that situation? They have paid many millions of dollars in building a canal from Oswego to the Erie canal so that when the Welland canal is deepened the big boats that now stop at Port Col-borne or Buffalo will go tc Oswego, Kingston or Prescott. The way the grain will go will depend precisely on what the rate is going to be between Oswego and New York. New York has a very great advantage over Montreal by reason of insurance rates, accessibility, and the tramp ships that come in there. One of the great troubles we have is the fact that on our northern route insurance on the vessels is greater and that the route itself is considered somewhat more dangerous than the New York route. The Canadian Government have been doing everything they possibly could do to make the St. Lawrence route as good as it can be made. I believe that we could canalize the St. Lawrence, and I believe that in doing it we would help the Canadian farmer, because the grain would go to Montreal and then be loaded into lighters or into ships going *abroad. That is the ideal shipping situation for this country to be in, and that is what we should aim at. I am satisfied that my hon. friend is introducing this Bill in absolute good faith, and I am satisfied that every hon .gentleman who supports it is supporting it in good faith, but 1 believe that we should pay heed to what the shipping interests say when they tell us that so long as they have to fight this American competition they cannot be giving a rate of tolls from hour to hour and minute to minute to the Railway Commission, that they have to be in a position from hour to hour in order to fight that competition, to give a better rate by Canadian boats and through Canadian channels, and that if you do not leave them in that position you are going to seriously hamper them in the competition that they have to meet in the shipping world to-day.


William F. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour last session to be a member of the joint committee, composed of members of

this House and of the Senate appointed to consider the consolidation of the Kailway Act, and this was one of the changes which it was intended to make and which was introduced by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong). I am sorry that I did not hear that hon. gentleman throughout his speech. He presented his case very ably in the latter part of his speech, and, like my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol), I believe that the hon. gentleman who has introduced the Bill has done so with the very best of intentions, and I also believe there are many people who think that the adoption of this Bill would be of very great benefit to the Canadian people. I do not think I can present the evidence that was taken before that committee last year in any better manner than it has been presented by the hon. member for Centre Toronto. The great question that was raised there by the shippers who opposed this amendment was, just as he has stated, that the task which the steamboat owners had to perform was to successfully meet competition from their American rivals and they represented, as I understood their story, that in the United States the 'steamboats and vessels which were directly connected with the railways were under the jurisdiction of the Inter-State Commerce Commission. This is a grave situation. If the situation on the Great Lakes is as grave as it was represented to be by those who opposed this amendment last year, I think we should come to a decisibn in regard to this Bill only after the most mature consideration. My hon. friend who introduced the Bill tells us -that because steamships are connected with railway lines they are under the jurisdiction of the Railway Board and he argues that therefore all ships should be under the jurisdiction of the same board. I do not follow him in that contention. There are very good and very serious reasons why ships connected with railways should be under the jurisdiction of the Railway Board, which I suppose is responsible to Parliament. I do not know whether it is responsible to Parliament or not, but I suppose that if it does not do right the Government can dismiss it. There is not a railway in the Dominion but has received aid from the Government, and the Government must necessarily be interested in the proper conduct of these railways because the country's money has been invested in them. I suppose that is true of every railway built in Canada since Con-
federation. When these railways operate boats there is good reason why this Government should have some say in preventing these boats from putting on exorbitant rates. The Government exercises that control through the instrumentality of the Railway Board. But the question that we are now considering is an entirely different one. When it is proposed to place under the jurisdiction of the Railway Board vessels under private ownership which have never received anything from the Government by way of subvention or anything else, the proposal is one involving a very important departure from the policy which has hitherto been pursued. I do not pretend to be a very great constitutional lawyer but I have serious doubts as to whether or not the Railway Department, leaving the Railway Board out of the question, could take control of the shipping interests. The Railway Department has a man of good business capacity -at its head at the present, but if he should propose to take control of the shipping interests a considerable howl would go up and I believe the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries _ (Mr. Hazen) would say: Hands off; you may be well able to look after the railway interests but I have been appointed to look after the marine interests.
What difference is there between the Minister of Railways taking control of the shipping interests of this country and a board or commission appointed by him doing so? That is a question that should be submitted to the Minister of Justice for his consideration. Doubtless my hon. friend who has introduced this Bill has some very good reason for introducing it in this form; but, while there may be some excuse for bringing common carriers under the jurisdiction of the Railway Board, ships owned and controlled by people who ship only their own products in their own ships should not come under this Bill, and ships chartered by the season by companies or individuals who ship in such ships only their own products, should not come under this Bill. I have in mind several companies in the lower provinces, namely, the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, the Dominion Coal Company and the Dominion Steel Company, all of which absolutely control their own ships. The Dominion Steel Company has a magnificent fleet of ships plying between Sydney and Montreal, and also with Newfoundland. The Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company have also a very large fleet of ships plying to and from Montreal, Sydney, New Glasgow, and in fact every place where they can sell a bar of

steel or a pound of coal. Their ships carry nothing but the products of the mines of their owners or the products of the steel works; they are in no sense common carriers, and I do not think it would be fair to place them in the same position as common carriers. Owing to the very strong evidence which I heard given before the committee last year by the shipping interests of this country, and owing to the fact that they would be unduly hampered in their competition with the United States, I object to the passage of this Bill. I have not heard their objection answered. If it is answered to my satisfaction, then, of course, my objection to that phase of the Bill will fall to the ground.
As I pointed out a moment ago, I think the Minister of Justice should take the matter into consideration and give his legal opinion as to whether or not the Department of Railways or the Railway Commission can take control. Is it not the function of the Minister of Marine to institute a board to look after this matter?


William Findlay Maclean: The Minister of Railways is also the Minister of Canals, and as such has jurisdiction over the public canals. On that ground alone he can take control over the rates of the railways that use the public canals.


William F. Carroll: That is a very small part of my objection. Canadian ships coming to and from Canada pass through other waters than our canals.


William Findlay Maclean: The St. Lawrence channels, for instance, made by the Government.


William F. Carroll: I do not think the Minister of Railways contends that his department has any exclusive jurisdiction over the river St. Lawrence or the gulf of St. Lawrence or the waters into which the river St. Lawrence flows. As a Nova Scotian, I am not so very much interested in the traffic on the Great Lakes, but as a Canadian I am deeply interested. My chief objection to the Bill is that if it passes it will embrace common carriers. I contend that it should not embrace a line of steamships exclusively engaged in carrying the produce of one company from the place of production to its destination.


Mr. B. R. HEPBURN (Prince Edward):: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the remarks of my hon. friend the member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), and I believe he is perfectly sincere in his desire to have this Bill pass. Having been, however, in the steamboat business for a number of years, but fortunately now 17
being out of it, I can see that if this Bill is passed, it will cause all sorts of complications. If the hon. member for East Lamb-ton was thoroughly familiar with the port of Montreal, for example, and the thousands of small ships owned by different individuals that trade between the port of Montreal and the ports of the lower St. Lawrence in the different parts of Quebec, he would see it would be almost impossible to put such boats under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. If we attempted to do that, we would put the small boat owners absolutely out of business. A great many of the men owning boats that operate on the lower St. Lawrence are uneducated, not being able to read or write, and they have trouble enough now endeavouring to make a small living out of the operation of their boats, because of the slowness of time in the carrying of freight between ports and the giving to the people of a service probably once every week or once every two weeks, as the case may be.
The manner in which freight rates are arrived at with regard to package freight for carriage on the Great Lakes is that the steamboat owners take the freight and work on a differential basis. The differential between Montreal and Port Arthur, for example, runs from two cents for fifth-class freight to either eight or ten cents for first-class freight. Let us suppose that I am operating a line of steamers from Montreal to Port Arthur to connect with the railroads there, and that I am running a boat a day and giving quicker service from Montreal to Winnipeg than do the railroads, is there any reason why I should not be allowed to charge the shippers, as much money as the railroads do? I cannot see any reason why I should not, and I am satisfied that the Railway Commission could not see any either. The Canadian steamship owners are giving a daily service out of Montreal and are operating at a less cost than the railways, on a first-class rate of ten cents per 100 lb., and a fifth-class rate of two cents per hundred. The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) has given reasons why the control of the grain carriers between Port Arthur and Liverpool via Montreal should be in the hands of the steamboat owners in order to enable them to meet competition via New York. If you attempt to put grain rates under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission, you will practically ruin the Canadian shipping industry and drive all business via Buffalo and New York.
The same thing applies to the smaller boats in the province of Ontario. I live in a

COMMONfe
county in which the carriage of freight is practically dependent on the steamboat men. We have only one railroad there and only one line through the county. I know a number of men operating small boats on the Bay of Quinte and endeavouring to make a living. If you put them under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission it will mean the introduction of men skilled in the formation of tariffs and so on, the elimination of the existing boat service, and bring about all kinds of trouble.


Mr. F. L. SCHAFFNER (Souris):: 
Mr. BRADBURY:: The middleman is getting it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If the farmer has the wheat, he is getting the price. I do not know that it is much of an argument as suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) to say that the wheat is out of the hands of the farmer. There is a good deal of wheat still in the farmers' hands, and most of what has been sold did not get out of their hands until a very good price was received. If we could have a guarantee that in the future the farmer should not find it necessary to let the wheat out of his hands for a lower price than that which he is receiving this year, I do not know that we should object to paying a good, round freight rate, whether by land or water. But we can only judge the future by the past, and, judging in that way, we must conclude that the conditions which have existed will return. During the last four or five years, and until war conditions prevailed, it did not pay the farmer to raise wheat. Now, from the time the farmer begins to prepare his land for the crop until the grain reaches the market, it is the duty of this Parliament, in the interests of the whole people, whether in the East or in the West, to give us the most favourable conditions. What shall we say about the Railway Commission? My opinion is that commissions may come and commissions may go, but the Railway Commission will go on for ever. Why? Because never in the history of this country has any commission given such general satisfaction. Some hon. mdmber said that he did not know that the railways would be very anxious to have the Railway Commission discontinue. I do not agree with him. The railways of this country are not very fond of the present Railway Commission. This commission has been fair, and because of its great popularity the railways have not seen fit-and rightly too-to take the unpopular side and oppose the commission. I believe that we in western Canada have much to thank the Railway Commission for. Of course, the Railway Commission does not operate in exactly the same way as it did when it was inaugurated. How do we know but that from a small beginning-and I do not mean anything offensive to the promoter of the Bill in that-we may develop another body which will be as useful as the Railway Commission? Let us start somewhere. If we have been so successful in relieving the western farmer through the Railway Commission, we have a right to believe that we shall be just as successful with a commission controlling the rates by water.

The only objection I have to this Bill is that it does not go far enough. It controls rates, as I understand, only on inland waters. It is stated by some hon. gentleman on the other side that the Bill should not apply to private companies, but that we have a perfect right to apply it to companies that receive subsidies from this Parliament. But, even though we are not granting subsidies in actual money to these companies, we have spent, are spending, and will spend in the future, immense sums of money in aids to navigation, in docks, harbours and canals, for the development of this business. Hence, I cannot see why these companies should be exempt from [DOT] control. The new commission, should one be appointed and charged with this duty of regulation, may be counted upon to be as fair to all companies as the Railway Commission has been to the railway companies. We must realize that wheat is not always going to be $1.50 a bushel-if it were I might not be supporting my hon. friend's Bill. But, in view of the change that may be expected to take place in the market conditions, the real business of this Parliament is to do its utmost to enable the farmers of Canada to send their products to the market at the lowest possible cost.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe):: The riding which I have the honour to represent is very much interested in the growth and development of large grain ports, especially in view of the fact that the Canadian Pacific railway have elevators at Port McNicoll, and the Grand Trunk railway elevators at Midland. The fact that the business of transportation of grain through Canada has not increased as we hoped it would is my reason for rising to give my opinion of this proposed legislation.
While some gentlemen who have supported the Bill have made many statements, I regret that few of them have been statements of fact. One would almost imagine that the freight rates on the Great Lakes have been going up by leaps and bounds for the last ten years. Perhaps it will surprise hon. gentlemen when I tell them that there was a time when the freight rate from Fort William to Midland was seven cents a bushel, and that last year it was about one cent a bushel. I have in my hand the report of the Chamber of Commerce of Buffalo-the rates to Georgian bay ports are about on a parity with the rates to Buffalo-and for the benefit of hon. gentlemen and for future reference I will quote the rates in force previous to 1908.
In 1897, the range of rates on wheat from Duluth to Buffalo was 1-24 cents; 1898, 1-34 cents; 1899, 24-6 cents; 1900, 14-3J cents; 1901, 14-3| cents; 1902, 1-24 cents; 1903, 14-2| cents; 1904, 1-5 cents; 1905, 14-4 cents; 1906, lf-3 cents; 1907, 1-24 cents; 1907, 1-24 cents; 1908, 1-34 cents.
There is no report later than that for the year 1908, but I can say that so low were-the rates last year that a large number of vessels were tied up, on the American as well as on the Canadian side; the rates would not pay investors to go into the business. When the Algonquin first went on the lakes twenty or twenty-five years ago, the rate in the fall was seven cents a bushel, the reason being that there were very few vessels then in the grain business. I wonder if hon. gentlemen know how trade has grown particularly in respect of American vessels.
I ho id in my hand a book commonly known as the Great Lakes Red Book, issued in 1912. It gives the name of one vessel, the William P. Snider, with a tonnage of 13,000 tons, and scores of others with tonnages of
8.000,	10,000, and so on. As a rule the Can- . adian vessels are small, having a tonnage of about 3,500 tons. What is the real position of this grain trade? It is admitted that in the United States there are no restrictions in the shape of commissions hampering or interfering with the vessel owner or with the grain owner. It should be remembered, after all, that the grain owner, is the man who dictates the route which the grain will take. If the grain owner has a million bushels of grain in the Port Arthur elevators, it is to him not a matter of sentiment, but a matter of business whether he ships it by Buffalo or by Montreal. My hon. friend the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) made the statement, which everybody knows is correct, that the rates from New York are always lower than those from Montreal. Some hon. gentleman referred to the fact in i>- there was an abnormal output from M a',real last year. I have sent for one of .a ceports, and I find that during the yea 1913-19K 70,000,000 bushels of wheat we

 sent out of Montreal, and during the year before, 41.000.000. In 1897 the amount of wheat sent out was
11.000.	000 bushels. Living at Midland, I know that prior to the war it was a matter of common knowledge that through that port there was passing a lot of wheat for Germany last year, and that the increase of 30,000,000 bushels at Montreal was due to to the fact that the German Government or German dealers in grain, in view of the impending war, were buying largely, and

were having the grain shipped via Montreal. I presume that was the reason for the vast increase of 30,000,000 bushels.
What are we going to do if we pass legislation like this? A man who owns grain in the Northwest will ship it by the Soo line to Duluth; it will then go on American vessels to Buffalo and be transhipped to England or other European country. It will not be interfered with by any commission in Canada, because no commission will deal with it in the United States. On the other hand, supposing a grain dealer should wish to send shipments by Fort William or via the Canadian Northern to Port Arthur; he is not bound to be under the ban of the Railway Commission, because it will be no contravention of the coasting laws to employ American vessels to take that grain from Port Arthur to Buffalo. It is in the fall of the year, when grain is passing out rapidly, that the Canadian vessel owner is looking for freights. In this little red book there is arranged a list of what are known as ore carriers, of which, I think, there are about 600.	Some	of these are of
Canadian register and some American. Any vessel which is of such strength that you can shoot ore into its hold will easily carry grain, but any vessel that will carry grain will not necessarily be strong enough to carry a cargo of ore. Hon. gentlemen who have seeit ore rushing into the bottom of a vessel realize that for that particular purpose a vessel of superior strength is needed. I take it, therefore, that there are not only upwards of 600 ore vessels in the trade, but two or three thousand large grain vessels in Canada and the United States. What are you going to do about it? Last year Canadian trade was in an apathetic state and competition with American carriers was so keen that Canadian vessels by the score were tied up. Vessels were tied up in Midland which in other years were probably getting two or three cents a bushel for carrying grain. The same conditions prevailed at the Soo, in the Detroit river and elsewhere. The ship lines of Canada made no money last year. The largest of them, the Canada Steamship line, passed its dividend; many others did the same, and some of them paid a very much decreased dividend. The passing of legislation of this kind means that the grain owner, who, I repeat, does not consider sentiment in the matter, may take his grain to Duluth by the Canadian Pacific railway and via American lines. The American system owned by the Hill people fMr. W. H. Bennett.]
crosses into Manitoba and from the Northwest ; and grain may by this line be brought down to Duluth, and the grain owner will not be hampered by the control of freight rates by a commission. In that respect you take the chance of hitting your Canadian railways. Of course, the Canadian Pacific railway can bring the grain to Duluth on their own line just as conveniently as they can bring it to Fort William, but it is the vesselman who will be hit, and hit the hardest-the vessel man who in Canada to-day is not getting within two or three cents a bushel of the rates that he got a few years ago. Despite the vast .export from Montreal, last year such a state of things existed that the owners were compelled in many instances to tie up their vessels. These men will be in this position, that the ore trade being over in the United States, immense carriers like the Snider, with a capacity of 13,000 tons or 450,000 to 500,000 bushels of wheat, having made a good season in the ore business, will take on board cargoes from Port Arthur or Fort William for Buffalo at seven-eighths of a cent per bushel, as was the case last year; whereas the Canadian vessel, which cannot enter the ore trade owing to the American coasting laws, must wait for the Canadian wheat trade in the fall, and then cannot meet such a price as that charged by these immense carriers, the capacity of the Canadian vessels being usually about 100,000 bushels. This competition tends to divert the wheat from the Canadian Georgian bay ports or St. Law'rence ports to American ports. Not only are the two ports in my constituency deeply concerned in this, but also Goderich, Collingwood and the other ports on our lower lakes. The menwho are endeavouring to build up a vessel trade in Canada are seriously handicapped in this way. It may be said, of course, that they are permitted to engage in the coal carrying trade from American ports to Fort William and Port Arthur in the summer, but there they have the competition of old American sailing vessels which are now used as tow barges and which, owing to their age and inferiority, carry the coal at rates which would be quite impossible for the Canadian steamships as the Canadian vessels, in order to comply with the insurance requirements for the carrying of grain, must be of a very much better class. It must be remembered that the proportion of American shipping to Canadian shipping is about seventy to one. The moment you place the Railway Commission over vessels this result will come about that the owner of the grain will be fearful that rates may

be imposed which are not now imposed by reason of the keen competition on the lakes to-day and the grain would be diverted to Buffalo and other American ports by these vessels. It would be an unfortunate thing for the Canadian vessel owner and for Canadian ports. The records show that the rates to Buffalo and to Georgian bay ports are the same. The freight rates on the Great Lakes are not high. They are decreasing and have decreased abnormally, and in view of the fact that while on the other side enterprise and capital have gone into the business of placing ships on the Great Lakes so that their merchant marine is firmly established, there are
5 p.m. comparatively few Canadian-owned vessels. These vessels should be given a fair chance and we should not pass legislation that can have but one effect, that of causing the shipper of grain to prefer the American ships and American avenues of trade rather than Canadian ships and Canadian avenues of trade.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, we have undertaken to deal in Parliament with the general transportation question. We have regulated the railways and we propose now to regulate the inland steamboats, and if I had my way we would regulate the ocean rates as weli. I believe that ocean rates can easily be brought within the jurisdiction of this Parliament and it would be absurd for this country to continue spending the millions we are spending on the solution of the transportation problem unless we deal with the question as a whole, embracing railroads, inland navigation and ocean freight rates. One great principle that must be kept in mind is that water transportation and land transportation ought to be complementary one of the other. That has been worked out in Germany and in other countries and if a freight company can use both railroad and water transportation it should be compelled to do so. The question is not, as it was put by the hon. member for Centre Toronto, whether the steamships charge less than the railways, but do they _ charge a rate that gives a fair margin above the actual cost? So the man or the state that proposes to deal with transportation must deal with land transportation and with water transportation-and by water transportation I mean both on inland waters and on the high seas. So it is well within the jurisdiction of this House to deal with this question, and it is the duty of this House in dealing with transportation to regulate the rates on water as well as on land. It will be idle for us to spend any money in improving our inland navigation if we do not get the benefit of that improvement, because the more canals we build and the cheaper we make transportation, unless we regulate the steamboat lines, the more they will benefit by the reduction in cost of operation. If these things are true we ought to take control of the boats as well as of the railroads, and if we do take control we will not try to prevent the boat lines giving the claimed low service they have been giving to our people, but will prevent them doing any injustice. Inland transportation rates have often been the same as railway rates. They should not be as high as railway rates and we should have been able to prevent such a charge. We are told that we will be asked some day to allow a great railway company in this country to segregate its assets and take its boats and its steamship lines out of the control of the main company and put them under a company that would be purely a navigation or sea-going steamship company. If we had not control over the inland transportation of a railway, we might in this case lose control of it altogether. If we have control of a railway we ought also to have control of the boats, and it is only in that way that we can regulate transportation and get lower rates. Furthermore, if the proposal which the hon. gentleman has introduced to-day was in the Government measure of last session, why is not the Railway Act to he dealt with this session? We, ought to have the Railway Bill before the House to-day, because the dislocation that has come to this country by reason of the war calls for regulation of the great corporations that seek to give public service to this country, whether banks, railway companies, irland transportation companies or ships upon the sea. We ought to be dealing with this transportation question in a broad way, and I hope the Minister of Railways will announce to-day that he is going on with this measure, so that it will not be necessary for private members to bring in Bills that seek to put in force some of the good principles that were incorporated in the Government Bill of last session. It would be to the great benefit of this country if we dealt with the transportation question this session, and put in force not only the clause which the hon. gentleman has introduced to-day but nearly all the clauses in the estimable Government Bill of last session. We should then be trying to get good
26:

rates. As the hon. member (Mr. Schaffner) has just said, it is not of so much importance to the farmers this year because the price of grain is high; but we do not know how long that high price will continue. And I absolutely endorse what he has said and what the commission in the West found out that grain-growing is almost impossible in this country at the price obtained by farmers in the last few years. Furthermore, as grain went down in price, freignt rates went up. In fact the whole tendency for the past few years has been to reduce the price that the farmer obtains for his wheat and to increase the cost of carriage. We shall not be able to populate the West and make it a successful farming country unless we control the rates charged on the produce of that country. We may subsidize railways, build competing lines, spend our money as freely as we like, but unless we adopt regulation of transportation as a principle, and in that direction, we shall be throwing our money away and not be helping to settle the West. The problem to-day is to settle the Canadian West and to restore prosperity to that country. Instead of only two per cent of the agricultural lands being occupied they should all be occupied. But to do that we must be able to say: We are going to give you a fair deal, you shall get a fair share of the product of your labour. Apparently there is no way of doing that and of holding out the lamp of hope to attract settlers to the West, except by regulation of transportation. When you adopt a great principle of that kind there is bound to be injustice in various directions. All practical legislation does more or less injustice; but it works. This principle could be applied and public relief attained, but only by making the principle broad and giving it a fair interpretation ; and you can trust any public commission such as the Railway Board, to do justice, to secure fair treatment to the companies who give the service, and to injure nobody. I heard apologies made in this House to-day for a great transportation company that only a year ago was authorized to do what it liked in connection with its capitalization. That company has not been successful in making money on the enormous flotation it put out some months ago. But that is largely the fault of this Parliament. We should have kept control of the capitalization of that company, and if we had that control and control of its rates, we should be in a better position to-day to compel them to do what this Bill seeks to do: to treat the public fairly, to give a good 
service; and those who give the service should get a fair remuneration for it, based on its actual cost. I should lik* to see the House seized of this Bill, and the Bill of last session We should prepare now to take up the new duty that comes to Canada by reason of the dislocation the war has caused, and we should approach these new conditions with transportation under the control of Parliament by way of a commission, whether transportation by lake, rail, river or canal.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: Just a few words in answer to the objections made by different members. The hon. member for South York and the hon. member for Souris are supporting the measure. They merely ask that we shall have control of ocean freight rates as well.


Hon. F. COCHRANE (Minister of Railways and Canals):: There is no doubt a good deal that is interesting to the people of Canada in the Bill that is now before the House, and from the discussion that has taken place this afternoon there is no doubt that there are two sides to the question. There was also considerable discussion in the committee last year, although I was not present, and I think the best thing for me to do is to move that the Bill be referred to the Railway Committee for discussion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question of the second reading is not disposed of yet, and consequently the hon. gentleman cannot make his motion now. The motion before the House is: Shall the Bill be read a second time? It is my duty to say that if there are any who desire to speak before the hon. member who moved the second reading of this Bill makes his final reply, as is his privilege, they have the opportunity to* do so now. They cannot do so after he has spoken.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I wish to thank the Minister of Railways for being good enough to let this Bill go to the committee.
I am satisfied that when the evidence on both sides is heard the committee will unanimously decide in favour of the Bill. The hon. member for South York and the hon. member for Souris have called attention to ocean * freight rates and urged that the Bill should give us control over those rates. That is quite impossible here. These gentlemen know that a commission has been appointed by this Government for the purpose of investigating freight rates on the ocean, and that commission is acting jointly with a similar commission appointed

by the British Government and have this matter under consideration. There is a provision in this Bill which requires that ocean vessels coming to our ports shall file their tolls and tariff arrangements and agreements at those ports. I am satisfied if that should become established the commission that is appointed to investigate ocean freight rates will be materially assisted. The hon. member for East Simcoe called attention to the fact that the United States has not any legislation similar to this applicable to shipping having coasting privileges along the shores of the United States. That is true; but at the present time Congress has under consideration a Bill which proposes to control such rates and to place them under a commission in the United States. They have had during the past two years a commission investigating this question and have decided to bring in a Bill, not similar to this, but one whereby they will be able to place vessels in their inland waters under the control of a commission.
The hon. member for East Simcoe quoted a number of rates in force to-day, but you will quite understand that these are the lowest rates that are given to the port of Midland. He also called attention to the fact that we are at the mercy of the vesselmen of the United States. The increased export through Montreal goes to show the enormous extension of the trade of that port and the need of such legislation as I am proposing. The volume of the transportation of grain through our ports is constantly increasing.
The hon. member for Central Toronto (Mr. Bristol) called attention to the fact that some of the manufacturers in eastern Canada are opposed to this legislation. 1 am quite aware of that. Large manufacturers, who to-day are receiving special privileges, or the lowest possible rates, from the vessel-men on inland waters-and I am not objecting to these reasonably low rates because they have tremendous quantities of goods to be carried by these vessels-are the only manufacturers who are coming forward to object to this measure. On the other hand, practically all the smaller manufacturers and shippers will welcome this measure in order that they may be able to have the rates applied in such a manner as the Board of Railway Commissioners will apply them. We have a statement from one hon. gentleman in opposition to this Bill to the effect that the freight rates on the inland waters should not exceed those
on the railways, or that they should compare favourably with them. What an absurd statement to make, because when you take into consideration the fact that there are boats on the inland waters that are capable of carrying 250,000 or 300,000 bushels of grain, and that these boats can be operated at a cost of $250 per day, you can readily understand the small amount of actual cost involved in the transportation of these products from western ports to the port of Montreal.
I do not know that there were any other statements made seriously objecting to this measure. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) gave his assurance that he would not oppose this Bill if people who own private steamboats or vessels are not interfered with, such as the Steel Company. I might call his attention to the fact that this Bill will have no effect on companies, such as the Steel Company, who own, control and operate their own boats. Therefore, I will in the future look for his sympathy in connection with this measure. I again wish to thank my hon. friend the Minister of Railways for agreeing to refer this measure to the Railway Committee, and I feel confident that we will be able to establish justification for taking the action we have.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.	-
Mr. COCHRANE moved that the Bill be referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.
Mr. GRAHAM:: Is that really the committee to which my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) wishes to refer this Bill? The Railway Act itself is referred to a committee which I think is not the standing committee on railways, but rather a special committee. The Senate has named a committee likewise. It was supposed that these two committees would possibly meet together and discuss the new Railway Act. It strikes me that it would possibly be well to refer this Bill to the special committee.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This Bill is worded so that it applies to the old Act and it is perfectly right to refer it to the railway committee.


Francis Cochrane: We did not propose going on with the consolidation of the Railway Act this session and that is the reason I was proposing to refer the Bill to the Railway Committee of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Bick-erdike for the second reading of Bill No. 18, to amend the Criminal Code:
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: I had not the pleasure or the advantage of being present when the motion of my hon. friend from Montreal, (Mr. Bickerdike) for the second reading of the measure which he proposes, was moved. I have, however, taken occasion to read carefully the report of what was said by 'my hon. friend and by other hon. members who took part in the discussion on this very important question. It is unnecessary for me to say that my hon. friend who is my neighbour in the city of Montreal, put his motion before the House, in such a manner as to win our sympathy for the cause he is advocating. No one questions the absolute sincerity of the view that he puts forward on this very important question, nor would any one be disposed to question that he supported that view with arguments that are worthy of the most careful consideration. Neither do I think that there is any need of saying anything about the importance of the question itself. It is one that has for a long period of time engaged the attention of, I think I can without exaggeration say, the civilized peoples of the world. It is one too upon which there has been a very marked divergence of opinion. I am "certainly free to concede that upon the side of this question which the hon. member (Mr. Bickerdike) has taken up there can be invoked the authority of names entitled to the very highest respect, as well as arguments of the very greatest weight.
In the United Kingdom in 1864, a committee was appointed to consider this matter and upon that committee were men of the very highest standing in the legal, profession and in the public life of the country. The result of the deliberations of that committee was that its-members were practically equally divided upon the question whether or not capital punishment should be abolished. That means that upon both sides of the question one could invoke the authority of the most eminent and most qualified men to judge, to.be found in the United Kingdom at that time. That fact alone demonstrates that we are dealing with a question upon which no one can undertake to speak dogmatically, or which can be looked upon as one having anything even approaching but one side to it.
[Mr. Cochrane.!
I do not purpose going seriatim into the arguments advanced in support of this Bill. I may say at once that they have not carried to me the conviction that, at the present time at all events, this measure should pass into law. The basic argument-if I correctly grasp the effect of what the hon. member who introduced this Bill said- upon which he founds his contention, is that there is no right in the State to take any man's life. I understand him to take the most absolute view of the effect of the prohibition, " Thou shalt not kill ". In the first place, before I touch the question whether there is any distinction to be made between the individual and the authority vested by society in the head of the State, when you come to the application of that prohibition, I think it may be well to point out what is obvious to us all, that even as regards that prohibition a$ addressed to the individual, it is not possible to accept it as being as absolute as the hon. member would seem to consider it. For instance, I do not think it would be suggested even by the hon. member himself that the individual is so absolutely bound by that prohibition that under no circumstances whatsoever would he be justified in killing a human being. Take for instance, a case that presents itself at the very first glance to every one-the case of self-defence. Surely no one would suggest that the prohibition is so absolute that when some man, armed to take my life, attacks me, I must, to conform with the reasonable requirement of the prohibition, stand quietly and allow him to kill me. It must be present to all our minds that there are other cases where the prohibition is not of absolute application. On the battlefields of Europe to-day our brothers, those of our own blood, those of our own immediate country, are engaged in the destruction of human life. We are making great sacrifices to fit them out and equip them so that they may be able to act with the greatest effect in that work in which they are engaged. I am satisfied that my patriotic friend from St. Lawrence will not suggest that those men are violating the command for which he, in common with us all, has such a very great respect. Therefore in so far as the contention is that the prohibition is so absolute that neither the State nor the individual can have any right under any circumstances to violate its letter, I need not spend more time in meeting it.
It seems to me also that there is a distinction to be made between the effect of that prohibition as addressed to the indi-

vidual and its effect when you seek to apply it to the governing power of the State, which is charged with the defence and the preservation of the State, just as the individual is charged with his own defence and his own preservation. And if it be true that the individual, when it is necessary for the preservation of his own life, is entitled to treat the prohibition a? not applicable, I hardly think it can be claimed that, where the State, responsible for the protection of society and of all its members, finds it necessary in discharge of that paramount duty to take human life, it can be held to have violated that prohibition.
It seems to be contended that there is some more absolute right to life on the part of the individual than there is to any other possession of his, and more especially it is manifestly the contention of the supporters of this Bill that the individual has a more absolute right to his life than he has to his liberty, because what is proposed is not that we should let the guilty man, who to-day is condemned to lose his. life, go free; what is proposed is that we should deprive him of his liberty. I think that on reflection it will appear clear that man's right to his life is no more absolute than his right to his liberty. It may be that in one ease the object of the right is more precious or more valuable than in the other; but that does not alter the nature of the right, though it may affect the interest which a man has in asserting its inviolability. Whether life is more precious than liberty is a question on which there may very well be a difference of opinion. Certainly, the people who have at all times been most highly admired and commended are those who thought that liberty was more precious than life.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would remind the hon. minister of that great Irishman who said, " Give me liberty or give me death."
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN; No, he was a Scotch-American. His name wag Patrick Henry, but Patrick is an Aberdeen name.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If he was not an Irishman, he had the best of names, and when a man has the best of names, I can excuse the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) for thinking that he must be an Irishman.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He deserved to be.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Patrick Henry, whatever may have been his nationality, was among those who expressed the view that liberty is more precious than life. That is a view with which one may concur in without fear, at all events, of finding himself otherwise than in the very best of company.
I am entirely unable to see what distinction can be made between the right to life and the right to liberty. If the proposition upon which this measure is based be that the right to life is so absolute that under no circumstances has the State the right to deprive a man of it, then it seems clear to me that it should apply equally to the right to liberty. Or, if it be alleged that the object of the right to life is more precious than the object of the right to liberty, I cannot see that reason has been given for making such a distinction. Looking at the matter from the point of view of abstract principle simply, I therefore find it impossible to follow the hon. member.
Now, if we could conceive of circumstances in which an individual, even when he becomes a member of society, retains rights so absolute that it is not to give way in the face of the superior right of the State to do the things essential for its preservation and for the effective carrying out of the duties incumbent upon those who are charged with the authority of the State, then I presume that a man's right to his life might be counted as among those absolute rights. But we must remember that, whatever may be the absolute right of the individual when he stands alone, yet, when he forms one unit in a great society his right must yield in order that the society of which he is a member may properly perform its functions and may secure to him, in common with all his fellow-members of that society, these very advantages, the assurance of which to the indiviuual is the purpose for which society exists.
If I am right in this, all we have to ask ourselves is; Is the continuance of capital punishment necessary as a means for the repression of crime? For my part, I am willing to go further and to ask: Is it uesirable for the enabling of society or tne State to perform its duty of securing to those who are in its charge in the enjoyment of their lives and their liberty? No man's right is so absolute that it must not yield in the face of the equal right of his neighbour, and no man's right is so absolute that it must not yield in the face of that which is necessary, or even desirable, to maintain that condition in which organized society may ensure to the individual the full measure of protection which it is the duty of the State to give, and the giving of which to its members is the one thing that justifies the

existence of the State and its rightful authority.
I know, it may be said, that it is upon those who advocate the maintenance of this form of punishment to demonstrate its necessity and desirability. The best answer to that is that those who maintain the rightfulness of this form of punishment are, in this country at all events, the parties in possession. They are able to invoke, moreover, the fact that from the earliest times down to a comparatively recent period, there has been common consent as to the right of the State to enforce this penalty, and as to its necessity and desirability. Some countries in modern times have done away with this penalty; all countries have reduced its application so that it comes into play only in respect of the very gravest crimes. In that regard I think we may all agree that they have acted wisely-and in saying that I do not think that we imply at all that it would be wiser for them to go further and apply it to crimes of all classes.
A great deal has been said in support of this measure as to the sacredness of human life. I think the very sacredness of human life is the strongest justification for the maintenance of this penalty. Human life is sacred; there is no doubt about that. The life of the criminal is, within the limits of the disposition of properly ordained law, sacred. But the lives of the innocent are sacred, too; the lives of the whole community-men, women and children-are just as sacred. Their enjoyment of life, free from apprehension, is a very sacred thing. We are apt to lose sight of that when we get face to face with one man who is going to be hanged. Advocates of this measure at once forget the other one man, or the other several men, perhaps, who stood facing the revolver of this condemned individual. One life is not more sacred than another. But, it will be said, by taking the one you will not revive the other; and that is perfectly true. But, I think we need nothing more to justify the maintenance of this penalty than that it operates to deter the commission of the crime for which it is inflicted. I do not conceive that it is incumbent upon us to show that it is necessary for the purposes of a deterrent. All we are called upon to show is that it. contributes to deterring, and adds an additional safeguard. Upon the question as to whether or not it operates as a deterrent, as upon all matters that touch this question, I am quite free to agree that there is anything but unanimity of opinion, and that people of the very highest authority have taken the view that the 
imposition of this penalty does not operate as a deterrent, or, at all events, not as a more effective deterrent than other means of punishment. When we are called upon to form an opinion about that, we are always asked to confine our attention to the individual man who has come to the stage of contemplating committing a murder aud it is said: , unless it can be established that the man at that moment stops and says to himself, veil, if it were not for the hanging that might follow, I would kill my neighbour, you have not shown any deterrent effect. I do not so understand at. The great deterrent effect, to my mind, .that the infliction of this penalty produces is the great deterrent effect upon the whole body of the community; upon the general mind; upon the manner in which the whole of the people look upon murder. It is in that respect that I think the argument fails, that because good efieets have followed upon the abolition of this penalty with regard to minor crimes, we should go further. I can quite understand that the deterrent effect of capital punishment was very much minimized when it was made of general application, so that any offence whatever which a man might be tempted to commit, or, at all events, offences even of a minor character which a man might be tempted to commit, exposed him to this ultimate penalty. Inasmuch as we cannot hope for a community exempt from temptation to crime or offence of any kind, that condition of affairs very naturally created the feeling which is expressed in the saying that one might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb; if hanging is to be applicable to offences great and small, the effect is that you put all offences upon the same level. But when you single out this crime of murder, this crime of taking human life, and set it apart in a category with treason, which involves taking or attacking the life of the state itself; when you set it aside to have applied to it this extreme penalty, then, it seems to me, you infallibly set that 'crime apart as an uncommittable crime for the great bulk of the population. That, to me, is the deterrent effect that I argue for.
I am not prepared to argue, and I do not think it is necessary to argue, that when a man under the influence of passion, under the influence, perhaps,, of intoxicating drink or under the pressure of cupidity, has come to the point where he is willing to consider murder as among the possible things, he will stop because he

may be hanged. But I do contend-and this seems to me to be clear-.that the maintenance of this penalty is a great deterrent on the great mass- of the people. You keep this crime before them as the thing that may be compared to the scriptural unpardonable sin and the thing that the State visits with the last and ultimate penalty of deprivation of life. Doing that, you bring home	to	every	individual in the community just the extent to which	the State	appreciates the sacredness of human life. The state so appreciates that sacredness, it attaches such importance to enforcement of the prohibition: Thou shalt not kill, that before all its people it proclaims that towards the m^rti who takes his neighbour's life, the state has no disposition to exercise mercy or leniency. So, for my part, it is not a question at all of what the individual would-be murderer thinks at the moment that he is going to commit his crime; the great important matter is how the whole community will look upon the crime of slaying a human being. I think that we can make no mistake when we take the most extreme means that are at our disposal to create and maintain in the common mind of the whole people that absolute conviction that the man who kills another steps beyond the pale of compassion. '
So much for the deterrent effects of the maintenance of this form of punishment and if you once admit the deterrent effects I do not think I need spend time in arguing for the position: that the authority responsible for the protection of society and all its individual members, the authority to whom the individual owes allegiance purely and simply because it exists to give and does give him that protection, is bound to use effective means to secure it to him. I know that minor arguments are advanced. We are told of the terrible danger, in view of the fallibility of all human judgment of some innocent man being convicted and being executed. I think under our system of administration of justice, that while, of course, no one can say that that is not a possibility, at the very least we can safely claim that it is a most remote possibility; and if it should have to [DOT] be admitted that it might, after a long series of years, happen that one man, innocent of a crime, should unfortunately be convicted and executed, no doubt that would be a most lamentable thing. But for my part I would be quite prepared to set over against that the immense advantage which,
in my judgment at least, results to society at large and to every individual member of it from the maintenance of this most extreme form of punishment.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) spoke with a good deal of feeling of a case in which he said within the last year an innocent man had gone to the gallows. I happen to be familiar with that case. I am quite- sure that the hon. member will not find fault if I suggest that I had greater opportunity of knowing justwhat happened in that case than he could possibly have had. I have on my shoulders the responsibility of that man's life, jointly, of course, with my colleagues, but the initiative of the advice and the responsibility for it was mine; and might I say to the hon. gentleman that that man went to the gallows after a trial before a properly constituted court, before a jury of his countrymen who convicted him; and he went to the gallows after the perfect regularity and legality of the trial had been submitted to the Court of Appeals in his own province and then to the Supreme Court of Canada, and he went there under the unanimous judgment of that Supreme Court and under a disposition of law which, for my part, I would with great regret see disappear from the Criminal code of this country.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock


Charles Joseph Doherty: When you
left the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I was proceeding to speak of a case which the non. member who introduced this Bill had referred to in his remarks as being a case where an innocent man had gone to the scaffold. In themselves the circumstances of that case are perfectly simple. I have no desire, it is not a pleasant task, to insist upon the guilt of one who has now gone before a higher and an infallible Judge. But the fact remains that, so far as it is possible for us with our limited capacity for judgment to reach a sound conclusion, I myself have no doubt that that man went to a deserved death. The innocent man for whom the hon. member's heart bleeds started out with another innocent man, each of them armed with revolvers loaded and prepared for action, on the laudable purpose of holding up whomsoever they might meet and robbing them at the point of the revolver. They intended to go in company with two others. Somehow or other their arrangement did not turn out as they expected. They missed the two

others, and from the innocent employment of holding up the passer-by they diverted tneir attention to the equally innocent employment of burglarizing a couple of stores. They achieved this laudable purpose, and proceeded to divide the swag. But while engaged in that perfectly innocent occupation a policeman was imprudent enough and inconsiderate enough to intrude upon them and the policeman was shot. Nobody knows till this hour which of those two men shot the policeman.


Mr. BICKERDIKE:: Good!
Mr- DOHERTY:	But it is absolutely
certain that one of those two men shot the policeman. The hon. gentleman's interjection of " good " conveys his idea of immaculate innocence. In the eyes of the hon. member, the man that did not fire the shot is an innocent man. All that he did was to start out armed and equipped and ready for murder. All that he did was to go out with murder in his heart. All that he did was to prepare himself so that if somebody interfered with his robbery of his neighbours he would be in a position to murder that somebody. That is all. Perfect innocence! If you have tears, prepare to shed them now. This perfectly innocent gentleman-and I do not know which of these two was the perfectly innocent-gentleman, and nobody does-had only started out with that purpose. He had only started out with a companion inspired, to his knowledge, with the same purpose. The two of them had only gone out on an absolutely unlawful expedition in the course of which the two of them perfectly knew that murder was liable to be committed. They got ready for that. They went out, and what they perfectly knew might happen did happen. The barbarous representative of the law, the law that hangs men that murder their neighbours, ventured to interfere with them, and between the two of those men he was shot down and killed. There was not any possible doubt of all the facts that I have stated. These two men told us the story themselves. They agreed upon every incident until the moment of the firing of the shot; and then each said that the other man fired the shot. If we are to apply the doctrine that my hon. friend apparently thinks we should apply, then so far as we knew these were two absolutely innocent men who ought to have gone scot free.


Robert Bickerdike: I did not say so.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is absolutely certain that one of them fired the shot. The Parliament of this country has enacted that where 
two or more men prepare for the committing of a crime, join together in the attainment of an unlawful purpose in the pursuit of which it is probable that any crime may be committed, each one of them is responsible for whatever crime the other commits and that certainly was the case here. For my part, I would be sorry should that cease to be the law. There was an innocent policeman who went out in the performance of his duty to protect the lives and the property of the citizens of Vancouver, for it was in that city this happened. He lost ms life. My hon. friend does not seem to be impressed with the sacredness of his life; yet he was a perfectly innocent man. More than that, he was a brave man courageously doing his duty for the protection of the# citizens of this country, doing his duty in seeing that other people who slept quietly at home in their beds that night were protected from the nefarious operations of the man who has gone to the gallows, and that policeman was shot uown in cold blood without a moment's warning; was sent to his reckoning with his Creator without one instant of preparation. Human life is sacred, but my hon. friend has no sympathy to waste on the death of that man. His horror is that the two men were held responsible for'that crime, the two men who co-operated to bring about the conditions in which that policeman lost his life, the two men whom the law declared to be equally guilty whichever of them fired the shot and the actions of each of whom led up to and culminated in that crime. For my part, I have said it twice already, and I say it now, I hope the law in that respect may long remain on the statute book. I think it is an absolutely just, an absolutely equitable, an absolutely necessary law. I said that I was responsible for the advice that sent that man to the gallows.
I have no repentance for that advice. I certainly would have most absolutely failed in my duty, and colleagues would have failed equally with me, had we given any other advice. Should we have sent it forth broadcast throughout this country that all that the burglar and the man willing to murder in the process of burglary has to do to save his neck, is to secure a companion so that you will not know which of the two did the shooting, when those who seek to interfere with him in the perpetration of his crimes have been murdered? I say it is an absolutely salutary law. If a guilty man ever went to the gallows, and I now have in mind the man who did not fire the

shot, I say it was that mail. So much for that one particular instance which the hon. member has been able to point out in which he says an innocent man went to the gallows.


Robert Bickerdike: I did not say an innocent man. I said he was innocent of the crime for which he was condemned and hanged. I will say he was a bad man.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know that it makes any material difference. This is his statement as " Hansard " reported ft, although of course I am quite willing to take the hon. gentleman's statement and believe the reporter was in error. I will read it just to show that certainly I did not intentionally misquote the hon. gentleman. He is reported as having said:
Another reason why capital punishment should be abolished is that innocent men are sometimes executed. We know of one innocent man who was hanged in Canada, and we have grave doubts that there were not three innocent men hanged.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: Who were they?
Mr. Bickerdike: One innocent man that we know of was hanged in New Westminster, B.C.
That is the innocent man I have been speaking of. Now, the hon. gentleman referred to another case not as an instance of where an innocent man had been hanged, but apparently for the purpose of showing how horrifying was the execution of the death penalty. He told us of an unfortunate man who was hanged at Calgary, and pictured the distressing circumstances of that man's death. It would appear that the man was cut down before he was actually dead and that it took some little period of time-I think that the hon. gentleman said twenty minutes-before life was entirely extinct. I believe that was the fact, and it certainly was a most distressing circumstance for those whose duty it was to be present and witness what happened. But, if I am not mistaken, the very best authorities say that a man, having undergone what he underwent, is unconscious absolutely from the moment that the drop falls. It is very distressing that that should have happened, but there are good and innocent men who die under greater suffering every day. Undoubtedly, it would be a horrible thing if the law provided that any unnecessary suffering should be imposed upon a man who had to be executed. For my part, I do not think that I am much more hard-hearted than the average man, but if it did happen that a condemned man suffered some of the agony that hundreds of thousands of innocent men suffer on their dying beds, I do not know that to avoid that we would be justified in wiping out that, which in my conviction is, to say the least of it, an invaluable aid to society in the discharge of its duty to protect human life.
We have had some statistics put before us for the purpose of supporting the proposition that the infliction of capital punishment does, not deter people from committing crime. If I correctly seize the purpose for which these statistics are cited, it is to lead us to the conclusion that because in some of the countries where there is capital punishment there have been as many or more murders as in other countries where there is no capital punishment, the infliction of capital punishment does not deter people from committing crime. Other statistics are cited for the purpose of showing that in some countries, at a period when capital punishment prevailed, there were as many, or more, murders as there have been since capital punishment was abolished. As regards the first class of statistics, you have to consider a great many other things, when you are comparing two countries, than the mere matter of whether capital punishment prevails in one and not in another. There are a great many things tKat render probable the commission of crimes of a certain class that might exist in one country and not in another. If you have a wild, unsettled, or only partially settled country, where the methods for the detection of crime are weak, and where the opportunity for escape.is ready to the hand of the criminal, you have circumstances that render it probable that you will have more crime in that country than in an adjacent, well-settled, quiet country, where the arm of the law is strong and reaches the offender easily. If in that latter country there was no capital punishment, and if in the former there was, if murders are more numerous in the former country, and if you are to be guided by statistics alone, you say:	Why,
it is the presence of capital punishment that apparently incites to murder. I want to show how absolutely unconclusive mere statistics are when dealing with a question of this kind. If you take them for the purpose of showing that in some country, at a period when capital punishment prevailed, murders were numerous, while at a later period when capital punishment had disappeared murders are few, you have to consider the advance of civilization within the country, and the possible change of conditions. It is a most dangerous thing to say

that purely and simply because after capital punishment was abolished murders did not
increase or that they even decreased capital punishment does not deter. Post hoc, ergo propter* hoc was always one of the most dangerous of arguments. They say, the devil can quote Scripture to support his own propositions.
You might quote statistics also to show that capital punishment should not be abolished if statistics are to settle the question. In 1905, comparative statistics of murder in the United Kingdom, where capital punishment prevails, and in Italy, where there is no capital punishment, were gathered. It was found that, whereas in the United Kingdom the murders were 25 or 26 for every million persons, in Italy where there was no capital punishment the murders were 105 for every million persons. If statistics are to settle this matter, there is a very startling argument indeed. I do not contend that they do. I quite admit that *in that case, as in the other case to which I have referred, you have to look into a great many other conditions prevailing in the respective countries; but I mention it as showing that after all statistics may be appealed to on both sides of this question.
While we are on statistics I would like to call attention to some that come right home to ourselves, and that I think have a particular bearing upon this question. Within the last few years we have had a most alarming increase in the number of *murders in this country. If you go back over a period of ten or twelve years, you will find that we had an average of twelve or thirteen convictions for murders per annum, whereas in the last three years the figures have been 26, 24, and I think 29 respectively, or in all 79 convictions for murder in Canada in the past three years. Tn that connection I would like to call attention to the fact that out of those 79 convictions for murder 38 were convictions of foreigners newly arrived in this country. Of those 38 foreigners 27 were people wlio came to us from countries where capital punishment either had been entirely abolished, or at all events was not applicable to the ordinary case of murder. That means that of our murders 49 per cent were committed by people newly arrived amongst us, and that of that 49 per cent, 68 per cent were committed by men who came from *countries where capital punishment had been abolished or at all events did not-apply to the ordinary crime , of murder. Can we have any better lesson5


Robert Bickerdike: I think that is a pretty good argument in my favour.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am glad if my hon friend is satisfied with the argument. I am satisfied with it. The hon. member does not bear in mind how relatively small a proportion of our population this foreign element is, and yet they contribute 49 per cent of our murders, and 68 per cent of that 49 per cent, or 35 per cent of our entire murders, are committed by people who come from those countries where capital punishment does not prevail or is not applicable to the particular crime of murder. It seems to me that it establishes beyond a doubt that among that class of people you see the absence of the constant pressure resulting upon the minds of the whole community from the fact that murder is put aside in that class by itself as the crime that calls for death. Certainly it is no unfair thing to say that it is evidence that those people look more lightly on human life, to the sacredness of which the hon. member attaches such importance, than do the great bulk of cur population who have grown up under this awful shadow of the death sentence being imposable upon murderers. The same thing is true when you look at the comparison between the people who come from countries where capital punishment prevails and those who come from countries where it does not prevail.-Those statistics seem to me to have a direct bearing upon this question.
Is it an opportune time to mate the change proposed when murder is becoming additionally frequent amongst us, and when we find that it is additionally frequent because we are getting flooded with a population who are accustomed to think that vou can kill your neighbour but that your life is so sacred that the state will never touch you? It seems to me that this is not the time to adopt the system that prevails in the countries from which these people come to us, who have such a light idea of the value of human life. Perhaps as the years go by, and when we all get better trained and more advanced (as I suppose the hon. gentleman would say), when the horror of murder shall have been more impressed upon the universal human mind, it may perhaps then be possible to withdraw the means or the method whereby it was so impressed; but until that time comes, and so long as we live in a country where we find that we are being flooded with people who have grown up so careless of human life under a state of law that was so careful of the lives of the guilty that it forgot to take care of the lives of the innocent, we may very well adhere to the safe old rule that

has come down to us from our fathers, to the rule that has behind it the sanction of human law for centuries, jmd that has behind it the sanction of the divine law.
The hon. member, if I am not mistaken, asserted absolutely that there was no country that had ever abolished capital punishment and that had gone back to it.
I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman his mistake in that respect. I have been at some pains to get absolutely accurate information, and it shows that in quite a number of countries capital punishment has been abolished and people have come back to it, and that in some of those countries they have abolished it again, and in some of them they have adhered to it. That has happened in Austria-Hungary; that has happened in seven or eight of the states in Germany. Capital punishment was abolished in Brunswick, Coburg, Nassau, Oldenburg in 1849; Saxe-Meiningen, Saxe - Weimar in 1862; Baden in 1863, and Saxony in 1868. In 1872, it was restored by the Imperial Criminal Code, limited, it is true, to attempts on the life of the emperor or the sovereign of any State, deliberate homicide as opposed to unintentional homicide, and treasonable acts. Here we have a noteworthy case of repeal followed by re-establishment. In Russia capital punishment was abolished in 1750 and subsequently reenacted, and freely inflicted. Since 1907, there his been no capital punishment in Russia, it is true, save for crimes endangering the life of the Emperor .or Empress or the heir to the throne. In Switzerland no less than seven of the Cantons in which capital punishment was abolished have since returned to it. In the United States you have the cases of Rhode Island and Colorado which states returned to capital punishment after having abolished it. Maine is another instance of the same kind. It is true, some	of	these	states have	sinceabolished it again. But, so far as the hon. gentleman seems to find what he regards	as	an	unanswerable	argument in	the	fact	that those	statesthat have	abolished	capital punishment
have never repented their action, I think these instances are enough to show that his assertion is, at all events too wide. I do not intend to detain the House at any greater length upon the merits of this question. I have tried to put forward the reasons which lead me to conclude that the House should reject the measure the hon. gentleman has proposed.
There is one matter, perhaps not directly
pertinent to this discussion but which has been introduced into it by one of the hon. gentlemen who spoke on Monday evening during my absence, the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). I once knew a distinguished alienist who said that all men and women were on their way either to the penitentiary or to the insane asylum. When he was remonstrated with, he said that he could not qualify that statement further than to say* that some people died before they got there. Now, it rather seems to me that, from wherever I start or for wherever I start, I am gently led up to both the penitentiary and the insane asylum. That is the predicament in which I find myself now. However, I have no fault to find with the hon. member because he has led me up to the consideration of these two institutions. I have every sympathy with every one who is anxious about the condition of our penitentiaries, and more particularly about the manner of treatment of our unfortunate insane convicts. I have every sympathy with him, because I share his anxiety. It is a subject that is present to my mind during a very large part of the time, and which has given me matter for thought, and I may say for action, during a period of months. The argument of the hon. member with regard to this Bill-though I understood him not to support the measure-was that there were worse things than hanging, because a man might be sent to Kingston penitentiary. He went on to tell us the reason why he said that. Now, I want to deal with this thing frankly, fairly, and quite calmly- for it is altogether too big a question to afford room for anything in the nature of personal feeling, and I am quite sure that the hon. gentleman who made the observations to which I am going to refer will agree witih me in that. But he made these statements, and they are very grave. Certainly, whatever one may think of their value as an argument bearing on the infliction of capital punishment, they are altogether too grave to be allowed to go to the public unanswered. I desire purely and simply to answer these statements so far as they are statements of fact. When referring to the case to which the hon. member who proposed the Bill instanced, that of a man said to be innocent, at all events, of the offence of which he was convicted, but who was hanged, the hon. member for Frontenac said:
But supposing only one of them had heen hanged, and that the other had heen mercifully

Unfortunately there is not sufficient work to employ all the inmates otherwise; consequently we have to keep a large gang breaking stone. The stone pile, however, Is the last resort. Those working in the tailor and shoe shops and in other sedentary occupations are given exercise ''a the fresh air morning and afternoon. The prison of isolation is used solely for gross breaches of prison discipline. Except in rare rases the term of confinement is about three months.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Does the warden inform the hon. minister what proportion of the total number of inmates work on the stone pile?
M,r. DOHERTY: No, he has not sent me that information. The stone pile is not a pleasant or desirable place, and I shall be glad when it becomes possible to find work for all these men without putting them on the stone pile, but I venture to say that work on the stone pile is better than enforced idleness. However, I do not want to argue; I want to put the fact?, as I have every confidence they exist, before this House -and before the public. The hon. gentleman further makes this assertion:
He is subjected to tauntings and goadings and torturings, and if he rebels against them he is taken to a specially-constructed cell, a nose pressure of 70 pounds is turned on the poor unfortunate wretch; and he is thrown and knocked "bout in the cell until, as they say, he gives in.
Bear in mind that it is stated that these things occur at the present time. The report of the warden goes on to deal with matters which do not bear upon the subject under discussion, but I will read them to show that I do not want to conceal anything :
There are two men who have been confined in this building for about three years, for the reason that it would be a menace to the safety of the prison to permit them to be at large with the other prisoners. These are two of the five men who succeeded in escaping from this building about three years ago, after almost killing Guard Davis and seriously injuring two other officers. The other three men implicated in the escape were less dangerous characters, and have been at work for some time. So far as I am aware there are no ' tauntings ' or ' goadings ' of prisoners by officers. Needless to say if such a thing came to my knowledge it would entail the suspension of the officers and a recommendation that he be dismissed. No prisoner has b >n hnee: since I have been in charge or for some time before.
Mr. Creighton has been in charge, if my memory is correct, since some time last May. He was there as acting warden for a period of time prior to his actual appointment as warden, and I have information, of which I have not the slightest doubt, that for at least two years there has been no hosing, and under his predecessor in



office. Col. Irvine, my information is that there has been no hosing, and in any event we are dealing with conditions at the present time. As I said, I gave instructions that care was to be taken, pending whatever might be considered to be the final determination of what ought to be accepted or what ought not to be accepted in the report of the investigation, to avoid the outstanding things that they condemned, and this hosing has not taken place and does not take place at the present time. I do not wish to be carried back to any discussion of the past, hut I think it fair to say that any generalization by which it would be understood that any man who came into the penitentiary would at any period probably be hosed, would not be borne out by the evidence before the investigation. But cases were found, and the larger number occurred while the penitentiary was under the administration of a gentleman who was not the permanent regular warden of the penitentiary. However, it will be wiser to adhere to conditions at the present time, because it is present conditions that are in question in the observations of the hon. gentleman, and because no good purpose would be served by going hack over the past, save in so far as we may find in it a lesson to guide our conduct in the future.
The next statement of the hon. member for Frontenac is:
If that treatment sends him into the hospital, on Sunday he gets three meals, the first at nine o'clock, the next at eleven o'clock, and the third at one o'clock in the afternoon.
The statement of the warden is:
In the hospital the meals on Sunday are served at, approximately, the following hours: breakfast, 8.15; dinner, 1 p.m.; supper, 4 p.m. During the week the supper hour varies with the closing hour of the prison. This, however, we are trying to rearrange; it requires thought and consideration to bring about the change without endangering the safety of the prison. When patients are seriously ill they receive constant attention, and are given nourishment day and night, as ordered by the surgeon.


William Cameron Edwards: Is the minister aware that only last July two convicts died in that institution, within twenty-four hours of one another, without any attendance?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not aware.


William Cameron Edwards: I can tell the hon. gentleman that was published in the papers at the time, so public was it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have seen a large number of things published in the papers that were not borne out by the facts.
The warden further says:
When prisoners are seriously ill they receive constant attention, and are given nourishment

day and night, as ordered by the surgeon. I may say that during the present fiscal year, which will expire on March 31, there have been but two deaths, not a high average with a population of over 500 inmates.
There were two deaths in that period of time; whether they are the two to which the hon. member referred it is impossible for me to say; but as the hon. mem-
9 p.m. ber tells me that it has been stated that two men died there utterly unattended, I shall inquire into that situation. The warden continues:
During the winter months the inmates of me asylum, with the exception of two or three, who have marked homicidal tendencies and are of necessity kept in their cells, spend the day in a large room provided for that purpose and there means of recreation, such as draughts and playing cards, are afforded.
During the summer, when the weather permits, they occupy a good-sized yard situated behind the asylum building.
They are given their morning and evening meals in their cells, and their dinner at common tables situated one at the end of each corridor. They are provided with spoons, but no forks.
That is in connection with the statement that:
They tear it to pieces with their fingers and teeth like wild animals.
The warden says:
They are provided with spoons, but no forks, the latter being used in the prison proper only. Tubbing, if it ever listed, has been a thing of the past for a long period.
That is in reference to the statement:
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 the statement of the present warden of the penitentiary with regard to the conditions. As I say, I believe the gentleman to be trustworthy and reliable, and, with regard to the statement he makes to me of the conditions, they indicate the carrying out of instructions that were given and insisted upon.


William Cameron Edwards: Does the warden assign the prisoners to their respective work?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member the other afternoon did not refer to that, and therefore I did not inquire; but I shall be very glad to do so.


William Cameron Edwards: Your regulations tell you it is the work of the deputy warden.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I believe that is true. The warden, however, has made the statement of the facts. There is a further observation I desire to make with regard to the treatment of the insane. The hon. member, of course, will hardly expect that I. will agree with him in his observations as to the Minister of Justice. Of course, he is fully entitled to appreciate my conduct as it presents itself to his view, and I have no desire to quarrel with him on the subject. At the same time, he will not expect me to agree in his observations on that subject. He says:
That it was three years ago when he first directed my attention to this condition of affairs at Kingston penitentiary and Kingston penitentiary is probably no better than other penitentiaries in the country.
My memory is not in accord with the memory of the hon. member, but I have no desire to quarrel about that. His position in the matter or mine is of relatively small importance as compared with the importance of the work at the penitentiary. As regards the treatment of the insane, I want to add something which may have a bearing on my alleged apathy in that regard.
The Commissioners found that conditions at the insane hospital were not suitable, and recommended-I am not pretending to quote their words-that these people should be in an institution provided for the insane, and suggested that this might be done under the provincial authorities. I took the matter up very shortly after last session and came to the conclusion that the proper course, when it would be possible to do it, would be for this Government to provide a special institution for the detention of insane convicts. I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion it is not a desirable way to deal with persons who are insane, whether convicts or not, to keep them in an insane asylum carried on as an adjunct to a penitentiary.
But of course you cannot create an institution of that kind in a day, and I looked for a more prompt method of action, for something that might temporarily meet what is quite clear to me is a need. I took the matter up with the provincial governments. Under the existing condition of affairs in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, insane convicts are taken care of in insane asylums by the provincial authorities. This had been done under arrangement with the provincial governments. Under the Penitentiary Act we are authorized to deal with insane convicts in one of two ways;
18*
either by the establishment and maintenance of an insane ward; or by having them sent to provincial insane asylums under an arrangement made for that purpose with the lieutenant-governor. When this Government came in we found an insane ward in existence at Kingston which had been used for a considerable period of time, and to which insane convicts from the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and I believe from the Yukon, were sent. Such was the system we found in existence. As the result of our own examination, I might perhaps say to some extent of my own examination, as well as in consequence of the views expressed by the Commissioners, 1 have reached the conclusion that that is not the best way to deal with these unfortunate people. Having that in mind, 1 took this matter up with the provincial governments shortly after the end of last session. I did not find that it was simply a matter of saying, will you do this? and their being prepared at once to say, yes. The matter was a serious one from their point of, view, and while at a very early period the Government of Quebec expressed their willingness to take over convicts from that province, they coupled with it what under their system they necessarily had to, a condition that we should make satisfactory arrangements with the proprietors of the insane asylums; for the system down there is a system of proprietary asylums subsidized by the Government, not a system of government institutions. In Ontario the Government was at first entirely indisposed to take over these patients because of the fact that they found themselves crowded in their present institutions. We had some correspondence on the subject, and I impressed upon these gentlemen the importance of this work and the consideration that it was a good work in the cause of humanity. After looking over the situation they consented to find means to provide for these men, and are at present classifying them at the institutions; for I understand they contemplate distributing these men in different institutions, as the case warrants. In the province of Quebec we have reached the point where the Government has expressed its consent subject to such conditions as I have mentioned, and there I hope arrangements will be completed in a few days. In New Brunswick, where we have only one man to deal with, the Provincial Government has consented to take him over and he

has been sent to them. So that we have kept at work preparing this great amelioration, and I hope soon to have it completed. I am free to admit that it might have gone quicker under different circumstances, but I fancy that everybody knows that the condition of this country since the war began, and the condition in which in consequence this Government has been placed, has necessitated delays with regard to many projects. But I am not here pleading any excuses, nor am I making any boasts whatever. The fact is that in common with my *colleagues the state of war since August last has created a condition where the time of myself and largely of the people in my department has had to be given to things that were of the first importance and called pressingly for immediate attention. If that situation had not existed this negotiation with regard to insane asylums might have been pushed with more vigour. I do not know that we should sooner have reached a conclusion, because of course it was a matter of persuading other people. Although the work might have gone on quicker in different circumstances, the delay is not for want of a real interest in the subject and a real determination to do the best that was possible to ameliorate the condition of these unfortunate people.
I have made what I deemed to be the necessary explanation to meet the very serious statements which the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) made the other evening. My conviction is that he is misinformed upon these .subjects. Further than that I have no comment to make upon his observations. I have no doubt that he acts believing in the -.truth of his statements and that he was doing his duty in making them. I equally have felt it my duty to meet them with the answer which I have given, and of the correctness of which I am absolutely convinced. In saying that, I am speaking of course of that portion of it which is not personal to myself. As to what has been done and is being done in regard to insane asylums, I speak of my own knowledge.


Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm) (translation):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention to the statements made this afternoon by the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), in respect to the Bill now before the House. I may say at the outset that I fully agree with what he said in regard to capital punishment.
In the course of the last session, the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) introduced a Bill to the same effect, and
[Mr. Doherty. J
after listening attentively to what he had to say, I found that I could not comply with his request that I should support his Bill; far from it, I felt bound to oppose it.
I was not at my seat when the hon. gentleman once more introduced the matter, but I have read the report of the speech he delivered on that occasion, and I must say that he did not bring in any. new arguments, and was content with going over his statements of last year. The reasons alleged previously, and which had failed to win me over to his point of view, have not met with greater success this year.
As was stated by the hon. Minister of Justice, this is a very serious question and which should be discussed most carefully, without show of prejudice or ill-feeling. When it comes to a question of amending the law inflicting capital punishment, and of repealing its provisions, very weighty reasons should be given to justify such a course. I have the greatest respect for the motives which have induced the hon. member for St. Lawrence to take such a stand. Satisfied that he is fulfilling a duty and doing what is right by his constituents, believing that such a change should be effected, he insists that his Bill should go through. I hasten to say that I believe him to be sincere and acting in good faith, though all the while mistaken. The hon. gentleman submitted to the House a carefully prepared and painstaking presentment of his case; but he will allow me to say that, had he a more intimate acquaintance with what is going on in our criminal courts, and specially in the district of Montreal, possibly he would not be so anxious to secure the repeal of an Act which, in my humble opinion, should remain in our statute-books.
Having enjoyed for the last nine years the signal honour of representing the Attorney General in the district of Montreal, I made it a point, Mr. Speaker, to look into the question, and did my best to satisfy myself that there was something good and useful in the measure introduced by the hon. member. But the older I get, the wider my experience, and the more I am satisfied, on the contrary, that it would be a grievouk mistake to abolish capital punishment.
The hon. gentleman referred to judicial errors. He spoke of the pity inspired by, of the mercy which should be shown to, those who murder their fellow creatures, and who are brought up for trial before the criminal courts. I also, Mr. Speaker, have feelings

of pity; I also have a heart, I also know that it is painful to condemn a fellow-being to death. But were the hon. gentleman to consider the question from the standpoint of the victims, possibly he would not be so anxious to secure the abolition of the death penalty in the case of those who, from then-own impulse, inflicted it on a fellow-citizen.
It is objected:	But why hang the man?
Would it not be enough to send him to penitentiary for life? Would not society, through such means be sufficiently safeguarded? I have had occasion to see how matters are in the penitentiaries. In 1897,
I was called upon to investigate at some length how things were being managed at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. Numerous cases were at the time looked into, until I had obtained a fairly accurate knowledge of the situation. I tried to find out whether errors had not been committed prejudicial to those who were interned, some of them under sentences for life. I also tried to satisfy myself, as the hon. member for St. Lawrence has done, that life sentences in the penitentiaries afford sufficient and adequate protection for the community. Well, I must acknowledge that, as a result, I reached the very opposite conclusion. I found that criminals, though shut up for life in penitentiaries and I make particular reference at St. Vincent de Paul * were still a danger to the community, inasmuch as they were turned into professors for the teaching of crime.
Criminals serving life sentences in our penitentiaries are actually expert teachers in the arts of the criminal, who spend night and day plotting to make their fellow-prisoners even worse than they are. Is that the kind of protection that the hon. member for St. Lawrence would secure for the community? Such people spend the greater part of their lives in the penitentiaries in an effort to corrupt their fellow prisoners. I may state for the benefit of the hon. gentleman ' that criminals interned in our penitentiaries are the most dangerous people with whom the community has to deal. Society has a right to protect itself against them, and such criminals should be punished in proportion to their guilt.
Oh, but, the hon. gentleman may interpose, you are the Crown prosecutor, and therefore not in a position to express an unbiased opinion, considering that you are paid for doing such work. My answer is that I am no more prejudiced than he is himself, and that moreover, I always feel very sorry when, in the fulfilment of my
duties as Crown prosecutor, I must ask that the death penalty be inflicted on some of those poor fellows. I always feel sorry when I have to insist on the carrying out of the law against them. We, Crown prosecutors, are in duty bound to forward the ends of justice, not by any means to secure convictions under all circumstances, and we are always glad when lawyers for the defence can procure the release of their client and induce the jury to give a verdict of not guilty. The fees we are paid are not for the purpose of securing convictions, but solely with a view to forwarding the ends of justice. It is immaterial to us, as far as money is concerned, whether the charge is sustained or not. Should the ver-diet be one of not guilty, the Crown has no reason to be dissatisfied, since the accused has proved his innocence. A verdict of guilty is also a source of satisfaction to the Crown, since the majesty of the law is thereby upheld. Jurors are at all times warned to be careful before rendering a verdict of guilty to make sure that there is no possibility of error; should there subsist the least doubt, jurors are instructed that the accused should be given the benefit of it, for it is preferable that ninety-nine criminals should escape, rather than have one innocent person to suffer eondamn-ation. Such is our duty and we are careful to fulfill it conscientiously.
Reference has been made to judicial errors; it is an easy matter to dilate on such a subject, but much more difficult to prove one's statements. Now, in the course of the last ten years I have had constantly to do with the administraion of justice in ai* important district; in the meantime, numerous trials have taken place, many verdicts have been rendered, and once more I assert that not a single judicial error has been pointed out. It has been insinuated that such an error had been committed, but no evidence whatevver has been adduced in support of this contention. A single case has been suggested. It was claimed that a judicial error had been committed in the case of a man in whose behalf the intervention of the Government, was sought after he had undergone five or six years' detention in the penitentiary. His discharge was asked, but not on the ground of any judicial error. There was no reference to the subject in the solemn declaration. A petition was forwarded to the hon. Minister of Justice and the hon. gentleman deemed it proper to grant the discharge sought for. Is that any evidence

of the so called judicial error which has been referred to? No, there was no judicial error committed. What happened was only this, that the hon. minister considered that the prisoner had paid the penalty of his crime and took pity on him; nothing more. I am quite conversant with the case referred to, and I may say to the hon. minister that he was right in extending mercy under the circumstances, and in granting the petition forwarded to him, he did so of his own accord, and not on account of the discovery of any so-called judicial error. He then set at liberty a man who had been five or six years in the penitentiary.
Taking into account the safeguards provided by the requirements of the law in all criminal proceedings, it is not an easy matter that a judicial error should occur. To begin with, a complaint is filed with the magistrate who is not to finally dispose of the case but simply to decide whether there is a prima facie case against the accused, and should this be so, the latter is sent before the grand jury. Witnesses previously summoned before the magistrate will be called to testify a second time before the grand-jury, and the grand-jury in turn, inquires whether the prosecution should go on. Should the grand-jury bring in a true .bill, the accused will then have to appear before the petty jury, consisting of twelve of his peers, and they will render final 'judgment. The evidence is taken and the accused either convicted or discharged. Should the accused be a poor man, unable to secure the services of a lawyer, the .Crown immediately provides one for him. and if necessary summons witnesses in his behalf. Should he be found guilty, after being granted the full benefit of doubtful circumstances, the docket is completed and forwarded to the authorities who, in turn, will look into all the proceedings.
The record, then, is examined, so is the judge's charge, so is the evidence, and the judge is expected to forward a report to the Minister of Justice. Should all that prove insufficient, should there still be a doubt, the benefit of that doubt is given to the accused. Lastly, the prisoner may solicit the royal clemency. And, as an additional means, there are the writ of error and the writ of appeal. When new issues are raised by the accused, he has the right to demand that the full court of appeal should look into the records. And still, should he be not satisfied, he may take his case to the Supreme court and as far as the Privy Council in England.
fMr. Lafortune.]
All the aforesaid proceedings show how' jealously the rights of the accused are safeguarded, so that full and entire justice be meted out to him. Why then show' such compassion for those who are to suffer capital punishment? Why should they specially be the object of our pity?
Murderers do not kill for the mere pleasure of taking other people's life. Tney do so through a desire to plunder, rob, dispossess their victim of the treasures they covet. Murderers commit outrages, and then take the life of their victims, and dispossess their victim of the treasures They set fire to buildings, and then commit murder. Still there will be found people who take compassion on such ruffians and who are ready to blame others anxious that such crimes be punished by the infliction of the death penalty. They forget that these thugs have not taken compassion on their victims, that they have not even given them time to make their peace with God and clear their conscience before departing for the other life. Criminals, on the other hand, are granted all the time requisite to majse their peace with God, a privilege they withheld from their victims. How strange that so much goodly feeling should be expended on these cut-throats, while so little heed is paid to the sufferings of their victims.
There was a poor man, a workingman, settled in my village; he used to work in the quarries at Joliette. One day he started out with some tools, some clothes and twenty dollars in his valise. On his way he was murdered by some one who wanted to have that money and other valuables. Now, the hon. member for St. Lawrence tells us:	Hands off that murderer ! I say that all the people in my village were loud in their clamourings not for revenge, but for justice, anxious as they were that any others who might be tempted to follow in the lead of that cutthroat should, through the knowledge of the punishment inflicted, be deterred from doing so.
I shall point out another instance. A middle-aged man having met a young girl just leaving school, took her against her will into a house, and after outraging her, shoved her through a third-story window. Notwithstanding that, the hon. gentleman considers that this miscreant is entitled to mercy. I wonder what would have happened, supposing the hon. gentleman had been the father of that child. I am pretty sure that that would have caused him to change

his mind, and possibly he would have killed the man on the spot.
I may cite still another case. By dint of hard work and strict economy, a man had succeeded in saving $300. His intention was to send that money to Italy, his country of origin. One of his fellow-citizens, born in the same village, tried to induce a fellow-worker to accompany them both on a trip to the Cedars. His plan was to rob the other fellow and murder him, if need be, with the help of his friend. However, the latter refused, saying that rather than commit such a crime, he would prefer losing his own life. If we are to believe the hon. gentleman the man who started out to commit that crime single-handed was worthy of the concern of his fellow-citizens and should not have undergone capital punishment.
While, as I stated a moment ago, I respect the view held by the hon. member for St. Lawrence, but he must be ignorant of what is going on before the courts.
We are told that once the criminal is interned, the community will no longer run any risks. The hon. gentleman would have quite a different story to tell if he had inquired into the facts which occurred at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary in the year 1885-86, when the then warden, Dr. Laviolette, came near losing his life at the hands of some of the convicts serving life sentences and who had been for months engaged in a conspiracy to escape from the penitentiary. They would have attained their object, had it not been for the remarkable courage displayed by the warden who refused to give up the keys to these ruffians. They left him lying in the yard, and believing him to be dead, were content with killing two men and severely injuring a third. Such is the protection afforded by the penitentiary. Mainville,-I can speak freely of him to-day, since he is dead,-was at the time a recognized expert in the arts of the criminal.
During most every session of the Assize Court, convicts are brought from St. Vincent de Paul against whom very serious charges have been made for having wounded, sometimes deadly, the guards of the penitentiary.
Let me tell the honourable member that he is mistaken, and that those people do more harm than before, because their hatred toward authority is boundless.
The hon. member may re-introduce his Bill every session-it is his right to do so-but I do not think he will ever find a majority to sanction his request. As far as I am concerned, he must set forth some
more convincing reasons in order to have me change my opinion.
I say to the hon. member: You are not doing justice to the community by asking, with no argument whatever in support of your proposal, that we should do away with capital punishment. A poor man is slaughtered, his wife and children are plunged into the greatest misery as a consequence of that crime, and then you talk of charity, of humanity, of what a cruel thing it is to take away the life of a fellow man. But did the murderer allow his victim to prepare for death, to set his temporal and spiritual concerns in order? No, he struck him treacherously, without giving him one moment for reflection, whereas he, the murderer, will have months and months to prepare his departure from this life, in view of the life to come.
The hon. Minister of Justice was quite right in saying, a moment ago, that the most dangerous culprits are those interned in the penitentiaries. Most of the strangers who become guilty of such heinous crimes are from countries where capital punishment has been abolished. I have examined the record of some of these prisoners, and I could not believe my eyes when I witnessed that a man had only been sentenced to six months' imprisonment for having once committed murder, and to nine months for the same offence in another instance. Is it strange that such individuals, when in our country, should kill so readily? No, because such is their frame of mind. They think that the same treatment is awaiting them here as in their own country, and that they will get no more than six months' imprisonment for one murder and nine months for another.
The session of March will soon be opened. Indeed, there is a great increase in the number of crimes, but that increase would be still greater were the hon. member for St. Lawrence to have his Bill approved by this House. We could no longer allow our wives and children to go out and walk on the streets of our great cities after six o'clock in the evening, nor even by full daylight, lest they should be attacked. Is it not true that things so happened in the case of Hayden, who slaughtered a child in order to rob him of eleven cents? Yes, he struck him with his knife and left him dead on the sidewalk. And the hon. member tells us that we should have pity on that man, on that murderer? Really, I cannot believe my ears.

I am only quoting those several cases from memory; but how many crimes,are committed which will remain forever unknown and unpunished, notwithstanding the severity of the law? Who does not recollect the case of Gregoire? A man knocked a poor woman down on Jaeques-Cartier street at three o'clock in the afternoon, to rob her of five dollars; he had pounded her with a bottle and had left her as dead on the street. And we should have pity on that man? Who does not recollect also the case of Demers which created such a sensation at the time, the murderer in that case, having never been detected? The poor woman was found weltering in her blood, at six o'clock in the morning. And the case of Quinn? Somebody had murdered a poor old woman who lived alone in her house, in order to take $100 away from her; the corpse was found, cut to pieces, at four o'clock in the afternoon.
Let us extend our protection to thieves and murderers, when no later than last winter, at St. Laurent, in my own village, Beauchamp, Bourret and Foucault, who had just stolen a few flitches of meat at a butcher's stall in the village, killed two policemen who were trying to arrest them, for we all know that robbers are always provided with the tools they want for the purpose of committing murder. Let us protect those assassins, let us have pity on them, let us ask that the law be repealed, let us apply to those poor murderers the law of Christ which forbids that they should be hanged, because this would be contrary to humanity. Well, as far as I am concerned, I say that the assassins and the -murderers should behave honestly, and they would by no means be endangered. But so long as the law of Christ demands that justice should be done, so long as humanity remains what it is, let us apply this precept: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. He who draws the sword shall perish by the sword. If you wish to be respected, you should first have respect for others.
The motives of these culprits are always the same: Bobbery, plunder and rape.
When a prisoner comes before us and is found guilty of a mere manslaughter, never is he hanged. The Crown must prove that there was malice and premeditation, in order that an execution should take place.
If the Crown failed to establish that the murder was committed deliberately, with malice, and premeditation, the verdict should always be to the effect that there was manslaughter only.

It was said before to-night, and justly so, that the assassins should first refrain from committing murder, and hanging would then be done away with. But until the assassins have done so, I see no reason why our laws providing for capital punishment should be amended. It has been suggested that we should make an experiment; the hon. member urged us to repeal the law, and he suggested that, should this measure fail to give good results, we could at any rate, have capital punishment restored. But the same experience was made in other countries; in France, for instance, the system advocated by the hon. member was resorted to. The guillotine was abolished, and what was the result? Crimes increased in number to such an alarming extent that the guillotine had to be restored. Why should we put ourselves in such a danger, I pray? Why should we make such a trial? Why should such a sad experience repeat itself in our country? I shall go no further, I have said enough already to make myself understood and to give an account of the experience I have acquired before the criminal courts.
I respect the opinion of the hon. member, but I think he is mistaken in requesting us to adopt such a Bill, a Bill which would bring about an intolerable condition of things, especially at this time, exposed as we are to receive here a great number of strangers as a consequence of what is taking place in other countries. In fact, we may well fear that with the influx of immigration which will come to our country hereafter and settle within our walls, a great number of these culprits may be found whom capital punishment alone could deter from committing such heinous crimes.
Let me tell the mayor of Montreal, who is sitting by my side, that he would not remain in his chair, as mayor of that great city, for a very long time were we to adopt this Bill. Owing to the official position which he holds, he is not a single day without receiving all kinds of threats from miscellaneous vagabonds, and were not the scaffold there, ready to throttle these misbelievers, they would soon put their threats into effect and kill him. The sentiments of the hon. member call for our respect, but he also must respect the opinion of those who think otherwise than he does. We are interested in the sound administration of justice to the same extent as he is, and that is the reason why we take leave to

differ in opinion with him on such a serious question.
I think I would be neglecting my duty as member for Montcalm should I fail to follow the dictates of my conscience, enlightened as it is by the experience I have acquired before the assizes of Montreal, and were I not to vote against the Bill now before us.


Robert Bickerdike: I presume that
I am expected to make some reply to the very many criticisms-and some of them are rather unjust-which have been offered since I introduced this proposed amendment to the Criminal Code. I do not think my hon. friend from Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) is a very fair witness in this case. He has had a great, big harvest out of sending souls into eternity, I suppose no bigger harvest than he has had in 1914, and he is expecting a very large one in 1915. He has grown fat, lusty and wealthy on send mg souls into eternity without caring where they are going to. It is generally stated that the hon. gentleman has made $50,000 out of sending souls into eternity. I shall not reply to the hon. gentleman any further than that. I say that he is an interested party. He wants the law, he wants the murders, and he wants to send the murderers to the other world. I would like to say one or two words in regard to the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). While he was opposed to this Bill, he gave reasons for his opposition and these are the very reasons I advance in support of it. He said that it would be more of a punishment to send a man to Kingston penitentiary than to hang him. That is what I have contended all along. My hon. friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) argued rather in that direction too. He said that the loss of liberty was a greater punishment to the individual than the taking of his life. That is also exactly what I have been contending for. That is the principle upon which I have founded this Bill. If you want to punish a man and to provide a deterrent, I say it is a greater deterrent to send him to penitentiary, with the consequent loss of liberty, than that he should lose his life, and if that is the case let us abolish capital punishment.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman made out a very strong case for you.


Robert Bickerdike: be proved to be really necessary and indis-pensible, is contrary to the profession of Christianity. That is the- ground I stand on here. The question again resolves itself into proof, and I think I have already shown that the punishment of death is useless and unnecessary.
The security of life in Canada does not depend upon the public strangling of a few poor wretches every year, and I should be glad indeed that it might be said of this Government and this Parliament at some future time that it had dared to act upon the true lessons and not upon the superstitions of the past, and that it might be declared to be the Parliament which destroyed the gallows in order that it might teach that human life is sacred, for upon that alone can the public safety be secured. Reference has been made to the hanging of a poor unfortunate negro, the first criminal to be hanged on the new gallows at Bordeaux, and I may say here that the general impression is that poor Campbell was hanged innocent, at least so far as the crime for which he suffered is concerned. I do not mean to say, that he was an innocent man; he was a bad man, a poor man, a black man, he had no friends, and therefore he was hanged. Just before leaving the cell, in company with the Catholic priest, he wrote this illiterate and mis-spelled letter:	.
This is the word to let them know I died for nothing, before God and man I am not guilty of this crime, it was all made up on me
by	and the detectives. Really I am not
guilty of what I am accused. I want all coloured men not to take up with white women for God's sake, goodby.
(Signed) William Campbell,
in death cell.
He was just leaving his cell with his father confessor, to step into eternity, and this is what he said. He was hanged on January 24, 1914-my hon. friend from Montcalm knows all about it-for the murder of George Muir, at Senecal station on the Park and Island railway.
I wonder if the judge and the jury and my hon. friend the Crown Prosecutor and his running mate the Crown Executioner realize that they will have to stand on that last great Judgment Day side by side with these poor criminals whom they have sent into eternity. It is well to think upon these things at times. I have no doubt that the Minister of Justice will realize that also in regard to that poor man in British Columbia whom he sent into eternity, for which act he takes all the responsibility. I submit that where the equities are equal the

element of mercy should hold the balance of power in deciding this question; and with the statistics which I have given the House all the members ought to be convinced that the equities are equal, and that they will vote for mercy instead of blood for blood.
My hon. friend has given half a dozen pictures. Let me give just one-of the awful suffering and remorse of the family of the victim of the homicide. We agree that it is hard on the family of the deceased and our sympathy goes out to them whether death i,s the result of assassination or of justifiable homicide. It is just the same in either case. But for that reason would you have two widows, two sets of orphans and two sorrowing parents? Why, the family of the prisoner are just as innocent of an offence as the family of the deceased, and are just as much entitled to compassion and sympathy. For example, a man commits murder. He probably got drunk or was by environment made a criminal. He has a good wife and also children; a good mother and father and a large number of relatives, all innocent people and profoundly grieved that the offence was committed. The accused is tried and convicted and sentenced to be hanged. The very thought of taking the life of the husband, father, brother and son breaks a multitude of hearts. The time nas healed the wounds that grief for the victim rent; but as the days roll by and the time approaches for the execution of the prisoner, the hearts of the mother anu father all but break; the affectionate and tender cord of love that stretches from the altar to the scaffold is crushed but not broken, and the heart of the wife once gay is burned to its very socket. She goes to and from the awful death cell. Little innocent hearts of children are crushed like the tender blades of grass beneath the angry wheels of oannon on the German battlefield, yet they are all innocent. The brother and sister suffer for his sins, and see his ghost-like form in their dreams of repose. As the day draws near, the father and mother with tottering footsteps visit the death cell, and their minds wander back to the time when a little boy said his prayers at his mother's knee and whistled the tune that his father carrolled, and they ask God why they have this affliction to bear. The wife, children and relatives and friends all bid him goodby and leave with breaking hearts, bitterly thinking of to-morrow. With heartbreaking despair, the mother prays God to spare her child, and as the time flies by, the height of Heaven could not measure her

sorrow. The father's hair turns gray over night, and their very souls are all scarred and forever seared over by the thought of the vengeance visited on their unfortunate relative, son and husband and father. The parents are hurried to their graves of broken hearts; the wife tries to forget, but cannot forgive and the hearts of the children, relatives and friends are hardened by the harrowing example of killing by the country. Two families are in mourning and the prisoner's family crushed and heart-broken by a protracted suspense, and that amounts to cruelty to the innocents. Then why make two families instead of one desolate? Then suppose he was innocent? The country cannot retract what it has done. If life imprisonment would serve the same purpose, would you not prefer it to the death penalty? My hon. friend the Minister of Justice says it is a greater deterrent than the death penalty. Then why not abolish the death penalty?
One of the strongest arguments why capital punishment should be abolished is that innocent men are sometimes executed, and I will give a few instances. Some time ago Sir James McIntosh, a most calm and dispassionate observer, declared that, taking a long period of time, one innocent man was hanged in England every three years. I have no doubt my good friends the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Montcalm will say:	What is one man in
three years; let him go; he will hardly be missed.
The late Chief Baron Kelly stated, as the result of his experience, that from 1802 to 1840, no fewer than twenty-two innocent men had been sentenced to death in England, of whom seven were actually executed. That is a point that apparently my opponents have forgotten. I wonder how my hon. friend will feel when he sends an innocent man into eternity?


David Arthur Lafortune: No proof of that- only your assertion.


Robert Bickerdike: I am giving you authorities.


David Arthur Lafortune: No proof-it is only the opinion of that man.


Robert Bickerdike: It is pretty nearly as good as yours. Here is an opinion that the Crown Prosecutor will approve. Mrs. Booth says:
I know a man who has served nine years and is still in prison, where he has been visited by the hoy whom he was supposed to have murdered. The fact that in our day justice may thus miscarry must give men constant pause
before they seek remedial vengeance in the death penalty.
My opponents have handled the question altogether on the line of vengeance-a man has committed murder and we must kill him.
Mr. Scruggs, former secretary to ex-Governor Patterson, states on his honour that, while he was serving as said ex-Governor's secretary, an innocent negro was hanged, as it developed subsequent to the hanging.
Two negroes by the name of Duvall and 'Clapp were arrested for rape on a white woman by the name of Warden. She could not state whether her assailants were white or black. They tried, convicted and hanged the two negroes at Blandville, Ky. Their last words were that they were innocent of the crime. Some years later a white man by the name of Gossop moved to Arkansas from Milburn, and shortly afterwards took sick, and on his deathbed made confession to the crime. But two innocent lives had gone to meet their Maker. Let me give a few names that I know will be familiar to my friend. Socrates, Cicero, Sir Walter Raleigh, Algernon Sidney, John Huss, Michael Servetus, Louis XVI, the Due d'Enghien, Marshall Ney, Riego, Sandor Nagi, Maximilian, are among the conspicuous instances of victims of the law of blood.
I will now cite a case that I think the Minister of Justice knows something about as well as the hon. member for Montcalm. The most powerful case cited by Mr. Mc-Connico was the Durand case, from California. Durand, though ably defended, was convicted of the murder of his sweetheart in the tower of a church; and, on what appeared, so far as human eye could see, an absolutely perfect and unbreakable case of circumstantial evidence, he was convicted and hanged. About a year after the murder, the minister of the church in which the murder occurrred confessed that he was guilty of the crime for which the other man had been put to death.


David Arthur Lafortune: Have you the confession?


Robert Bickerdike: No, I have not been there for some time. My hon. friend painted a very brilliant picture of a man robbing another of twenty dollars. I think that man deserved punishment, and I would not care how much you punished him, if you did not send his soul into eternity unprepared. And I want to say, that any man who really believes in the eternity of the soul will not vote for capital punishment-he cannot do it.

My hon. friend the Minister of Justice said, I think, that we had divine authority for capital punishment. He did not tell us where he found it. From Genesis to Revelation there is no commandment, no recommendation, of capital punishment. In fact, the Creator proved that he was in favour of the life penalty as against the death penalty. I was surprised when the Minister of Justice made that statement. Of course, he would not have made it had he not believed it; but I think it will be very difficult for him to establish it. Let me point out where you will find a very strong contradiction of the belief that we have divine authority for sending these poor souls into eternity. When Cain slew Abel-and that was the first murder we read about-God was the only arbiter between men. He was both the political and moral governor of men. Did God kill Cain? On the contrary, he gave him a life sentence, the very thing 1 am asking for:
When thou tillest the ground it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
And He added, in order to prevent another murder:
Whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him seven fold.
Could anything be clearer than that? I repeat, I challenge the Minister of Justice or any other member of this House to find a single word in Scripture, in the word of God, from Genesis to Revelations, that approves of capital punishment. No such word can be found.
The Minister of Justice said that he knew of some places that had abolished capital punishment, and reinstated it. I do not like to contradict the hon. gentleman, but I am sure he is in error. I say it boldly, there is no place in the world to-day that has once abolished capital punishment and is practising it to-day. Some places have abolished capital punishment and then reinstated it. But only for a short time. I say I do not wish to directly contradict the minister, if he has proof of his statement. But I have written to all these different countries, and in every case I have an answer that they are not practising capital punishment now. That is true of twenty-nine places. We had twenty-eight places when this Bill was up last year, but since -then New South Wales has adopted my very Bill. If these places find that abolition of capital punishment is best, and if the people there are satisfied, surely the Minister of Justice

and the Crown Prosecutor will not attempt to show that those people should be dissatisfied. These people say, in effect, that the abolition of capital punishment has reduced crime; were it otherwise they would go back to capital punishment.
I wish to tell the Minister of Justice that the day will come when he will introduce this Bill; he will get credit for it, and that will be all right. I should be glad if he would adopt the Bill and take the credit for it now; I had hoped until recently that he would accept the Bill as a Government measure.
I had intended laying a lot of statistics before the House; but the hour is late, and I will finish by giving one more picture- it is a picture that many hon. members have seen. A French painter has depleted this scene: In the dreary hours of night, Napoleon's drummer boy is made to arise and sound the march. The ghost of Napoleon comes forward and stands at attention. And then the Grand Army and the Old Guard pass by in solemn review before the " Archangel of War." They come from Areola, from Lodi, from Austerlitz, from Waterloo. And on Napoleon's face you see an expression which says as plainly as words: Is it possible that I am responsible for all these men being sent into eternity?
How many men have been burned at the stake, for their religious convictions-and surely religious conviction is no crime, whether we agree with it or not. Hundreds and hundreds have been burnt, some because they would not turn Protestant, some because they would not turn Catholic. As you are considering the passing of this law, the blood of the many martyrs of the block, the guillotine and the gibbet appeal to you to abolish the law that is founded on vengeance and destruction instead of on mercy and reform.
Motion for second reading of Bill negatived on division.


TITLE OF REAL ESTATE BILL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE E. McCRANEY (Saskatoon) moved the second reading of Bill No. 19, to amend the Criminal Code. He said:	.
This Bill is to amend Section 390 of the Criminal Code, which is as follows:
livery one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to seven years' imprisonment who, being a trustee of any property for the use or benefit, either in whole or in part, of some other person, or for any public or charitable purpose, with intent to defraud, and in violation of his trust, converts anything of which he is trustee to any use not authorized by the trust. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 363.

A period of speculation in real estate such as Canada has recently passed through is inseparable from conditions where persons contract to sell what they themselves have not title to, and for which they have not paid, and for which they may never pay. The losses which are being suffered by many buyers of land who have paid their money and are unable to obtain title or to secure return of the moneys paid show that our laws are defective in the obligations which they impose on those who sell under such circumstances. The purpose of a purchaser in paying money is to become the owner of the land which he buys. Until that purpose is accomplished, the purchaser should have an interest in the moneys which he has paid. At present the law gives him no interest, and when he cannot obtain title to lands purchased ihis only right is to a judgment for damages which will include the moneys paid. This course will always be expensive, but usually valueless. Our law at present treats these purchase moneys as belonging to the seller of lands, and imposes no corresponding duty to make use of them for the purpose for which they are paid, namely, to perfect title in the purchaser. Sometimes the moneys are squandered before the eyes of a purchaser who has no right to interfere, for he has no interest in the moneys, no matter what his misgivings may be. This Bill would impose a duty on such a seller of land to use the money in clearing up his own title, and .to hold in trust any moneys not so used until that end is accomplished. Until the vendor has title in himself, the purchaser would have an interest in any moneys which may be in the vendor's hands. The principle is not new, for where the title is held by the vendor the interest of the purchaser in the property being paid for is recognized. The statement in Halsbury's " Laws of England," vol. 28, p. 64, is as follows :
A person who has contracted to sell real pro-pertj to the purchaser is in a sense a trustee of it for the purchaser, but until the completion of the purchase he has a lien upon it for the payment of the purchase money. He has also a substantial and paramount interest in the property, and a right to protect that Interest, and an active right to assert that interest if anything is done in derogation of it.
This Bill would apply the same'principle to the converse case, and would impose a trust interest on behalf of a purchaser in the moneys paid where the interest could not be imposed on the lands.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I have read the Bill of the hon.
member, and there is, no doubt, a good deal to be said in favour of the proposition.
I should like to point out, however, that the Government is, with regard to this measure and to measures generally looking to the amendment of the Criminal Code, in this position: they did not contemplate passing legislation at the present session providing for amendment of the Criminal Code. Our desire has been, so far as that is possible consistently with the public interest, to limit any legislation that may be introduced to legislation connected in some way with the war conditions. Under these circumstances I-and other members of the Government, I think-in answering a number of applications for amendments to the Criminal Code, intimated that we did not propose to introduce Legislation for that purpose at this session, and that, therefore, we were not prepared to take up the suggested amendments. Quite a number of those would have a great deal to he said in their favour if we should depart from that rule. Should we facilitate the passing of the Bill of the hon. member, I think it will be agreed that it would only be fair that those who have suggested other amendments should have an opportunity of submitting them, and, if amending legislation is to be passed, that there should be an opportunity of embodying in the Bill the amendments sought by these other parties, if they should be approved. My hon. friend the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) the other evening pressed upon us very strongly an amendment to the Criminal Code connected with the Copyright Act. I may say, therefore, that I would be disposed, with the understanding that by so doing we do not necessarily adopt the principle of the Bill, to allow this Bill to have its second reading, and after that I shall at a subsequent sitting move that it be referred to a committee together with such other suggested amendments to the Criminal Code as may come up.
Motion (agreed to, and Bill read the second time.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York) moved the second reading of Bill No. 30, to amend the Railway Act. He said:
A year ago the Government brought in a Bill to amend the general Railway Act, and in it there was a clause placing the regulation of the capitalization of railway companies under the control of the Railway Commission. We have received no intima-
[Stage Direction]
tion from the Government that they intend introducing legislation this session to amend the Railway Act, but I am convinced that the railway situation is such that if we do not re-introduce the whole of the proposed amending legislation, we ought to bring forward some of its more important clauses and have them put into law this session, particularly in view of the fact that the difficulties sought to he removed may be increased by neglect of Parliament to deal with the matter this session.
I have called the attention of this House time after time to the capitalization of one great company in Canada, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I have endeavoured to point out that that company has been financing in an expensive way at the expense of the country, and especially at the expense of those who use the railway. I did suggest that we should have a law similar to that which they have in many of the states of the Union, providing that a company's capitalization shall be subject to regulation by a commission, which would see that any money raised for the benefit of the company is raised only because it is absolutely necessary, and in such a manner as to place the lightest burden upon the people who use the railway. The Canadian Pacific railway and other railways in this country have, so far as I can make out, conducted their financial operations in a manner expensive to those who use the road, and therefore I think it is high time that we should adopt the system which now prevails in New York State, thus providing that if a railway wishes to increase its capitalization it must show good reason for doing so and must show that the method it proposes to employ is one that is in the public interest.
There is a rumour in the press that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company intend to increase their capitalization, to divide the company, and to do other things that are, I think, largely in the interests of the shareholders rather than in the interests of the country. In this time when transportation is, as was stated here this afternoon of greatest importance, it is essential that the intention of the Government to brin^ the capitalization of railways under public control should be speedily carried out. If we neglect it this session something will he done in the meantime by the railway that will be against the public interest. We have taken over control of the Canadian Northern railway, and its capitalization is

now strictly within the control of this Parliament. Why should not that be the case with every other railway company that we have in Canada? As I said, there is a danger of the public interest being jeopardized by new legislation on the part of the Canadian Pacific railway and other roads. It is for the purpose of having these matters immediately placed under the Railway Commission and of preventing anything unfair to the public being done that I urge that this law should be adopted this session. There is no harm done to the railway if it be made to justify its new issues, and if it is shown that the plan which it proposes to follow is in the public interest there is no hardship in it.
The great trouble to-day throughout the world is improvident capitalization in connection with great corporations. The experience of the United States in connection with the Boston and Maine, the New York, New Haven and Hartford especially, the Rock Island and other railroads show that road after road has been ruined or injured by improvident capitalization; and, as a consequence, the people of the United States are now seeking to bring all of this capitalization under control. To show what improvident legislation will do in the way of capitalization one has only to look at the failures all over Canada, from ocean to ocean, in connection with over-capitalized companies. If you take the mergers that have taken place, if you look into the flotations that have been made, if you look into the way in which the great industries of ibis country have been over-capitalized and then put in a condition that they could not pay their interest or any dividends, and if you look at and realize the way they have been wrecked, you will find that over-capitalization is the cause of their trouble. A marvellous light has been thrown on this question of capitalization in the United States lately. A man named Henry Ford started a great automobile industry, beginning in a very small way. He succeeded in the operations of his company and he is to-day distributing $25,000,000 of the profits of his company among his employees. He is enabled to do it because there has been no water injected into that great company. You find company after company whose profits ought to be as large as Ford's; had they not to pay dividends on watered stock the owners would have been enabled to do as Ford has done and to pay out the profits of the company for the benefit of the workingman.

Anyone who professes to have the interests of labour at heart must admit that the only way to get fair treatment out of the great bulk of these corporations is to control their capitalization, put it down to the lowest possible amount and have it of a kind that bears least on those wdro are patrons of the proposition. If a company finance by issuing bonds say at 4 per cent instead of stock on which owners expect 10 per cent and if we stop this business of cutting melons we will overcome much of the trouble. It is not a legitimate proposition that a public company, holding a public franchise, should devote its time to cutting melons for the benefit of the shareholders; it should he devoting its main attention to the service of the public and there cannot he good and faithful service to the public where there is an enormous over-capitalization-and there are so many instances of it. Take all these outside flotations that are centered in Canada with franchises today in parts of the world. We have had scores and scores floated all over Canada, Mexicans, South Americans, and others. They have all been over capitaized, none of them have realized the promises of their promoters; the public served by the franchise have not had a good service and the people who have invested their capital have largely lost thereby. They have lost because we allowed this unfair capitalization to take place. It must he regulated. We have been promised in Parliament time after time that it would be regulated. We have had Ministers of Justice in this House who have said that it was not any concern of the public that they ought to be regulated,	but	all experience goes
to show	that you must regulate
capitalization in such a way as to bear least on the public. That is all I ask. I ask that the railways of this country, who have undertaken to solve the transportation problem of Canada shall do it on sound financial lines, on lines that will be approved of by the public and be in the public interest. The Government of the day have recognized this principle. They put it in a Bill which they introduced last session. That Bill was delayed. I do not see why it should be delayed now. I see the seriousness of the situation in regard to the war, but I also see the disturbance the war is causing to the transportation and the settlement of our West, and in trying to build the West up again and have it populated, we should let the people of the West and of Canada know that when we are creating corporations for the public we shall take power to regulate their capitalization. I say that is a reasonable thing and if we neglect to do it now some of these companies will get away from our jurisdiction and do whatever they wish before they come under the law7. If the Government will say that they did not quite see their way this session to go on with this legislation but they will give notice to the corporations that none of them will be allowed to deal with their capitalization until the general law can be passed, I might be satisfied to accept that and probably the country would be satisfied. I feel that I do not need to argue in favour of this proposition. The consensus of opinion is in favour of it. The effect of the clause that I have here tonight is a recognized Government measure of last session. Inasmuch as they are following on the lines of legislation in other countries I say that we ought to adopt it now and let every one know that hereafter undue inflation in connection with public franchises, and especially railways* will not be allowed.
A Bill was introduced in this House in connection with a steamship company a year or so ago. I opposed it and I gave as a reason then that there was a flotation proposition in it that was against the interests of the public. It was denied in a way, but what happened afterwards? They organized under the Companies Act and they did what they liked in connection with tneir flotations. It has been a great disappointment to the people who put their money into it. Our. object today, if we are to assist in the recuperation of Canada, in trying to regain our position after this war, will be to encourage and allow only sound financing in this country in connection with these companies. If we put an end for all time to this high financing and get them back to honest and fair measures, we shall be doing a lot to put this country in better shape. It will take this country and the mother country and every nation in Europe years to recover from the setback occasioned by the war, and nothing will so much prevent a recovery as unfair financing. I could go fully into that and give argument after argument, but it does not require it. It seems to me absolutely in the public interest that the high financing which takes place in connection with railways in this and other countries should cease. All these matters should be under the control of a public body and, following the lines of the Government Bill
[Stage Direction]
of last session, my suggestion is to put these matters under the regulation of the Railway Commission.
The other clause of this Bill deals with a matter that largely affects the cities of Toronto and Montreal, and in fact the whole country. The clause is taken from the Government Bill of last session, and is to give power to the Railway Commission to make an order, if it sees fit, whereby a municipality can associate itself with a railway company that proposes to build a bridge within the municipality, in order that a joint bridge may be built for vehicular and steam traffic. That is a sound common-sense principle. In my own constituency the Canadian Pacific railway has built within the last two or three years two great bridges. The township council of York, through its council, approached the railway company and asked to be allowed to join in the building of the bridge so that a roadway might be made for the public. The railway company said they were ready to discuss the matter; but it was not discussed. Other great bridges are to be built in my constituency over ravines that the public wish to cross, and they would be prepared to pay a fair share of the cost if they had an opportunity of doing so. This clause is to give them that right. One of the members of the city of Montreal, when this matter was up in the Railway Committee a year ago, pointed out that it was of the greatest importance to the people of Montreal as also to people of other towns and ciues in the province of Quebec. I have seen members of the Railway Committee urge time after time that municipalities be given the right to join with the railways in building bridges. The Railway Commission would apportion the cost. Member after member from the West has brought up cases of this kind where people want a public roadway in connection with the bridges that are built across the rivers and ravines in their districts. In a number of cases the railways have of their own motion joined with the municipalities in giving such a public service bridge. The demand for this kind oi bridge is greatly increasing. The question is up in my constituency, and in the city of Toronto where the railways propose to build additional bridges over the great ravines that surround the city, and tnere is no reason why the city of Toronto and the municipality should not have the *right to join with the railway company in order to get a public roadway a? well as 
a railway bridge. These two things are in the public interest and are needed now and every day, and I see no reason why Parliament should not put these two clauses on the statute-book this year. It is for that purpose, because I think it is in the public interest, that I have introduced the Bill this session. I should like to have it read a second time, but would prefer to have seen it discussed in Committee of the 'Whole House and dealt with there; but as the Minister of Railways has moved that the previous Bill go to the Railway Committee I suppose, if the House sees fit, the same course will be taken with this Bill, and that I shall have to bring forward my arguments there. The need for this legislation is apparent to everybody, and it is more needed now than ever it was. It will 'help to meet the general transportation question, and the financing of the railways. It will help the settlement of the country, and give farmers better rates and better bridges to the towns, and Parliament will [DOT]have done something towards meeting conditions in this country. For that reason I move the second reading of this Bill.
John Gillanders Turriff: At this late hour I shall only occupy the House for a moment or two. I quite agree with the object of the Bill and the remarks made *by the mover. I think the over-capitalization of our railways is one of the biggest difficulties that this Parliament will have to deal with in the future. If it were not for over-capitalization I do not think the different railways would be coming here before the Railway Commission on the 1st of March next to ask for an increase in railway rates. Nor would they need to increase the rates to pay handsome dividends *on their capitalization, at least on all the *money that went into their capitalization. There is no reason why we should not take this action. The country practically financed the Canadian Pacific railway, and certainly the Canadian Northern railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific, the three companies which own practically the whole mileage in Canada. As this Bill is exactly in accordance with what the Government undertook to do last year I trust the minister will see 'his way clear to accept and pass it this session. I see by the press that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company again proposes to ask for a large increase in their capitalization. As the hon. member for South York has pointed out, if not to-night, on some former occasion, if the money was borrowed on debentures at four per cent, it would not be necessary to

charge as high freight rates to pay that interest as the company has to do when it sells stock on what it now pays ten per cent, and on which I presume it expects to pay ten per cent in the future. There can be no harm in asking the railways to come before the board and make out their case. They can say how much money they want and how they propose to get it, and if they make out a reasonable case the Railway Commission would undoubtedly give them the authority they ask for. But if they can get money at four per cent instead of ten per cent, I think the Railway Commission would say to them that it was in the interests of the company, in the interest of its patrons, and of the farmers and producers and of everybody that used the road, that they should get the money on the cheapest basis and put it into the company instead of into the pockets of the shareholders. For these reasons I have much pleasure in seconding the motion for the second reading.


George Perry Graham: 

will be better to have it sent to the committee so that the companies that represent great investments in this country will have an opportunity of presenting their oases to Parliament, and we will be in ia better position to judge of the merits of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: When a Bill
consolidating the Railway Act was -introduced last year, which embodied several new features, and among others the one that is expressed in the first section of the Bill introduced by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), it,was the intention of the Government at that time, and that intention was carried out, to give to all persons interested in the proposed amendment an opportunity of being heard. That was carried out last year by the constitution of a special committee of this House and a similar committee was appointed in the Senate in order that there might be economy of time in the discussion of the amendments. It was apprehended that a great many interests would desire to be heard before the committees,' and it was more convenient that the hearing should take place once for all. It had also the 'additional advantage that if the two committees conferred together and worked practically as one committee, although technically they were two committees, there would be a better opportunity of coming to a definite conclusion which would carry the judgment of both Houses of Parliament. The committees were so constituted, and I believe that considerable hearings were had. The report of the evidence has been placed before both Houses of Parliament. My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) comes this year with this proposition which embodies one of the amendments that he alluded to, and he has supported it by reference to capitalization. As far as the Canadian Pacific railway, to which he has particularly alluded, is concerned, I am not especially aware of the affairs of the company, but I have a very strong impression that the capitalization is represented by solid cash put into the enterprise. I do not think that in respect of that railway it can be said that there is any portion of its stock which is not' represented by money actually expended. My hon. friend the member for York has advocated the view that if stock is issued it should be issued at or very nearly the figure which the stock from time to time commands on the market. It has been urged by different railway companies, par-
	-
ticularly by the one to which he alludes, that it would be impracticable to raise money in that way and for the reason, among others which have been urged, that no one could foresee the contingencies which might arise between the time that the figure was fixed and the time that people were called upon to subscribe to the stock. The event of tremendous importance which occurred six months ago is an indication that circumstances might arise which would make it impossible for a railway company to fix, without the possibilitv of an amendment or change, the figure at which its stock should be offered for subscription unless one were to contemplate the possibility of the absolute - failure of any subscription at all.
My hon. friend refers to the possibility of raising money in a way which will be more in the public interest than by the issuance of stock. All these matters are of course very proper for consideration by such a tribunal, if one should be established to supervise the issuing of stock or of debentures for the purpose of providing necessary capital in addition to that already provided. I think we should bear in mind what my hon. friend the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has said, if I gathered his meaning correctly, that is, that money for the building of railways in this country must be very largely provided from abroad; and in dealing with all these matters we must have regard to the consideration that capital will not come to us from abroad for that purpose or for any other purpose unless those who propose to invest it can do so under such conditions as will make the investment a safe and a reasonably remunerative one. I am aware that in several of the states a provision somewhat similar to this has been in force, although I am not sure that it goes precisely along the same lines. I understand -I do not know whether it is correct or not -that commissions in the United States have refused, even at the request of the company proposing to make the issue, to authorize that issue at a higher rate than par. That has been so represented to me, but I have not had an opportunity of investigating the question nor do I understand at the moment precisely the reason which would induce any commission to come to such a conclusion. What I have said, however, relates to matters that are very proper to be considered by the committee to which the Bill will be referred if the House should so decide, be-

cause it is the proposal of the Government, as my hon. friend has said, that the Bill should be referred to a committee for the purpose of giving an opportunity to those who may desire to be heard.
I have not had an opportunity of giving much consideration to the proposal which is embodied in the second section of the Bill, but I am bound to say that the impression which I gathered from the remarks of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) and of my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) leads me to think that a proposal of that kind has a good deal	to	commend	it.	We have
not any money in this	country to
waste in the building of two bridges where one would be sufficient. It is necessary for us to do a great deal of construction of that kind in the vast territory which it is our duty to develop; and if by adding at small expense to .t railway bridge, a footway or a way for carriages under the conditions set forth in the Bill can be provided, it seems to me that the proposal is an eminently fair one and entirely reasonable. In fact if I remember correctly, the late Administration, on one occasion, when the Victoria bridge was being rebuilt, gave some assistance-I think it was the payment of a certain sum of money-so that in the reconstruction of the bridge a footway should be added.


Louis Coderre: There was a double drive on both sides.


Robert Laird Borden: Therefore we
are content to have this Bill take its second reading with a view to having it referred to the Committee on Railways and Canals.
My hon. friend the member for South Renfrew referred to the fact that there was a special committee last year. We have not proposed to establish such a special committee this year. I am aware that the Committee on Railways and Canals is a very large committee, almost as large in numbers as this House itself-


George Perry Graham: As large as the attendance in the House.


Robert Laird Borden: But Bills of this character, which require very careful and special consideration, such as this Bill and the one already introduced by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), could I suppose be referred by the Committee on Railways to a smaller sub-committee, and in that way the same advantage could be obtained as if the Bill was referred to a small committee in the first instance. I have a distinct prejudice in 19i
fav.our of small committees in this House, and perhaps it would have been better to' have referred both these Bills to a small committee, but I deferred to the proposal that it be referred to the large Committee on Railways, with a view that such a course might eventually be adopted if it commended itself to the members of the railway committee. I am speaking in the absence of the Minister of Railways and Canals, but I know it was his intention to move that the Bill should be referred to the committee after having passed its second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the Bill was referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Friday, February 19, 1915.