1917-07-19

QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Has the Government purchased, in England, cloth for Canadian soldiers' uniforms?
2.	If so, in what quantity, and from whom?
3.	<a) Has the cloth so purchased been sent to Canada tor inspection? (b) And afterwards shipped back to England to be there made up into uniforms?
4.	If the cloth so purchased in England was not inspected in Canada, where and by whom was it inspected?
5.	Has cloth purchased in England been shipped to Philadelphia or to any other place in the United States to be there made up into uniforms for Canadian soldiers?
6.	If so, what was the total number of carloads so shipped?
7.	Since March 1, 1917, how many Clothing Inspectors have been dismissed, and what was the reason for dispensing with their services?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	28,998) yards, from Mark Eisher & Co., Huddersfield and Montreal.
3.	(a) Yes, (b) No.
4.	Answered by 3 (a).
5.	No.
6.	Answered by 5.	,
7.	18 inspectors employed' in the inspection of clothing of one kind or another have been discharged since March 1. Of these only 8 were employed in the inspection of uniform clothing; their services were dispensed with because there was no work for them to do.


SALT FOR FISH CURING.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond):: I desire to direct the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to this telegram which I received yesterday evening:
Not- a bag of salt is available on south shore of Island and fishermen compelled to tie up boats unless something done immediately; say situation desperate at Gabarus, Louis-burg, Forchu.

Has the minister been able, since the matter was brought to his attention some months ago, to make any arrangements for the importation of salt into Nova Scotia?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Communications passed between the British Government, my department, and the Marine and Fisheries Department, and arrangements were made by which, it being almost impossible to get private vessels, Admiralty transport vessels coming from the other side would bring salt when the salt was at such ports that it could be taken on those transports without too much delay. Instructions were given and advice sent that all the importing companies or importers should, through their agents, get into communication with the High Commissioner in London and, through him, with the Admiralty Office, so that /details could be arranged on the spot. Various cargoes of salt have under that arrangement been brought by transport to Newfoundland and to Nova Scotia, but as I understand it, some difficulty arose as to the charge that was made for the freight, the Nova Scotia importers contending that the charge was too great and that it was really prohibitive. The Newfoundland importers, however, paid the charges and got their salt-plenty of it. I think it would have been possible for the Nova Scotia importers to have received theirs if they had agreed to the Admiralty charge. That arrangement is still open and can be taken advantage of by any importer under the conditions that I have mentioned; but the Government itself has not even a peck of salt and cannot supply any.


George William Kyte: I understand that the Government of Newfoundland does not deal in salt either, but has succeeded in getting salt imported. Have any cargoes actually been delivered in Nova Scotia by virtue of the arrangement that the minister mentions?


George Eulas Foster: I understand that one or two have. I will make definite inquiries about that, and give my hon. friend the particulars later.


TRANSPORTATION OF FISH.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Rou-ville):: Might I call the attention of the Minister of Railways to this despatch that I received this morning from the manager of a fishing firm in Gaspe county:
Grand River, July 19, 1917.
Fish striking in plentiful on the coast. Cannot get enough of cars to ship our fish. Railway

here refuses to give us I.C.R. ears, would you please take matter up. If we cannot get the Government cars, it will be impossible to get through our work and it will also hurt the poor fishermen to a large extent.
(Sgd) James Walsh.
I think Mr. Walsh, represents the Robin firm, or another of the large fishing firms. The railway to which he refers is the Atlantic, Quebec and Western. Will the minister take the matter up and see if Intercolonial railway ears cannot he sent for the transportation of that fish?


Mr. COCHRANE:: This is the first time the matter has 'been brought to my attention. If the hon. gentleman will let me have the telegram I will immediately make inquiries by wire.


INSPECTION AND GRADING OF HAY.
[Stage Direction]
Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 112, to amend the Inspection and Sales Act, Hay Inspection. He said: The resolution was passed four or five days ago, and this is the introduction of the Bill founded on the resolution.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 75, respecting Military' Service.-Sir	Robert
Borden (resumed from Friday, July 13th).
Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: Shall I report the Bill?
Mr. MARCIL. May I ask the Solicitor General a question? I have a letter from a young professional man of Montreal, who is of military age. He wants to know if there is anything in the Bill which permits of a certain delay to settle up their business on the part of men who are called to service, as he states has been done in England.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: There is a provision in the Bill which permits of that. It may be conditional as to time-indeed it has to be conditional as to time in all cases such as my hon. friend mentions, and a man may complete whatever business arrangements he may' be engaged in.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I drew the attention of the right hon. leader of the House to the question of insurance premiums. Several young men who are liable to be called under the Act have written stating that the insurance companies find it necessary to raise the premiums. For instance, a
226|
young man who has agreed to pay a premium of, say, $200 a year, is subject to the war risk if he is called, and he may have to discontinue paying the premium, and lose whatever payments he has made. This is a very serious condition, and I would like to know if it is not possible to devise a means by which the extra cost of the premium might be paid by the Government, or if legislation should not be enacted fixing a maximum rate or obliging the insurance companies to maintain the present rates. I have seen this question discussed in the public press, and I am sure many hon. members have received such representations from their constituents who are liable to be called. It seems to me the Government should take the matter in hand, and either assume the excess Tate of premium or amend the Insurance Act in such way as to fix a maximum premium. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Borden), in the absence of the Minister of Finance who administers the Insurance Act, was kind enough to inform me that the question had engaged the attention of the Government. What statement has the Government to make on the subject?


Mr. GRAHAM:: Before the Prime Minister speaks, may I point out the difficulty in the way of the proposition made by my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux). Insurance companies are for the protection of a vast number of widows and orphans, and they must keep faith with those who are insured and must maintain themselves in a position to carry out their contracts. Most of the companies in Canada have for those who insured before the war, a war clause in their contracts, and if they have gone to the front they have gone under the same conditions as existed before and do not pay any extra premiums. Since the war broke out every risk taken has a clause which says that if the insured goes to war the rates shall be war rates, and the amount is stated in the contract.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As an expert in insurance, would my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) kindly inform me what is the extra premium for war risks on, say, $1,000 of insurance?


George Perry Graham: The rates differ with different companies. Some companies, particularly the smaller ones, have practically placed themselves in the position that they do not care to take war risks, because they feel they cannot do it without impairing

their financial stability. The increase is considerable. If the Government wishes to take the responsibility of assuming the extra liability, I have no objection-; but if the Government were to pass an Act saying that all companies must carry these war risks at a certain rate, notwithstanding the contract with the insured, they might as well ask many of the companies to give up their charters and go out of business. That would be altogether unfair to the insured, because life insurance is not like an ordinary business. A life insurance company is a protector, and it charges so much for the protection it offers. Its first duty is to protect the widows -and orphans of the insured. I would protest against the passing of an Act to compel insurance companies to carry these risks at a dower rate than they now carry them, because it would mean that many of the smaller companies might as well hand over their whole business to the Government.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: I ask the Minister of
Militia if -it is true, as I have seen stated in some of the United States papers, that the United States Government has decided to effect insurance to the extent of $4,000 upon all those who- enlist, the Government paying the premium? It has occurred to me that that is a very proper thing to do, and if it has been done the example might very well 'be emulated here.


Mr. BRADBURY:: Would that -apply to
the 400,000 men already at the front?


William Pugsley: I do not see why it
should not.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: With respect to the inquiry of the hon. member from Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux), I may say the Minister of Finance has been absent, and only returned at one o'clock to-day, so that there has been no opportunity of conferring with him. I shall bring it to his attention at the earliest opportunity. It is not a subject that can be dealt with in this Bill, but there is a great deal of force in what my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has urged.
I think he has outlined the situation fairly well. If anything of that kind were done, it could hardly be accomplished by imposing on the insurance companies a liability which they were not willing to undertake and which might result in ultimate disaster to persons interested in the companies as shareholders or -as insured. There is matter for consideration in what the hon.

member for Rouville has mentioned and I shall be glad to take it up with the Minister of * Finance. In reply to my. hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), I am informed by the Minister of Militia and Defence that he has no such information about the course pursued by the United States, but we will make inquiry on the subject.


Mr. MARCIL:: With regard to the insurance matter, a concrete case came to my attention last year. A young hoy from my constituency, having enlisted, was killed at the front. After his death his father and mother received a letter which had been written hurriedly by him in lead -pencil -and in which he said: My life has been insured for $1,000. He did not- mention the name of the company and they have not been able to claim the -amount. I would like to know if it is possible for the Government to require insurance companies taking o-utt risks-on soldiers to report that fact to the department.


Robert Laird Borden: I dare say it
would be possible but it would be hardly necessary because one would imagine that any one effecting insurance would leave the policy in care of some relative or friend and -consequently there would be knowledge on the part of those whose duty it would be,to see that the amount* was collected.


Charles Marcil: This hoy did hot have the opportunity. Coming from the shanties he enlisted here and his parents, who lived in Gaspe, never -saw him. They did not know in which company he had been insured.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman would write a letter setting out the information he has, possibly an inquiry could be made which would elicit the desired information.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Shall we take the Bill clause by clause?


Arthur Meighen: I would think it not
necessary itlo go -through the Bill clause by clause. What the Government has to suggest in regard to the Bill is brief. In the first pil-ace, I wish to refer to clause 13. This is the clause which makes the Militia Act, the Army Act and the Kings Regulations and Orders applicable. It has been represented to me with considerable force, chiefly from the legal standpoint, that it would be better to leave out the words " applicable and." The clause reads now .that these acts and regulations:
Shall so far as applicable and not inconsistent therewith apply to and form part of this Act.

The subject was called to the attention of the committee by my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy). There have been decisions on the subject and when we
are making an Act


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Upon what subject?


Arthur Meighen: On the question as to
the effect pf the words " so^ far as applicable". When the legislation itself makes the Act applicable, it is better leave out the words " so far as applicable


George Perry Graham: It might raise a doubt?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. I therefore move t,o reconsider clause 13.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: I beg to move that the words " applicable and " be struck out.


Mr. MORPHY:: Is the word " therewith " intentionally used there?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It seems to me it should be " herewith ".


Arthur Meighen: I remember my hon.
friend drawing that to my attention. It seems to me that " therewith " is the proper word. You might read it in this way: " The Militia Act . . . shall form part of this Act so far as not inconsistent therewith." The intention is clear and "therewith " appears to be the proper word.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On the schedule, subsection 6-Divinity students:
Robert Laird Borden: That subsection 6 of the schedule be reconsidered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: This exception
in its original form read as follows:
6 Clergy, Including members of any recognized order of an exclusively religious character, and ministers of all religious denominations existing in Canada at the date of the passing of this Act.
In committee the words " divinity students and " were added, so that the clause reads:
6. Clergy, including divinity students and members of any recognized order of an exclusively religious character, and ministers of all religious denominations existing in Canada at the date of the passing of this Act.
On further consideration it has been found that the words " divinity students " covered a wider class than was contemplated. As pointed out by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), it would include a great many who would also be included in the word " clergy " which is also used in this section. Moreover, it has been represented that it covers a class a very considerable portion of whose members would not desire to be included in the exception. The question arose as to whether or not this particular class of students ought to be included within the terms of the exception or left with other students to take advantage of the exemption clauses. There is reason to believe that those who are not included in the term " clergy ' would be so situated as to entitle them to favourable consideration for exemption by one of the tribunals. In the circumstances it is thought best that the clause should be restored to its original form and I therefore move that the words " divinity students and " be struck out.


Charles Marcil: I understand the right
hon. gentleman to say that students who already form part of the clergy are within the exception?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Charles Marcil: Or would that be left to the tribunal?


Robert Laird Borden: Those who aTe not covered by the exception established by the word "^clergy " could of course apply for exemption to one of the tribunals.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is not a very clear explanation. What are we to understand by "clergy"? The interpretation may be very wide or very narrow according to the views of those who may discuss the question. The clergy, as I understand, are regularly ordained priests or ministers of any religious denomination. We have several religious bodies. Taking two great denominations of the Christian religion, the Roman Catholic and the Anglican, they have Tegularly ordained priests, and these are Tecognized as part of the clergy. But do the ministers of more democratic forms of religious government, such as the Presbyterian and Baptist,'come under the description of "clergy"?


Samuel Hughes: What about the Methodists?


Wilfrid Laurier: I see no definition of clergy in the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: In order to remove any possible doubt these words have been inserted in the clause:

Ministers of all religious denominations existing in Canada at the date of the passing of this Act.
As to the definition of "clergy," with regard to the Roman Catholic church, I have followed the interpretation presented to the House by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), and I think that the definition which he gave is sustained by the meaning attributed to this word in any of the standard dictionaries.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have consulted Murray and Webster and I find the following definitions of the word "clergy": Murray says:
The clerical order, the body of men set apart by ordination for religious service in the Christian church, opposed to laity.
According to Webster clergy means:
The body of men set apart, by due ordination, to the service of God, in the Christian church, in distinction from the laity; the clerical order; in England, often by restriction, the ministers of the Established Church; rarely all members of religious orders, male or female.
If my right hon. friend will look at the regulations adopted under the conscription law of the United States, in the official bulletin of Monday, July 9, at page 6, he will find the following:
The following are the only grounds for exemption:
1.	That you are an officer, legislative, executive or judicial, of the United States, a state or territory, or the district of Columbia.
2.	That you are a regular or duly ordained minister of religion.
3.	That you were, on May 18, 1917, a student preparing for the ministry in any recognized theological or divinity school.
I suppose that May 18 is the date of the sanction of the Bill in the United States Congress. That is the regulation adopted as stating one ground of exemption in the United States. Can we do less in Canada? I do not suppose we should, and I think that the amendment which was adopted the other day should remain. It seems to me to be more in accord with the legislation passed by the United States.


Robert Laird Borden: I made some inquiry on the subject and I have satisfied myself that if we were to adopt the United States amendment, with a date fixed by the time wfien the Act comes into force, it would be of no practical service because it would not include divinity students in this country. The reason is that the divinity course in this country begins in September and ends in June. Any person who would have completed that course would have been

admitted to the minor orders to which my , hon. friend from Bonaventure alluded. The word "ordination" which is used, I think, in the extract read, obviously means the admission to an order. There is more than one order of the clergy in different churches. For instance, in the church to which I belong, there are bishops, priests, and deacons. They are all clergy as distinguished from the laity. In the Roman Catholic church, as I understand, there is perhaps a greater number of orders. At all events, I accepted the interpretation which the hon. member for Bonaventure put upon the wrord. In view of the circumstance I have mentioned, that the words "divinity students" would include a great many who would come under the definition of "clergy," it was thought that those who were not within the meaning of that word might be left to exemption by tribunals instead of absolute exemption under this clause.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am seeking information as to who will be included under the word " clergy." There are certain religious denominations in which the word " clergy " is well understood. The Presbyterians and Methodists, I think, have regularly ordained clergy, and that is well understood. I do not know whether the Quakers have clergy or not, or any regularly ordained ministers. I do not know whether the Baptists have regularly ordained clergy, although they have clergy, and upon this point I should like some information.


Robert Laird Borden: In England the word " clergy " alone is used. We, perhaps, have a wider range of denominations in Canada than they have in England, but we use the same word as is used in Great ' Britain, and add, so that there shall be equal treatment of all recognized religious denominations in this country, the words:
" and ministers of all religious denominations existing in Canada at the date of the passing of this Act." Therefore, it seems to me, whatever may be the meaning of the word " clergy "-and I think it must have a well defined meaning or it would not have been included in the statute in Great Britain-we have made it sufficiently wide to guarantee equal treatment to all recognized religious denominations.


Rodolphe Lemieux: So that the clause, according to the latest amendment,-will read:
Clergy, including members of any recognized order of an exclusively religious charac-

ter, and ministers of all religious denominations existing in Canada at the date of the passing of this Act.
How does this affect the ecclesiastics? Before becoming a priest, a young man has generally completed his course of studies in our classical colleges. I speak from experience, as I was educated in one of the Quebec colleges. The course of studies begins with the Latin course, and continues until the student has attained the class called rhetoric. That is in the sixth year.
Then there are two years of philosophy, the course beginning in the sixth year and being completed in the eighth. Many of these young men, hawing thus completed their course, become what I might call junior professors in these colleges-I am speaking of the Catholic institutions, of course. These professors are considered as belonging to the minor orders, because it takes from three to four years more before a student can be ordained for the priesthood. I would like to know if these professors in our colleges will be granted exemption. There is another point. The section says, "Clergy, including members of any recognized order of an exclusively religious character." We have in the Catholic church what are called [DOT] contemplative orders-and my hon. friend from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) is, no doubt, very familiar with this class of our religious orders.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know what my hon. friend means by "Catholic." Does he mean Roman Catholic?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, yes. We have contemplative orders such as the Trappists and others. There is one Trappist monastery in the province of New Brunswick, and there are two or three in the province of Quebec. These Trappists, although belonging to a contemplative order, devote a considerable portion of their time to farming; in fact, one of the finest f-arms between Montreal and Ottawa is the Trappist farm at Oka. The Trappists have there an agricultural college which is subsidized by the Government of the province of Quebec, and also, I believe, by this Government. Will these Trappists, who aTe not members of an order of a.n exclusively religious character, but who devote themselves to farming in the public interest, be amenable to military service under this law? I now come to the main point. Might I not suggest to the right hon. leader of the Government that the committee might very well adopt, without offending anybody, exactly
the same language as was used in the United States conscription measure? Here is the text of the American regulation granting exemption to "students preparing for the ministry in any recognized theological or divinity school." If there is any apprehension, as was stated, that there will be a rush of young men to the theological colleges, you could insert a provision that those who were divinity students at the date of the passing of this Act shall be exempted? At least, the law would not apply to those students who entered our theological colleges without any idea that this legislation would be placed on the statute books. It seems to me that is a very reasonable suggestion. I do not think there would be any agitation against this privilege being accorded to this class of our fellow-citizens.


Samuel Hughes: Why should the
clergy be exempt? There are 250 clergymen of the dburch of which I have the honour to he an outside pillar, now fighting as combatants at the front, and hundreds more are there as chaplains. I do not see Why any clergyman should he exempt. They are a splendid lot of men. Certainly I do not see why any student should be exempt.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as the
word " clergy " is concerned, I wish to correct a misstatement that I made. I said that the word " clergy " was used in the British Act, hut that is not so; the words used in the British Act are " in holy orders." But in our Militia Act the word " clergy " is used. Our Militia. Act excepts " clergy and ministers of all religious denominations."
In reply to my hon. friend from Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux) I think the words " .members of any recognized order of an exclusively religious character " are perfectly plain. I do not care to express any opinion in advance as to what the tribunals will determine. Certain it is that if there is any inconsistency in the interpretation it can he corrected by the Central Appeal Judge. With (regard to theological students, it was largely the view expressed by my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Miarcdl) foT whom I have great respect, that led me to reconsider the matter as I did. He is my guide in this Tespect, and I am content to place his authority against that of my hon. friend from Rouville.


Wilfrid Laurier: I had not the
pleasure of hearing the observations of my

Non. friend from Bonaventure on this subject, but whatever his observations may have been, there is evidently a want of knowledge in the House upon a. subject with which we in the province of Quebec are all fauniiliaT. The other day any right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) introduced an amendment including divinity students in the exempted classes. To-day he proposes to remove them; in other words, divinity students will be liable to military service under this Act. This will include a very large number of young men in my province who, I believe, should be exempted. I do not know whether the hon. member for Bonaventure conveyed to the Prime Minister the idea that these young men are part of the clergy. They certainly are not, and upon this point I can safely appeal to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). In our province the system of education varies somewhat from the system followed in the other provinces. In the province- of Quebec the higher education is in the hands of the classical colleges. The course in those colleges consists of eight years, and embraces some of the subjects in the curriculum of the universities of other provinces. The classical course includes Greek, Latin, all forms of art, literature and so on. After the eight year course those who elect to do so can take their degrees in other professions, such as the law and so on. Quite a number of young men elect to become theological students and take a further course.
They are preparing themselves for the priesthood, though they may not become priests until after a certain number of years. These men who are devoting themselves to the priesthood but who are not yet part of the clergy make up a large class that ought to be exempted under this Act. The ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) says that priests or members of the clergy should not be exempt; that all citizens should be liable to this law. I believe that for about 20 years all citizens of France, no matter what their profession, have, been liable to military service and, in time of peace as well as in time of war have been required to spend two or three and a half years in the barracks for military instruction. Although this law was adopted in France, it has always met with strong objection on the part of a large section of jhe community. To me it is a matter of doubt whether the French republic was well inspired when it took that position. The French republic might have been well ad-
[Sir Wilfrid Laurler.J
vised if in this matter it had followed the example of its neighbour, the British nation, by exempting religious orders from military service.


Samuel Hughes: Fifty thousand of them, good men, are in the fighting line to-day.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is to the
great credit of all these religious orders that they have responded nobly to the call of duty. No citizens of the French Republic have done better, or have shown greater courage than these men have. I believe that even if they had been exempted, large numbers of them would have come forward and offered their services. But although these men have been doing their share in defending the soil of the French Republic from invasion, they have always believed, and still believe, that they should be exempted from military duty. At all events, that is the French view. On the other side of the channel they hold a different view. In France they have conscripted everybody, without exception. In England they have not conscripted everybody; they have made certain exemptions amongst which have been included religious orders. We live in a British country and in a matter of this kind it seems to me that we would be right in following the precedent of British freedom and British legislation rather than that of the French republic. I regret exceedingly that my right hon. friend has departed from the provision that he put in the other day and has come back to the Bill as it was originally printed; that is, that he has decided not to exempt divinity students. These young men are preparing for a calling which is supposed to take them away from the thing we have in view, and I hope that my hon. friend will not persist in his decision, that he will agree to leave the Bill as it stands.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend has commended the British example, which he regards as the highest expression of the freedom of the individual in such matters. I would point out that in Great Britain the exception reads as follows:
Men in holy orders or regular ministers of any religious denomination.
We have gone further than that. If, as has been suggested by hon. gentlemen on the other side, we had proceeded under the Militia Act instead of bringing in this Bill, what would have been the result? That Militia Act tvas passed under the Administration of my right hon. friend. He says

that a clause exempting divinity students should be included. He did not include it in 1904. His exception then was: " clergy and ministers of all denominations," which is not as wide a clause as that which we have introduced. If, then, the view that he entertains is a wise one, it is astonishing that it did not occur to him in 1904. If we had proceeded under the Militia Act to . select men by ballot and that selection had included divinity students, what would their position be as compared with their position under this legislation as I propose to leave it? Under the Militia Act there would be no possible exemption for any such person. He would not be within the exception, and there was no provision for exemption in the Militia Act. Under this legislation such divinity students as are not included in the minor orders of the clergy might be called out, but. they would still have the right to go before a tribunal and claim exemption under one of the appropriate clauses. In doing that they would have a privilege which they could not have exercised under the legislation which my right hon. friend passed in 1904.


Wilfrid Laurier: When I referred to British institutions it was in reference to the comparison which the exMinister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) made as to the practice in France. In that respect British institutions are certainly, in the matter of the preservation
4 p.in. of human freedom, ahead of the institutions of the French Republic. As to the Militia Act, we discussed that matter before, and I shall not now refer to it at length. The Militia Act of 1904, which was introduced by the Government over which I presided, was simply a consolidation of English Acts. I do not know that many changes were made; so far as I remember, no change was made in that clause, which goes back to 1868. But we are not now in the year 1868; we are in the year 1917 and we are legislating for a practical purpose. We are legislating to bring in a Conscription Act, a thing unknown in Canada up to the present time so far as active service is concerned. I think my hon. friend was well advised when the other day he introduced a provision exempting that class of young men who intend to devote themselves to the priesthood. To-day, for reasons of his own, he thinks that he should not do so. All I can say is this: he may carry out his present intention, but in my humble judgment he
will be making the Act even more difficult of execution than it was before.
Mr. EUGENE PAQUET (LTslet) (translation) [DOT] Mr. Chairman, I agree entirely with the opinion expressed by the right hon. leader of the' Opposition. I hope that the Government will comply with the wishes so well stated by one of our statesmen who knows to perfection the province of Quebec. Therefore I could not too earnestly beg the Prime Minister to give satisfaction to the wish just expressed by the right hon. leader of the Opposition.
As our province will have enough to suffer under this bill, I hope the Government will do all in its power not to raise therein any religious strife.


Mr. PROULX:: The Prime Minister gave good reasons the other day for amending the exceptions by including therein divinity students'. In this connection he consulted the law of the United States, in which divinity students are specially exempted. He now wants to make another amendment taking out of the Bill the exception which he asked the House to adopt the other day, giving as his authority the position taken by the member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). I am not very sure that my hon. friend from Bonaventure is right. He is only a layman like the rest of us in this House, and he is not a doctor of divinity. I prefer to accept the opinion of the leader of the Opposition-


George Eulas Foster: They are making my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) a Doctor of Divinity.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Edmond Proulx: I am inclined to the view
that divinity students, so far as the Roman Catholic church is concerned, who are not ordained, would not in this Bill be included in the word "clergy," so what would be the objection to making the section more explicit by the addition which, my right hon. friend had the other day in the Bill? My hon. friend from Rouville said that the wording might be changed and the wording of the United States law adopted. I prefer the amendment made by my right hon. friend, and I would prefer that the section should stand as it was amended the other day. If the language is going to be changed, the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Rouville does not go far enough.


Charles Marcil: I wish to thank the Prime Minister for the kind alhision he has made to me. The remarks I made on this matter were after the right hon. gentleman had introduced his amendment, and they were practically in support of that amendment. I was a member of this House in 1904 when the Militia Act was passed, and amongst other exemptions we had these two: Clergymen and ministers of all religious denominations, and professors in colleges and universities and teachers belonging to religious orders. I supported the amendment the right hon. gentleman suggested because in the Roman Catholic faith a young man has to go through a course spread over four or five years before becoming an ordained priest; and I wanted to make sure that this class were included in the clause of the section now amended by the right hon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: I think they are.


Charles Marcil: The hon. member for Rouble has referred to the Trappist Order. The Christian Brotherhood is another religious order in Canada; its members devote themselves to the cause of education. Christian Brothers will be found in all countries of the globe doing yeoman service. I suppose a member of the Christian Brotherhood would also come under the term "religious orders," although their special work is teaching and is not exclusively religious. The Trappists devote special attention to agriculture. In view of this particular situation, I would ask the right hon. gentleman to allow the section to stand as he amended it the other day.
Mr. OLIVER; In my judgment, there is a vast difference between the Militia Act and the present Bill, inasmuch as the Militia Act was passed for the purpose of raising men for military service, whereas, as I understand the present Bill as presented by the Prime Minister, its purpose is to exempt men from' military service. I would like to say further that, as I understand this present Bill, its exemption provisions are ample to protect the divinity students of any church whom the Government may see fit to protect.
Mr. GRAHAM; I may be put out of my own church for what I am about to say-


George Eulas Foster: Are you sure
you are in?


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend
raises a question of public policy to which I cannot Teply. So far as the church to 
which I have the honour to belong, is concerned, I would not exempt the clergy, and I am saying that on the authority of the clergy themselves. Some of the heads of the different conferences have written me suggesting that they do not wish to be exempted in this Bill, even although they are ordained clergymen. I have another reason for my statement, and this is treading on ecclesiastical ground. This is war time, and I am speaking for those who have written to me when I say that sacrifices ought to be made by all equally, and the clergy who have corresponded with me assure me that they are anxious to do their full part. So long as there was on the statute book no law asking that others, who perhaps are in a less influential position, should go, they did not feel it their duty to go although many of them have enlisted.


Samuel Hughes: Two hundred and fifty.


George Perry Graham: But if the necessity at the front is imperative, they want to be classed the same as the other men. I have another reason. In the Methodist church we have in many places two congregations where one minister, particularly in war time, could serve all the people, because out of those churches have gone many young men, and some older men.
I see no reason why we should not have a concerted effort by which the clergy and the congregations of the Methodist Church would worship together with the two ministers used where only one is Required.


Mr. BLATN:: My hon. friend will understand, of course, that there is in the Bill nothing to prevent any clergyman or any other person from going to the front if he wants to go.


George Perry Graham: I have read the Bill and I understood that before, but it is a great responsibility-


Richard Blain: I understand the hon. gentleman takes no objection to that. The Bill does not prohibit any Methodist minister or any clergyman of any other denomination going to the war if he wants to go.


George Perry Graham: The purpose of this Bill is officially to exempt them, and that makes a difference, because a man, if he is exempted, must have twice as much enthusiasm about going to the front as he would have under other circumstances. The Bill says to the clergymen:	The country does not
3 ULY 19, 1917
35G5
expect you to go. The clergy of the Methodist church do not want to he exempted.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are exemptions and exceptions provided for in this Bill, -and under them the ,parties affected may claim exemption or they may not, just as they please. There is in the section which we are discussing nothing to prevent any member of a church from enlisting if he chooses to do so, and taking his share in the fight. There are, however, exemptions for the protection of the consciences of those who have conscientious objections to fighting. We have in section 11, paragraph (f) this exemption:
That he conscientiously objects to the undertaking of combatant service and is prohibited from so doing by the tenets and articles of faith, in effect at the date of the passing of this Act, of any organized religious denomination existing and well recognized in Canada at such date, and to which he in good faith belongs.
That is nothing new. It is part of the English legislation which has been in existence as far back, I think, as Charles II, and was enacted for the Quakers, who had objection to military service. It was done because under the common law every citizen in Great Britain was liable at any time to military service to repel invasion or if the country was in danger. But even then the liberty of conscience which is always so strong in Great Britain led the British Parliament to exempt the Quakers because they had religious objection to spilling blood, and for two hundred or three hundred years the Quakers have been exempt from military service. Divinity students do not come in that category, but the same reasons which would apply to the Quakers would also apply to those young men who, I think, can claim as a matter of conscience that they should not be called for military service. I regret exceedingly that my right hon. friend has not persevered in the amendment he brought in the other day. If the present amendment is carried, it will not assist in making this Act more popular in certain parts of the country, but will have the reverse effect.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The United States has no more state church than we have in Canada, yet they have decided to exempt students. We are allies of the United States in this waT, our cause is theirs, and I do not see why we should not-do as they have done. I will therefore move in amendment to the motion made by my right hon. friend: That the words "divinity students" be struck off and replaced by the following:
"Students preparing for the ministry in any recognized theological or divinity school."
These are exactly the words of the United fdates Act. I move this amendment because, as has been explained by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and as my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) knows full well, the divinity students in the church to which he and I belong are tne professors in our colleges. In the province of Quebec we have something like twenty classical colleges. I am speaking from memory and may be wrong as to the exact number. The body of- professors is made up of those young theological students, and if the exemption does not cover them the colleges will be deprived of the services of these young men as professors. As I explained a moment ago, when a .young theological student has taught his pupils during his theological course, which lasts three or four years, he becomes an ordained priest, and is then attached to the institution, if he is a man of marked ability in the course of studies, or he takes a vicarage and later on a "cure", in the diocese, and thus becomes a regular member -of the diocesan clergy. He is the spirtual head of a parish, and as such is exempt in any event under the bill. If you refuse exemption to young theological students in our colleges you prevent the youth of our province from obtaining their education at those classical colleges. If the United States, where out of a total population of 103,000,000 there are barely 12,000,000 Roman Catholics-I am not exact as to the proportion-congress has thought proper to include this exemption in their Conscription Act, it seems to me in Canada, where 45 per cent of the population is Roman Catholic, we should not be afraid to accept what concession they have made on the matter. It was stated during the course of the debate that there would be a rush towards theological studies by the young men if such exemption were included in the Bill. That is a very poor argument indeed and I protest most strongly against the insinuation. No man of honour would desecrate himself to the extent of accepting Holy Orders with a view to avoid a duty imposed by legislation of Parliament. No young man with any conscience would attempt to do such an immoral act-the qualification is not too strong-in order to avoid service under the present legislation. I hope the committee will at least accept the text of the United States legislation on this subject.

Mr. GAUVREAU, (Temiscouata) (translation) :	Mr. Chairman, not only shall I
vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), but moreover, I deem it incumbent on me to say a few words in this connection, after all, it is well that the country should know where we are at in regard to this clause. [DOT]
The original clause as it was amended at the request of the Prime Minister, the proposer of the Bill, must have been good since it was agreed upon by the House, and if my memory serves me right, when the amendment moved by the Prime Minister has been submitted to the approval of the House, the hon. members oh the other side were pleased to come and ask us not only to refrain from putting difficulties in the way, but even to further its enactment, for they said they had found it hard to have it agreed to. Consequently I believe if is well that the people of this country should be acquainted with what is going on here and with the reasons which may have induced the Prime Minister to so amend his own amendment and to turn about. I deem it my duty to say that the clause as amended by the Prime Minister himself - should remain in the Bill and that there is no reason whatever to revert now to the former clause as the amendment which he had moved was the one which in his own words was to be retained in the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) is not quite frank in quoting in his amendement the words to be found in the United States Act. The wording of the United States Act is:
Students who at the time of the approval of this Act are preparing for the ministry in recognized theological or divinity schools.
My hon. friend proposes this amendment and wishes us to understand it to be the same.
Including students preparing for the minis try in any recognized theological or divinity school.
This is not the same thing as the United States enactment, and my hon. friend knows perfectly well it is not the same. If he proposes that the exact enactment of the United States should be followed, he might be good enough to consider what the effect would be.. If we follow the precedent of the United States, we must strike out the words:	" members of any recognized order of an exclusively religious character." Does my hon. friend desire to have these words excluded? I do not

think they are found in the United States
Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will send the official bulletin to my right hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: I have the Act
before me.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have a copy of the
official bulletin containing information for persons registering under the selective draft issued at Washington on the 9th. I will send it to my right hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: I will leave that for a moment until I investigate. My hon. friend says that he has some information which is not consistent with my view. But he has not adopted the provisions of the United States Act for he is leaving out the limitation to which I have alluded and which confines the operation of the section in the United States to those who were recognized students in a divinity 'school at the time the Act went into effect, a very different thing indeed from what my hon. friend suggests.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I bad penned my amendment before suggesting a moment ago-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the matter? I had penned my amendment and had put it into the hands of the Prime Minister before 1 suggested that date might be fixed. I have no objection to a date being fixed, if the committee will accept the American text.


Robert Laird Borden: If the date were fixed as the 6th July, according to my information, it would be of absolutely no service whatever because it would not include persons who are divinity students. According to my information, after -they have been engaged in study for a year -as divim ity -students, they pass to the minor orders of clergy -and they are covered by the word "clergy".


Wilfrid Laurier: Not necessarily.


Robert Laird Borden: I am so informed. My right hon. friend's information wpuld .possibly be more reliable than my own, but I think my information is accurate.


Wilfrid Laurier: The criticism offered toy my right -hon. friend the Prime Minister to the -amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) is purely verbal and technical. If

we accept the idea it is easy to frame a clause which will express it. The only thing that my hon. friend from R.ouville contends-and I venture to affirm and support his contention-is that theological students, a class which is well known at least in one province of the Dominion, should be exempted as they 'are exempted by the words in the amendment which was adopted the last time we had this Bill before the committee. Whether the amendment is accepted or not makes a vast difference. In the United States that class of young men is excepted from the operation of the law. In the. United States they exempt divinity students and students in theology. Under this Bill, if my hon. friend's amendment is not adopted, they will not be exempted. I would suggest to my right hon, friend that the relations between the United States and Canada are very close. The system of selfgovernment is very much the same; the interchange of commerce is becoming every day more diffused; we are fighting for the same cause, and I would suggest that this is creating a great contrast between the legislation of the United States and our own legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: We have made an exemption in this Act which is not to be found in the United States enactment at all, and we have done it because we thought it was a reasonable thing to do.
I repeat that I can find nothing of the same character in the United States.Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In regard to which?


Robert Laird Borden: In regard to religious orders. Does my hon. friend desire that we shall so amend this Act as to make it conformable in this respect to the United States Act? If we fixed a date under this Act it would be of no practical service for the purpose which my hon. friend has in mind; it would even defeat that purpose if we were to strike out the provision in regard to members of religious orders. I think my hon. friend has taken a very unfortunate position. If we accepted his suggestion and followed the precedent of the United States, I think he would have a great deal more cause for criticism and complaint than he has to-day.


Samuel Hughes: What is the meaning of subsection (c) of section 11 which exempts students?


Robert Laird Borden: It means that students, whether divinity or medical, or science, or any other quality of students,
can make claim for exemption before the tribunals. I have pointed that out already.
I think it is generally understood.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let us compare the legislation of the United States with our own legislation. Here is our clause:
6. Clergy, including divinity students and members of any recognized order of an exclusively religious character, and ministers of all religious denominations existing in Canada at the date of the passing of this Act.
Now, take the United States Act:
. Sec. 4. That the Vice-President of the United States, the officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, of the United States and of the several States, Territories, and District of Columbia, regular or duly ordained ministers of religion, students who at the time of the approval of this Act are preparing for the ministry in recognized theological or divinity schools
shall be exempt. I recognize that in one respect our legislation is more liberal than the United States legislation and I give credit to my right hon. friend for that. I refer to the provision whereby we exempt religious orders-the United States has not done that. But, it must be admitted that in another respect the legislation of the Americans is more- liberal than ours, in that they have exempted divinity students.


Robert Laird Borden: They have not exempted divinity students except those enrolled at a particular date,-"students who at the time of the approval of this Act."


Wilfrid Laurier: the .country will be more likely to abide by it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am no theologian, but I beg humbly to differ with the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) when he challenges the statement of the Prime Minister that our legislation is more liberal than that of the United States, in respect to the exemption of the orders of the church. In the Roman Catholic church the clergy is divided into secular clergy and regular clergy. What is called the regular clergy comprises the religious orders, and the secular clergy are the diocesan clergy, the priests, the ecclesiastics. The Minister of Justice will certainly agree with me in that distinction. The United States legislation uses the distinction of the church. Section 4 of the United States Act mentions the exemptions. They include:
The Vice-President of the United States, the officers of the legislature, executive and Judiciary of the United States and of the several states, territories and the district of Columbia, regular and duly ordained ministers of religion, students who, at the time of the approval of this Act, are preparing for the ministry in recognized theological or divinity schools. "
Therefore there is no distinction as between the American and the Canadian exemption, except that we use different words. In Canada, as well as in the United States, the regular and the secular clergy, are both exempted. There was no necessity, in my judgment for making the distinction in section 6 of the schedule. At all events it is there, but it is also in the American legislation. As to the .theological students, every one who knows the training given to young men in our colleges by the ecclesiastics will appreciate that they are the only professors in our classical institutions. Therefore, if you do not grant them the exemption, you deprive our young men of their professors.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I regret that the hon. gentleman has moved this amendment. With all respect I may say that he, as. well as other gentlemen who have spoken on the subject, seem to be under some misapprehension as to the meaning of the words used. It w'as pointed out that the reason why the amendment was dropped was that the words " divinity students " covered a very large class of people, quite 'beyond the class of people now under discussion, and with regard to whom there was no desire for exemption, and, on the contrary, a good deal of opposition to tlie idea of exemption. Furthermore, as has already been said, and as the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) has pointed out, 
the word " clergy " has a perfectly clear and perfectly defined meaning, and I have no hesitation in saying, after satisfying myself on the subject, that the word " clergy " covers anybody who has holy orders of any kind, including the minor orders, as the hon. member for Bonaventure says. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will recognize that the theological student, from the moment he gets his tonsure, or minor orders, which he does at the end of his first year-or, at all events, that is the general practice-enters and forms part of the clergy. My right hon. friend shakes his head? I am not making that statement without having verified it on the very best authority. I have satisfied myself beyond peradventure on that subject. So that that leaves, under the class to be covered as divinity students so far as the Catholic colleges are concerned, only the young men just coming in, before they have got any orders. Let me point out that if we adopted the American system and said we excepted divinity students actually such at the time of the approval of this Act, that would not affect young men entering the colleges in this coming Septein-her, and that would be the only class of young men who would have no orders at all. Any young men, being students, who. would not yet have received their orders, are, in view of the provisions we have for their addressing themselves to the tribunal and the grounds which they may urge before these tribunals-amply and perfectly protected in every proper case. Of course, nobody can disguise the fact that the class of people we are ' speaking of are my friends in the cl,osest sort of way as they are the friends of other gentlemen who have spoken. I think that people who look to the protection of these gentlemen in legitimate cases would perhaps do well to realize that, as regards the very small number affected, there is no injustice being done in their being submitted to putting the circumstances of then-case before the tribunals, just as everybody else does. Sometimes one suffers from one's friends' zeal, and it is not always useful to the friends you want to help to try to differentiate them from the rest of the population within which they are called upon to live. I understand the delicacy of this question, and I think hon. gentlemen do too. There are marked differences of opinion about this matter. But we have all got to try to live together, respecting, and where needed maybe protecting, each other's feelings, and where that can bo

attained without taking the position of claiming for a particular class special privileges, it is surely much better to do so-much better in the interest of that very class itself. So I venture to say that if bon. gentlemen would accept what is being done instead of endeavouring to insist on putting the class of persons of whom we are speaking into an especially privileged position, they would in reality be acting in a manner much more likely to be of real service to the class concerned, and at the same time they would avoid giving unnecessary offence to others who may entertain very strong opinions against exceptions and exemptions in general.
Of course this Act has not been prepared without knowing just what the words in it really mean. Judging by the observations that have been made, I think I may venture to say that the hon. member for Bonaventure, at all events, has looked more carefully into the exact .meaning of the words than perhaps the right hon. leader of the Opposition and other hon. gentlemen have done. I am convinced that this motion is being moved under a complete misapprehension. I am convinced that it will not serve the purpose that it is sought and may have effects that are viery undesirable. The hon, gentleman knows as well as I do that all classes of theological students go into their class some time in September or October. Those who are entering their second year, having had the tonsure, are clergy and do not need special mention. Those who are only beginners will not have become divinity students until *they so enter in September or October, so that if we were to exempt those who were divinity students on the date of the approval of this Act we would not be reaching this last class at all. I do not think it is wise to discuss the reasons that lead people to take sides on this question, because it all depends upon a person's point of view, and discussions of that kind rarely *end in converting one or the other, but rather in creating a certain feeling which certainly is not desirable to be created.- I do not think I should be overstepping the bounds if I appealed to the hon. member for Rouville to reconsider the advisability of his insistence upon the specific words which he now suggests, which, as I have already pointed out will produce no good *results, and which, if persisted in, will tend to create a feeling of irritation which under ail the conditions under which this measure is being passed and under all the conditions under which it will have to be enforced, it is highly desirable to avoid by every means in the power of each of us.


William Pugsley: I have very great difficulty indeed in knowing how to vote on the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Rouville, after hearing the remarks of the Minister of Justice. If I apprehend him aright, what he says is this: It is not desirable to press the amendment because under the section as amended at the instance of the Prime Minister, divinity students in one church will be exempt.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Clergy will be exempt.


William Pugsley: Divinity students, my
hon. friend said.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Some people are both
clergy and divinity students.


William Pugsley: The minister said that after the students have been at college a few months-certainly not more than a year-they become members of a religious order, and ipso facto they would become exempt from the provisions of the law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They come under the exception as clergy; that is not talcing them out of the provisions of the Act making the exception.


William Pugsley: They do not become
clergy in one year.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They certainly do.


William Pugsley: I understood the minister to say that the divinity students, after a certain number of months not exceeding one year, become attached as divinity students to one of the minor religious orders.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They become clergy. Mr. PUGSLEY: The minister says that under this section, " members of any recognized order of an exclusively religious character," would be exempt. It follows from the reasoning of my hon. friend-I do not know whether he intended it or not -that striking out these words would prevent divinity students of all churches in this country except one from being exempt. Not being familiar with the subject I should like to ask what is meant by " any recognized order of an exclusively religious character?"


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are different
religious orders existing in this country, and the question whether it was a recognized order on the date of the coming into

force of this Act, is perfectly susceptible of being established. I do not think there would be any use in my giving a list of the orders. Their names do not occur to me at the moment, but they are the Redemptor-ist- order, for instance, and a variety of others. The members of these orders are mostly clergymen anyway. They live in communities together instead of living as individual priests. The hon. gentleman confuses "order" in the phrase "any recognized order " with " holy orders." These men are clergymen whether they belong to any religious order or not. An aspirant to the priesthood takes a succession of orders one after the other. My hon. friend will notice that the term is in the plural " holy orders a man takes more than one order before he becomes a priest. Notwithstanding any doubts that have been expressed there is no question that from the moment a man takes one holy order he' comes within the designation of "clergy."


William Pugsley: The minister says that there are orders which are entirely distinct from what are known as orders of a religious character.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not say that.


William Pugsley: This section does not limit religious orders to such orders as the Jesuits and Trappists.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the kind of order it refers to-exclusively religious orders.


William Pugsley: What does the minister mean by saying that after a divinity student studies for a certain period he becomes attached to a certain order?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not say that. There is what is known as holy orders, that is to say, of ordination, which make a man a clergyman, and ultimately a priest if he takes all the holy orders. That is spoken of as the sacrament of the holy orders. It is not an order in the sense of a gathering of people at all. The phrase "religious order" means a society or body of men joined together for an exclusively religious purpose. The words have no connection whatever with "holy orders," though it is usually true that the member of a religious order has taken "holy orders," just as a person who is not a member of a religious order may have taken them. In the former case the man would be 'both clergyman and a member of a religious order. The word "order" in the phrase "any recognized order" means an association or community of people who live together under JMr. Doherty]
religious rule-the Christian Brothers for instance.


William Pugsley: Is there anything to prevent divinity students from at once becoming attached to any one of these religious orders?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I tried to point out, there is no connection whatever between divinity studentship and religious orders; I cannot make it clearer.


William Pugsley: My religious training has not been along the lines "of that of the hon. member of South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). If divinity students of all denominations are to be treated alike, I would rather see the words "divinity students" left in.
Mr. PiROULX:	The amendment of the
member for Rouville has reference only to persons who are attending divinity or theological schools. I understand that he has used these words in order to meet the objections made by some hon.. gentlemen on the other side. Some one has suggested that if divinity students were exempted there might be a rush towards these orders or to the ministry. By the addition of the wprds suggested by the member for Rouville, the exemption would apply only to bona fide divinity students. For that reason il approve my hpn. friend's amendment.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) suggests that this question should be approached with an endeavour not to create any more irritation than has been already evidenced in this debate. That is my view also but I must take exception to something that he said. This question is a technical one. Our legislation is more liberal than the American legislation in that it exempts religious orders. The member for Bonaven-ture (Mr. Marcil) has on several occasions mentioned the Christian Brothers. The Christian Brothers are not priests, but they are a religious order, and under the terms of this Bill they are exempted. I quite approve of that; it is a concession - to the liberty of conscience, which -should be a guiding principle. But,
I see no reason why the exemption which was introduced in respect to divinity students, should not be maintained. I must say to the Minister of Justice that I do not pretend to be a divinity -student-I was much flattered, when a moment ago,
I was accused or charged, or lauded, on that ground. However, that expression has never been applied to me before this day- and I am -a pretty old man now. But may I point out to my hon. friend that the

clergy commences with the priesthood; all divinity students are preparing foT the priesthood; minor orders confer nothing at all. They are not even a vow; they are a ceremony and nothing else. That minor orders are part of the clergy is a thing I never heard of. If you provide in the law that they shall be considered as part of the clergy, all right; otherwise it is incorrect to say that they are included in the law.
Mr. HERMENEG1LDE BOULAY (Rim uski) (translation): Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the amendment now before the House read in Erench. I did not have the pleasure of receiving a eoov of it and I would like to know exactly what is the subject matter of the debate.
Th ? CHAIRMAN (Mr. Rainville) (translation) : It is moved by Sir Robert Borden that the words "divinity students" be struck out in subsection 6 of the schedule.
Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX moved in amendment that the words "divinity students" be struck off and replaced by the following: "Students preparing for the ministry in any recognized theological or divinity school."


Mr. BOULAY (translation):: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that we have been discussing this famous conscrin-tioa Bill long enough without devising new means, not only to further extend the debate but to increase the uneasiness which is now felt by our population. I have always held in high esteem the hon. Prime Minister who is at pre-ent guiding the destinies of this country; I have always believed him to be a broad-minded man and in every way qualified to fill the lofty position which the country has entrusted to him, but I must say, in all sincerity, that if he ever had an unfortunate hour in his career, it was that very one when this famous conscription Bill was introduced.
The other day, while the Bill was in second reading, we discussed the different clauses and it was agreed that there should be inserted an amendment which seemed acceptable to all of us. I certainly do not know what occurred during these few days, but there must have been in the meantime certain occult influences at work, or rather there must be certain people who are just now exercising a nefarious influence and a pressure most detrimental to the union of the two principal races who form our country's population. As long as that class of people were kept away from any meddling in this country's affairs, we have
enjoyed the blessings of peace and never have we observed the wranglings now apparent in our beloved Canada.
It is unfortunate that a certain class of our population should to-day have the ear of and free access to those who are guiding the future destinies of the Dominion of Canada. It seems to me that this class, such as it was, should have been accepted bona fide, for, after all, let no one charge our priests, those who are in the religious orders, with cowardice in the present war.
See what is going on in France and in Belgium ! Who are they who give the start,
' who set an example to all the troops, to the soldiers and who shed their blood upon the battle fields, if not the French and the-Belgian priests? Can anyone say that our priests in Canada are more cowardly, than these men who are now upon the battlefields of France? Surely, no one would be justified in making such a statement, Mr. Chairman, for we have among our clergy, priests who have enlisted as chaplains, and we shall always find within the clerical ranks men ever ready to fill any position they may be called to occupy whether as chaplain or otherwise. So then, what we are opposed to and what the province of Quebec is opposed to, what we take exception to in our religion, is that this class of men who are ready to sacrifice themselves freely should he compelled to do so through a simple amendment, or enactment. Let none get away with the idea, among a certain class whom I have just designated a moment ago, that if the French Canadians have not enlisted in as large numbers as we would have wished it; let no one believe, that we are trying to exempt as many people as possible from the effect of this Bill; if anyone should get that idea into his head, it is safe to say he would have a wrong conception of the French Canadian mentality. We are just as ready to perform our duty in the province of Quebec, as in any other province. We have stated, at the very outset of the discussion upon this Bill, the reasons wherefore we have somewhat kept aloof.
What are the reasons which have provoked such hostility in the province of Quebec? If one may forirf an opinion from the various speeches made during the debate in this House, if that faction who are so much against Quebec would only go to the pains of looking into those very reasons, if they really meant to have peace and harmony in this country, they would be the first to pray for the discarding of all motives



of hatred and of all such questions as tend to set against one another the two great races peopling this country.
Instead of eliminating from the exemption clause a certain portion of our clergy, as meant by the amendment proposed by the Prime Minister, I would be rather disposed, Mr. Chairman, to make subject to conscription as all others hon. members of this House who are of military age. For my part, I am glad to state that I have tendered my services, although I am fifty-six years old, and I am still ready to renew the same offer; many gentlemen are showing a feeling of pronounced hostility to the province of Quebec, why could they not do as I have seen fit to do myself? I mention these facts in order to show that the province of Quebec is not afraid of doing its duty, but she does not want to be compelled to commit any injustice or acts which completely revolutionize the old system established years ago in our country. Since, as stated by my hon. friend from Eouville (Mr. Lemieux), the United States, a country whose population is nine-tenths Protestant, have seen fit to insert in their military service law a clause exempting the clergy and all religious orders, why should not Canada-where half the population is Catholic-do the same? It seems to me that right and justice demand that the amendment such as presented by the hon. Prime Minister should not be accepted, but that, on the contrary, the amendment by the hon. member for Rou-ville should meet the approval of this House.


Mr. TURGEON:: Coming from a province by the. Atlantic seacoast where harmony has, for so many years, reigned supreme, in the preservation of which harmony it [DOT] has been my lot during my life-time, so far as my capacity has permitted me, to co-operate, may I be permitted to appeal to the leader of the Government as earnestly as I have ever done that, in view of the explanations given by the leader of the Opposition and by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), if he lets the Bill stand as it read last Friday when it was returned to the printers to be reprinted in its present form, lie will not cause any disappointment in the country. If he does not accept the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition, I hope he will at least accept the amendment of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux)? In New Brunswick, which is comparable with Quebec, so far as the Roman Catholic faith is con-

cerned, the young men who to-day are students of theology, are attached either to the Order in which they are studying or to the bishops to whom they have allied themselves. Every bishop in New Brunswick, Roman Catholic as well as Anglican, is depending on those young men's services which would be available in a year or two. If we take away ten, twenty or thirty of those young men from the clergy of New Brunswick in each diocese we impede the proper exercise of the civilizing effect of Christianity on humanity for which cause we are fighting.
Hon. Mr. SEVI'GNY (translation):	Mr. Chairman, I have heard several members state that the clergy of certain religious denominations have asked that they should not be exempted. On the other hand, I hear my compatriots who belong to my own religion, declare thqt the clergy of the province of Quebec should he exempted. I carry no brief, any more than my hon. colleagues of the province of Quebec, to speak here on behalf of the clergy, but I do sufficiently admire the Catholic clergy to declare here, in this House, and anywhere in this country, that they are just as brave, as loyal and as courageous as the clergy of any other religious denomination in Canada.
I do not pretend to be any more of a Catholic than any of my colleagues; but I have for my faith all possible respect and confidence; I follow it and it is that same worship I shall teach my children, I state that no one in this House is justified in saying that the Catholic clergy are not ready to do their duty as well as the clergy of the other denominations in this country. Besides, the clergy of the province of Quebec, as well as the clergy of the rest of the country, are exempted under this Act. It is well known that, in the Catholic religion, as soon as a young man has become _a subdeacon, he is considered a member of the clergy.


Mr. GAUTHIER (St. Hyacinthe) (translation) :: Will the hon. minister allow me to ask him a question?


Hon. Mr. SEVIGNY (translation):: Certainly.


Louis-Philippe Gauthier: What do you do with the-the first of the minor orders-are they exempted or not by. this Bill?


Albert Sévigny: I beg youT pardon, I did not catch on.


Louis-Philippe Gauthier: When the theological student puts on the cassock, he generally enters college in October, and at

Christmas he is admitted into the minor orders; is he exempted by your Bill, yes or no?


Albert Sévigny: T do not believe he is. As for me personally, I am in the sixth class and, although I am a married man and have some responsibilities, when I am called, I shall do my duty, and I am convinced that my colleagues on either side of the House, shall do likewise, when called. Many of us are^married, are fathers of several children, having high responsi-dlities, however, all of them are ready tu perform their duty, should they be called upon to do it; and now we have a young man who has decided to enter into some religious order, whj has no ri spon'sibility, I will put the question to my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe, is it not only fair that this young man, in a crisis like this, should he called to serve just as myself who have children and consequent responsibilities? That is the question I put to him. I know that my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe and my other colleagues from the province of Quebec are fair-minded enough to answer me that in a case like that, the youth of twenty or twenty-two-for the young men referred to by my hon. friend are about that age-should be called upon to do his duty with the others.
_ I do not believe that the clergy of my province and of my religion would object to it, because the Catholic clergy of the province of Quebec know their duty, they see the gravity of the situation and they are ready to advise our population to respect laws passed by this Parliament.
Therefore, as a Catholic, having for the clergy of my province all possible respect, knowing that the- priests, the vicars, the curates, the deacons and the subdeacons, as well as the clergymen of other religions, are exempted by the Bill, I declare that it is only fair to ask the young philosophy students as well as those in their first year in theology to perform their duty just as the labourers, the farmers and the married men of my province or of my race who aTe apt to be called under -this Act.


Edmond Proulx: When the hon. minister mentions the deacons and the subdeacons, does he understand that they are included under the term "clergy"?


Albert Sévigny: I understand that the deacons and subdeacons are part of the clergy and, by that very fact, they are exempted.
227*


Edmond Proulx: Does not the term "clergy" include only those who have been ordained' as priests?


Albert Sévigny: I base that statement on the definition given to the House by the hon. member for Rouville and which I have before me.


Mr. BELLEMARE (translation):: Mr. Chairman, al'low me to say a few words in connection with the definition which is so often given to the word "clergy."
Under the canon law, as far as I am acquainted with it, those who would come under the definition of "clergy" are not only the deacons and subdeacons, priests, but also those who are only tonsured. By the very fact that you wear a cassock as an ecclesiastic, and by the fact of being tonsured, you belong to the clerical order; then you have the minor and major orders, and the priesthood. Therefore, if the privileges of the clergy are to be respected and if they are to be exempted from military duty, 1 say that not not only should the priests be exempted and those members of Teligious orders who have made monastic vows, but also divinity students who are tonsured.
But I shall go still further. Under the canon law, the clergy should be exempted from serving as soldiers. Such is the doctrine of the Catholic Church. I am not any more orthodox than the Pope is, but I know that those who form part of the clergy, as I have just explained, are forbidden, under the canon law, to serve as soldiers and to go on battle fields, except in extraordinary cases, as in the capacity of chaplains, field-hospital orderlies, etc. Such is the teaching of the Church. 1 give you that information sincerely and I speak knowingly.


Mr. GATJVREAU (translation):: Would my hon. friend allow me a word?


Adélard Bellemare: With pleasure..


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: What
about those young men who, on leaving college, in June last, meant, to wear the cassock in 'September? Should the Bill be in force then, they shall be called out, will they take the cassock or comply with the provisions of the Bill?	[DOT]


Adélard Bellemare: My answer to my hon. friend is that as to those who on the enforcement of the Bill, did not yet wear the cassock, or those who were not yet tonsuired or in the minor orders, I under-

stand that they will he included in the ordinary class.
Therefore, I believe that, as divinity students come under the definition of "clergy" in the Bill, those words should be left in the clause, as they make it more explicit.
But the fact should not be lost sight of that as in the English-speaking provinces-* and this I say with all due deference to them-judges will be found with a different frame of mind from ours, and who arc not familiar with our tenets, I submit that mistakes might be made to our prejudice in the construction of that clause.
Therefore, the clearer the clause will be, the easier it will be to do justice to every body, not only to the French Canadians but also to the 'Catholics of Ontario and the other provinces, as well as to our good friends, the Irish.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Le-mieux) lost on division.
Yeas, 30. Nays, 74.
Amendment (Sir Robert Borden) agreed to on division.
Yeas, 72. Nays, 32.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I desire to explain that I did not vote on account of being paired with the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe).


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: I did not vote because I was paired with the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb). Had I voted I would have voted against Mr. Lemieux's amendment to the amendment and in favour of the amendment of my right hon. friend the leader of the Government.


Mr. JAMESON:: I am paired with some hon. member.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Or An There are no pairs on a vote in committee
Section as amended agreed to.


William Pugsley: I would like to direcl the attention of my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) to section 11.	1
think it is very desirable in the public interest that there should be publicity given to the applications which are made to the local tribunals for exemption and the decisions which, these tribunals give from time to time. I propose that the following be added, as subsection 8, to section 11:
Every local tribunal shall, at least once a week, cause to be published in the Canada Gazette a list of all applications dealt with by such tribunal during the preceding week with a short summary of the grounds of the application in each case and the decision arrived

at with a statement of the reasons for such decision.
These local tribunals are to be appointed by a Board in which this Parliam'nt-whic'h means, of course, the Conservative majority, the party controlled by the Government-will have the determining voice. While it ds stated that it is to be appointed by a joint address, or resolution, of the two Houses of Parliament, that means that it will be the Conservative, or the Government, majority in these two Houses that will make the appointment. I do not wish to suggest that there will be anything unfair in the selection made. The Chairman reminds me that I cannot properly move this amendment unless the Solicitor General moves the reconsideration of the clause. I would hope that objection would not be made, for I understood thait there was to be opportunity to take up any particular section. Will m'y hon. friend move the reconsideration of the section? I would not have the right, because, under the rules, such a motion can only be made by one of the majority.


Arthur Meighen: I have no objection to doing it, but if my hon. friend would continue his remarks I would like to make a few remarks myself, and when he has heard what I have to say, perhaps, he will not ask for a reconsideration.


William Pugsley: Very well, I would not suggest for a single moment that that power would not be exercised in such a way as to have a fair board appointed for the selection of the local tribunals; yet I think every hon. member will agree with me that it is extremely desirable that the public should have the most implicit confidence in the decisions coine to by the local tribunals on applications for exemptions made to them. There is nothing that would tend to give more general satisfaction, or cause the public to support the law more heartily, than to feel that in the administration of the Act fairness and impartiality have been shown. There is nothing like publicity to give the public that impression. It is most desirable that these tribunals should give to the public-not at great length, but *from week to week-a statement of the applications which are made, the names of the applicants, the grounds of application for exemption, the decisions arrived at, and a short statement of the reasons for those decisions. If the applications are kept from the public, if the grounds of application and the decisions of the tribunals are kept secret, there will be every

opportunity for suspicion in the public mind that the principles of the law are not being carried out fairly and impartially. That suspicion will be aroused in the public ;mind even though there may be the utmost impartiality and the greatest possible fairness. There is nothing like publicity to remove a misapprehension, the extent of which may be very great. Publication in the Canada Gazette would not cost the country anything, because the country owns the Canada Gazette, and it would be the mere expense of setting up the type and perhaps a little extra cost for paper. I would suggest this amendment most earnestly for the consideration of the Government. It will be time enough to determine whether I should move it when the Solicitor General has favoured us with his views in regard to the question.


Arthur Meighen: On the general principle of the wisdom of publicity with a view to establishing in the public mind a conviction that the tribunals are acting fairly, I have no disagreement with my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley). With that end in view the Bill was framed so that the amplest provision might be made for such publicity as would be necessary. But the amendment is to the effect that the tribunals should be enjoined to publish in the Canada Gazette once a week a list of all applications dealt with, a list of the reasons in support of the applications, and a list of the reasons for the decisions of the tribunals.


William Pugsley: A summary.


Arthur Meighen: 
William Pugsley: I mentioned the Canada Gazette because I thought if we left the publication to. local newspapers a large expenditure in the way of patronage might be involved.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry
that my hon. friend did not see fit to accept the suggestion. The argument of the hon. member for St. John seemed to me conclusive, that publicity is the best guarantee we can have of the fairness of the application of this law. I still hope that ,my hon. friend will think well before finally rejecting it.


Arthur Meighen: I do think well of the idea of publicity, but I think the right hon. gentleman will see that we could not enjoin publicity of each individual application and the reasons in support of it or against it. It is expected that all tribunals will hold their meetings in public except in such cases as a court would hear in camera, and that, of course, will give a great deal of local publicity.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is some force in the objection that there may be cases in which it would be not only invidious but unjust to the individual that there [DOT]should be publicity. But the law is always -applied with some common sense, and in a case of that kind what publicity was given would be so arranged as not to cause injury to the individual. If the degree of publicity is left .to regulations, that is uncertain, but if it is inserted in the statute it is certain.


Arthur Meighen: Under regulations a
much better tand cheaper method may be worked out than we could devise here. The same argument can be made against leaving anything- to regulations as against leaving this. We have left as little as possible to regulations, much less than is left in the Militia Act; and what is left seems can be

done better by regulation than in this House.


William Pugsley: The matter having been drtavvn to the attention of the minister, I am content to withdraw the motion.


Wilfrid Laurier: I wish to suggest an amendment, to section 6, which I think the minister will accept. It deals with the constitution of the local tribunals. I would move it after subsection 5. The section provides for the organization of the tribunals. They are to be created in different manners according to provinces, and then certain duties are imposed on them by .sections 4 and 5. Section 4 gays :
The names and addresses of all persons appointed on a local tribunal shall, as may be provided by regulations, be communicated to the minister.
(b)	The minister may by telegraph or otherwise appoint one or both members, as the case may be, of any local tribunal, if he has not received, within such period before the tribunal is to sit as may be fixed by regulation, the names and addresses of members duly appointed,
(c)	A vacancy occurring shall be filled by the authority who appointed the member vacating, and if not so filled or if communication of same as aforesaid has not been received by the minister within such period as may be fixed by regulation, the minister may fill such vacancy.
(5) Any person duly appointed a member of a local tribunal shall, unless relieved in writing by the authority appointing him, perform his duties as such member, and' any person who without reasonable excuse fails So to do shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars.


Arthur Meighen: That has been amended.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would have preferred that the members of the local tribunals should be judges, but the Government have thought' otherwise. The Bill provides that laymen may be appointed to the tribunals, as well as judges. I have here an amendment which I hope the Government will accept. It is as follows:
Every member of a local tribunal unless he is the judge of a court shall before entering upon his duties make oath before a judge that he will faithfully and impartially perform his duties under this Act. That oath may be taken before a judge of any court of record or commissioner appointed to receive affidavits or a justice of the peace.
The judge, of course, would be bound by his oath of office, but under the Bill the layman is not compelled to take an oath at all. My hon. friend knows that veiy wide discretionary powers are vested in the tribunals. They have to use their best judgment as to whether this or that man can better serve the country in his usual
[Mr. Meighen.J
vocation at home, or fighting at the front. An unusual degree of latitude is allowed, and it seems to me that if we bound the members of the tribunals by oath it would simply be a further guarantee of impartiality and fairness. If my hon. friend agrees to this, I will move accordingly.


Arthur Meighen: The proposal of the
leader of the Opposition meets with no objection at all from me. I thought of that point before, but I apprehended a little difficulty in compelling a member of the tribunal to take an oath. But we are here compelling him to act, and 1 think we might compel him to take an oath that he will act fairly. The question seemed to me to be surrounded with some difficulty but I do not think the difficulty is insuperable. If he is compelled to act, he is compellable to take an oath or such other affirmation as is consistent with his beliefs. I think well of the suggestion of my right hon. friend. I would suggest that the committee reconsider the clause on the motion of the leader of the Opposition, and that I be given an opportunity to look over the drafting so as to make it parallel with the drafting of the other clauses of the Act.


Mr. McKENZIE:: It will be noticed that subsection 4 of section 4, and subsections 1, 2 and 3 of section 16, create criminal offences which are triable by a tribunal or by a court having criminal jurisdiction. In the preceding paragraphs of-the section it is held out that those committing any of these offences have the right of appeal. I submit that subsection 6 of section 5 takes away any such right, because it says in effect that you cannot get away from any of the tribunals. I do not think that was the intention of the Government.


Arthur Meighen: It is not the intention at all. I fully understand the argument of my hon. friend. He argues that- as subsection 6 of section 5 prevents habeas corpus and prevents the review of any proceedings of a tribunal, consequently any tribunal which tries a man who fails to report for duty, even though it is an ordinary court of justice, is protected and its proceedings restrained from review.
I do not take that view, for this reason. Section 6 is the section that establishes tribunals. It establishes first local tribunals, then appeal tribunals-that is, a Central Appeal Judge. Then it proceeds, "Any tribunal may hear evidence," and so on, and the Governor in Council may make

regulations as to how these tribunals shall act. Then it says that any tribunal may have such procedure as it may determine for itself, if not otherwise governed by regulation. Then it says that no member of any tribunal shall be responsible, and then that no proceeding authorized or pending before any tribunal shall be restrained, etc.	.
I submit to the committee-at all events, it is very strongly my own view-that "any tribunal" means any tribunal covered by the section, just as "any tribunal" in subsection 2 means any tribunal in the section, and just as "any tribunal" referred to in subsection 3 means any tribunal in the section. The word "tribunal" consequently cannot be interpreted in clause 6 as being any wider than the tribunal in clause 2. They are all in the same section. That is the intent, and that is the law. If there is any chance, however, of it being wide enough to include a court of justice the Bill will be amended to meet the view of hon. members. I will give the point further consideration before eight o'clock.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I Wish particularly to draw the Prime Minister's attention to this matter, because I think it can clearly be argued that the word covers any tribunals.


Robert Laird Borden: I disagree entirely. I do not think the word "tribunal" has any special legal meaning as used in this Bill. You could not have the word "tribunal" meaning one thing in the first five subsections, and meaning something more in the last subsection; that would be contrary to all principles of interpretation that I am familiar with, and therefore I would not imagine, although I suppose members of our profession can argue almost anything, that any court will give it that interpretation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: All I say is that a county court is a tribunal; a magistrate's court is a tribunal. I think we are making it unnecessarily fine when we ask the judges before whom these cases come to say: this is a tribunal, or this is not a tribunal.


Robert Laird Borden: If you take the word " tribunal " in its widest sense, you might say that the Parliament of Canada is a tribunal or that the Board of Railway Commissioners is a tribunal. I am speaking of the legal interpretation of the word. I do not imagine that this section can be interpreted in any other way than the Solicitor General has suggested. However, we will give it consideration.
Mr. MteKENZIE:	If the provision is
confined to that section, it is all right, but it may be considered as having general application to the whole Act. That is what I would like to have made clear.
Mr. MARCH.:	Is there any provision
in the Act, aside from publication in the Canada Gazette, for returns being made or information being submitted as to what has been done under the Act?


Robert Laird Borden: There is no
special provision for it in the Act, but the ministers responsible for the administration of the Act-and, indeed, the Government generally-would naturally give to Parliament in the ordinary administration of public affairs all information on the subject that would be available and desirable.


Rodolphe Lemieux: May I ask the right
hon. gentleman that the Minister of Finance, who is back from Washington, be made acquainted with the subject of our conversation across the Table this afternoon concerning the insurance feature of this Conscription Bill?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has taken up so much of my attention this afternoon that I have had no opportunity of speaking to the Minister of Finance.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would ask him, before we dispose of the third reading, to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has considered some legislation along this line. I assure my hon. friend that the matter is engaging the attention of many young men who are liable to he called. If the Minister of Finance has in contemplation some legislation along this line, it might facilitate considerably the administration of the present Bill.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Before this Bill goes
out of committee, I should like to say a word on an entirely non-eontroversial subject. One of the abuses, if I may call it so, of the whole military system in Canada, and one which has brought most unmerited punishment upon the Administration, is the case of a man wdio attests at a different age from his real age. That has been a favourite trick. Men have said that they were of a certain .age, and since the Army Act does not provide that swearing to a false age is perjury, but provides the oppo-

site, they escape punishment. The consequence is that many of those men referred to by hon. gentlemen opposite, who landed in England performed various functions there and then returned or were rejected, got there solely because they said they were forty-four years of age when they were really fifty-four; and when they "were ready to return, they said that they were fifty-four, -and were returned accordingly. There are officers who are beyond military age and who know it. They were not rejected, and at any rate before 1917, they had in many oases good grounds for supposing that they could get to the front because the case of officers is somewhat different from that of men.


Mr. OLIVER:: What is the age limit.for officers?


John Hampden Burnham: I am not aware that it is different from that for the men. In many eases it has happened that officers, well up, good men in good health, have got away to the front and have done nobly. Their eagerness has excused (their age. Other officers, whether non-combatants or otherwise, who have been most willing and determined to go to the front, did not get to the front because of being beyond military age. Other officers again, who did not want .to go to the front, did not get to the front, but remained in Canada, and those men are occupying preferential positions to which they are not entitled.
I am prepared to excuse, and I am sure all hon. members will excuse, the Administration in this regard, because no remedy is provided. I am bringing the subject up in ordeT that this House which, so far as I am aware, is theonly authority which can provide a remedy may provide one. This means more or less the adoption of an amendment to the Army Act which, as hon. members are aware, is adopted every year by Parliament in order to incorporate it in the law, since no longer is there a standing army in England or in the British Empire. The condition of affairs I have described has caused great and perennial scandal. Here are men and officers who know full well they will not be available, but they are occupying positions, whether as noncommissioned officers or as commissioned officers, drawing good fat pay which they could not get in other callings and blocking the way so that other men cannot rise to those positions. There are numerous cases of men who should be brought back from the front and put into those positions that are occupied by men in Canada who are not entitled to them, and who know full well they are not entitled to them. They 
may be high up, but they do not intend to go to the front. They will plead their age just as soon as it suits them and as soon as they require a stop-gap, but in the meantime they are floating about, and they are doing this country and this Government a great wrong. I have many times thought of bringing up this subject, and I hoped some one else would bring it up in the House; but since this military legislation is about to pass, I do not think it would be excusable longer to delay in bringing this matter to the attention of the House; nor do I think it would be excusable, after this legislation has passed, to bring it up again. Nothing is so much antagonizing the young men of the community and, indeed, the people generally, as seeing those men taking pet positions who have no intention of going to the front. I beg the Government to put a stop to this condition of affairs in the interest of recruiting and of the country.


Arthur Meighen: I think the motion passed to reconsider section 6. 'That being the case, I am pleased to accept the amendment moved by the. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), I have worded it slightly differently, and perhaps it would be better if I made a motion amending the section. I, therefore, beg to move:
That the following be inserted as clause (5) of section 6, and that the present clauses (5) and (6) be numbered (6) and (7) respectively :-
(5) Each member of a local tribunal shall unless he be a judge make oath or affirmation that he will faithfully and impartially perform his duties as such member. Such oath or affirmation may be made before a judge, a justice of the peace, a commissioner for taking affidavits or before such other person as in any special case the minister may direct.
There is no change at all except in the last part of the sentence. It has occurred to me that there may be remote places where it would be a great inconvenience to compel the parties to travel to any of the officials named, and consequently, it was felt better that the minister m such case might direct some one else, such as the mayor or reeve of the town or village, to administer the oath. In this regard I may direct the attention of the committee to section 12 which provides that the Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe forms for the keeping of records. Consequently, it will doubtless be provided by regulation that a definite form will be sent to each tribunal, and also that a record of the oaths so made shall be kept. Amendment agreed to.
Section 6 as amended agreed to.


Frank Oliver: I desire to draw the attention of the House to section 16, as I propose offering certain amendments thereto for which I think there are very good reasons. This section provides penalties for interference with the work under the Act. Subsection. 3 says that any newspaper, book, periodical, pamphlet, or printed publication containing matter prohibited by subsection 2 may be summarily suppressed.
A newspaper, which is a business organization, and which involves a large investment of capital in many cases, is in a very different position from a book or pamphlet. The suppression of a book or pamphlet because of its containing objectionable matter merely destroys the investment made in the production of the bo6k or pamphlet, but the suppression of a newspaper or periodical amounts to the confiscation of the established business of that newspaper or periodical. I submit the conditions are so different between the newspaper and the book that they should not be placed in the same category as to suppression. While I do not think there is good or sufficient reason for the presence of this provision in the Act, still as the Government in its wisdom has decided to include it, I suggest as an amendment that instead of the business of the newspaper being summarily confiscated by suppression because it has been found to contain objectionable matter, the single issue of the newspaper or the periodical containing the objectionable matter might fairly be placed on the same level V book or. pamphlet, and the single issue of the newspaper or periodical might be suppressed summarily, as is provided in the section. The newspaper property should not be destroyed until after the owners have been given fair opportunity to argue their case and to bring whatever evidence they may see fit in support of their position, or in protection of their interests, just the same as any citizen is entitled to do in the protection of his personal liberty against the provisions of this section.
I move, seconded by Mr. Graham, that section No. 16 be reconsidered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Frank Oliver: I move, seconded by Mr. Graham:
That section 16 he amended by striking out subsection 3 and substituting the following: "Any issue, edition, or number of any newspaper, periodical, book, pamphlet or printed publication containing matter prohibited by subsection 2 of this section, may be summarily suppressed, and further printing or publication of the said matter in any future issue of any newspaper, periodical, book,
pamphlet, or printed publication, may be prohibited for any term not exceeding the duration of the present war, provided no action shall be taken under this subsection or under subsection 2 of this section without the approval of the Central Appeal Judge.
That replaces subsection 3 as it stands now, and provides only for the suppression of the single edition or issue of the paper or periodical. Then I would add, as subsection 4:
Any newspaper or periodical containing matter prohibited by subsection 2 of this section shall be deemed to be. a person within the meaning of said subsection 2, and shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon indictment before a Superior Court of the province in which the newspaper or periodical is published to be summarily suppressed by order of the presiding judge, and further printing and publication thereof may by such judge be prohibited for any term not exceeding the duration of the present war; provided that the editor, manager, or such other person as may be so designated by the owner or owners thereof shall be deemed by the judge to represent in person such newspaper ,or periodical in any proceedings that may be taken under this subsection.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) did not give me notice of so important an amendment as this- an amendment involving consideration line by line. Subject to my inability to grasp the full effect of the amendment exactly, arising the moment he sits down, I would say that the amendment to clause 3 provides only for the suppression of the single issue which contains matter prescribed by the previous clause. I cannot see any value at all in the suppression of an issue of a newspaper after the contents of that newspaper have reached the Central Appeal Judge, because when the contents have reached the Central Appeal Judge and he has been able to come to a decision, the matter has reached everybody else in the country, and all the harm is done, and the newspaper would not care a fig whether you suppressed that issue or not. Under this amendment one might suppress until one was tired, and it would not do any good.
Then the amendment provides that the same matter which was objectionable in one issue must not be published in a future issue. I should not think it would be. Newspapers do not publish the same thing over and over again.


George Perry Graham: Sometimes they do.


Frank Oliver: May I suggest that this relates to the publication of the objectionable matter by any other newspaper.


Arthur Meighen: But, that is forbidden anyway. What is the good of forbidding it

over again. Previous sections forbid the publication of the objectionable matter even by the first newspaper. Consequently, it is forbidden to the second newspaper or the third. It is repeating what the Act says before. It provides that thb same matter stiall not be published by any other newspaper or by the first offending newspaper. As far as it affects the other newspapers, such forbidden matter is already forbidden, and more language is merely surplusage. In so far a"s it affects the first offending newspaper, there would be no object in publishing the same thing over again. They would change the verbiage, but the effect would be the same, and they would pursue their course unmolested. As soon as their newspaper gets into the hands of their readers it is like snow in May, it is gone, the work is done, and suppression after the first offence is a purely futile punishment.
Now, as to clause 4; it says that once a newspaper commits this offence and publishes this objectionable matter, that newspaper is subject to prosecution just as a person is subject to prosecution under the previous section, and is liable to such punishment as befits a corporation or company. If the first clause were to remain, and if we were to adopt the futile methods which that clause prescribed, the second might be of some value rather than having nothing at all. But, inasmuch as in my judgment the first clause cannot remain, and we must retain the power of suppression or retain no effective power at all, then, of course, the fourth clause is of no value. So long as we have the power of suppression, there is no value in proceeding against the newspaper publishers as a company or as a newspaper. The power of suppression is quite sufficient. We have to retain that power of suppression or we have no power that is of any value for such a purpose at all. Let me draw attention to this fact: right up to this date, and ever since the war began, or since shortly after the war began, we as a Government have been empowered under the War Measures Act to take the proceedings which we ask to be authorized to take in this particular case. Under the War Measures Act, we have been authorized by Parliament to do that all along. Acting under the authority of the War Measures Act, we -have passed an Order in Council that enables a minister of the Crown, that enables the chief censor, on the authority of the Secretary of State and the Minister of Justice, to suppress a newspaper which contains matter in vio-
lation of that particular Order in Council. We have had that power all along, and we have had it unrestrained by any provision requiring us to obtain the approval of any central appeal judge or of a judge at all. Parliament felt at the opening of the war that that trial was necessary, and gave it to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council passed an Order in Council enabling the Minister of Justice [DOT]and the Secretary of State to do this. Up to the present day no one has unjustly suffered and there has been no restraint. Unless we proceed by suppression we cannot proceed effectively because if we must proceed through the courts, a newspaper might conduct its objectionable campaign until the whole purpose of the Act, in so far as it was in its power, was defeated. Then, perhaps, we might get -a decision of the court. It is an ineffective remedy as applied to this particular violation of law. If we are going to. suppress this particular violation of law the remedy must fit the offence. It will, of course, be exercised most sparingly. Any power exercised under the Order in Council up to this date a regards these matters has been exercised very sparingly, every hon. gentleman will admit. The power will be exercised under the most definite restraint that a judge of the Supreme Court must first approve of its exercise, and I think Parliament may rely upon it, and it does rely upon it, that no iudge of the Supreme Court will harshly, hastily or without sufficient reason, suppress any newspaper in this country and thus bring great loss upon its owners. I think the protections, are sufficient. Experience has shown they are sufficient, and the essential features of the case show that the power is necessary.


George Perry Graham: People always feel more secure if they have m their defence a statute rather than the protection of even an honest and painstaking Government. If they have a law on the statute book which says they are protected by certain action that must be taken, they feel a little more secure even if taking of the action is altogether left to the discretion of the Government.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not left in this case


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend the Solicitor General points out that to suppress the issue of a newspaper would be no punishment, as the barm had been done. That is very true in a large measure, but the

same argument applies in a certain degree to the suppression of a book.


Arthur Meighen: A book is a more permanent form of literature.


Robert Laird Borden: The difference
is very plain. The newspaper is read every day and the reading of a book may extend over months or years.


George Perry Graham: I said in a certain degree. The contents of the Tbook aTe not known until the book is circulated quite freely. The suppression of the book does not recall the harm that is done; it only provides against the harm being continued in the future. As far as the suppression of a book is concerned, m the first instance, no good accrues because the damage has been done, just as in the case of the newspaper in a measure. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) yesterday called attention to a certain book that had been suppressed. Every member of this House had a copy in his possession. As far as influencing members of Parliament is concerned, that seems to have been one of the objects, the harm had been done and the suppression of the book did not cure that harm. As far as the issue of this book was concerned, the suppression was no punishment at .all to the publishers. May I make the practical suggestion to the Solicitor General that in case a paper offends the issue offending be suppressed, and if the paper offends again between the time of the publication of its issue and the time of the trial before the judge, the censor would have the power of suppressing the paper altogether. That would be a medium course to take and the cause of the war would not have been prejudiced, because between the time of the publication of the first issue and the trial by the. judge, this paper would be precluded altogether from publishing, anything else of the same nature. I make that suggestion to the Solicitor General as a way out of the difficulty with full protection, I believe, to all parties. It is a little stringent to say that the goodwill in the entire business may be confiscated for the mistake of some individual on the staff, perhaps without the knowledge of the proprietor at all. It does seem a little harsh that the censor should have the arbitrary power t6 confiscate all the property.
Suppose that a farmer or any other citizen issued a .seditious circular or made a seditious speech, would he not think it harsh that the censor should have the right
not only to punish him for the speech but to confiscate his farm or other property as well? All the property the newspaper publisher has1-and the great majority have not full equity in that-is found in his newspaper plant, and under this Act he can be punished individually for what he says in his paper, and his entire property can be confiscated. Great offences require drastic remedies I admit, but in this case I think it is not unfair to say that suppression should not take place until the newspaper and the proprietor of that newspaper have had an opportunity to have a trial before a judge to see whether the matter complained of is seditious or not. The suggestion I make to the Solicitor General is, I think, not unreasonable, that the issue in which the seditious matter is found shall be suppressed and the newspaper restrained from publishing any seditious matter between the time of the first publication and the time of the trial before the judge. It strikes me that every interest would be protected if that could be done.


Arthur Meighen: The suggestion of the hon. member is not at all open to the same objection as the former one. At the same time, it would hardly be an improvement. It really amounts to this, that the first offence goes unpunished, and only after a second can punishment be imposed. There is no such thing as suppressing an individual issue of a newspaper.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend says it goes unpunished. But if it is proved before the trial judge that the article did properly come under the ban, the law takes its course.


Arthur Meighen: That fuiure punishment remains under the Bill. But, in so far as effective action is concerned, it goes unpunished, because suppression is purely nominal as applied to a single issue. You simply cannot suppress a single issue. There would arise cases where it would be proper to warn a newspaper, and I do not think there has been one case where a newspaper has been proceeded against without previous warning. Often there have been repeated warnings, and that will undoubtedly continue to be the practice. It is quite conceivable that a case might arise of brazen, flagrant ' defiance of the whole Military Service Act, when the punishment provided in the Act should be properly applied. It would not be applied except in such cases. I do- not think it is fair to ask that the hands of the Government be tied in this regard, and that the

paper should be permitted to flagrantly, openly and defiantly declare its intention of violating this Act consistently, the -Government's only power being to say: Well, you have done it now, we invite you to do it once more. The amendment would leave the Government practically helpless in the face of such a situation.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend forgets
his old friend " su'b judiee " in this matter.


Robert Laird Borden: No, we have the judex there.


Frank Oliver: It makes a good deal of difference when'you are out shooting which end of the gun you are at, -and I have no doubt that .my hon. friend -the Solicitor General feels much more comfortable at his end of the gun than I do at mine; so he will perhaps excuse me if I express my sentiments from my point of view. As with many other newspaper men, everything we have in the world is in our newspaper and it is not the plant that is of serious value, it is the good-will that is of most material value. A newspaper is in one respect like a member of the animal kingdom-as soon as its circulation stops it dies. The stoppage of the publication of a paper amounts to confiscation of the property, and I cannot -see, as a newspaper man, any good reason why my property should be put any more in danger than that of any other man, or why the newspaper business should be considered .so exceptionally dangerous to constituted authority that rights which are elementary and universal as applied to every other -human activity and interest should be withdrawn from the newspaper. If it is true that there has been no exercise of that very great authority vested in the Secretary of State by the present stringent land drastic censorship regulations, and therefore the Government is entitled to credit for its careful exercise of this authority, may I suggest that on the other hand the newspapers, speaking of -them as a whole, have been just as careful to conduct their part of the public .service with due regard to the public interest in time of war. Except in one or two flagrant instances, I think -that it -must he accepted that the press of -Canada have accepted in good spirit and in good faith all the regulations and instructions issued by the censorship, although I anv bound to say, speaking as a member of the press, that for some of those regulations and instructions I could see no good and sufficient reason.
I think there is nothing in the history of Ithe press of Canada to give cause - for 
making it subject to a law which deprives it of the most elementary rights of citizenship, and treats it as though it were some objectionable institution which was dangerous to- .the welfare of the State. My hon. friend has made the suggestion that a newspaper which flagrantly defies the law should be suppressed. Surely there is nothing in the amendment I have offered to the House that would suggest the contrary. I am * admitting the right of the Government to -exercise its authority to suppress for well defined and established reasons, but I am protesting with all the strength I have against this position being assumed; that my property is absolutely subject to destruction by the Government without proof or evidence of offence on my part, and without the possibility of defence on my part. If this law is put into force my newspaper may be suppressed and my property confiscated although I have committed no offence against the law. I cannot admit that in this country of Canada there i-s -any condition or any probability of any condition that would warrant a law being placed on the statute-book that would put that power in the hands of a party Government to be exercised against their party opponents; that is the position.
I do not wish to go over the ground that I traversed on a former occasion here, but there is just one point I wish to emphasize. This Bill does not deal with offences against the State. It does not deal with treason, sedition, or giving information to the enemy. It deals and deals only with an offence against a law passed as a partisan measure by a partisan Government; and to give such a Government the power of destruction over their partisan opponents in the enforcement of such a law is to my mind by all means the greatest derogation from the liberties of the subject that has been perpetrated in this or any other country, so far as I know, up to the present time. I maintain again that there is nothing and has been nothing in the conduct of the press of Canada, as a whole, that warrants any such steps being taken.
As a matter of fact, this Bill was introduced into the House and received its second reading without containing these provisions depriving the subject of his liberty and of the right of free speech. It was only after the Bill had received its second reading that these provisions were inserted, and they were in such form and of such character that they were withdrawn and other provisions, certainly more under-

standable, inserted in their place, and it is with these provisions that I am dealing.
We are told that the Government may be trusted to exercise this terrible authority in the public interest alone. I took the liberty of bringing to the attention of the House yesterday an instance of the exercise of the authority vested in this Government under the War Measures Act, through the regulations regarding censorship. I showed that a pamphlet printed and published in England had been suppressed by order of the censor, and under the Order in Council and under the proclamation every man who holds a copy of that pamphlet renders himself liable to a fine of $5,000, or imprisonment, or both. What is the offence for which this pamphlet is placed under the ban? Is there treason within its covers? Is it an attack upon the welfare of the State? Sir, it is the most powerful arraignment of the liquor traffic of Great Britain that I believe has ever appeared in the English language or any other language in any country at any time, -and because that traffic has more friends than have the people of this country this pamphlet has been placed under the ban, and the authority of the censorship established, under the War Measures Act has been invoked for the purpose of preventing its circulation in this supposedly free' country of Canada. And it is this Government that asks the newspaper press of this country to accede to a law that deprives them of the right of defence when accused, deprives them of the right even of hearing the accusation against them, and miakes them subject to summary suppression at the hands of the Government.
I recall that it was my hon. friend the Solicitor General who brought in provisions to incarcerate a free citizen of this country in the tower of the Parliament buildings. I recall that it was my hon. friend the Solicitor General who introduced the closure into Parliament, .and I direct the attention of the country .to the fact that it is the Solicitor General who makes himself sponsor for this provision under which he and his colleagues during the election that is about to take place can hold out the threat of suppression against every newspaper in Canada, and make the threat good. I recall that in Manitoba in the year 1912, under the administration of the law as it prevailed in that province, men were thrown into jail without a charge, and, after being held there through the election, were released without trial. I recall that when that question was raised in this
House, every man on the other side, from the Prime Minister down, voted in justification of that action.


Robert Laird Borden: What action is my hon. friend talking about?


Frank Oliver: I am speaking about the maladministration of justice during the Macdonald election in Manitoba in the year 1912.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: May I ask the name of the man who was put in jail?


An hon. MEMBER:: Wagner.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Sullivan, was it not?


Frank Oliver: I do not recall the name. Perhaps it was Sullivan; I do not remember. I do know, however, that three men were put in jail under those circumstances, and my hon. friend stood up in his place and justified by his vote that maladministration of justice; that deprivation of the liberty of the subject. On the eve of a general election, I shall be excused if I recall these events and assert that this provision was put in this Bill, after the second reading, with a view to the forthcoming general election and for the purpose of gagging the press of this country.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps I should
apologize to the committee for daring, after so long a series of crimes against the liberty of the people, to rise to speak before a free Parliament. I am depicted by the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) as author of the incarceration of one Miller, who, against the law of the land, refused to answer questions respecting his conduct as a beneficiary of the moneys of this country and took the punishment which the law of the land entailed. I am not the author of the provisions under which he received that punishment. They are older than myself, older than the hon. member for Edmonton, as old as the British constitution. I trust that they will be in full force and buoyancy when both of us shall have passed from the earth.


Frank Oliver: That is a good Tory wish.


Arthur Meighen: I had something to do with, though I did not introduce, the closure resolution to which the hon. member refers. I took some small part in the debate, and my memory is green enough \o enable me to recall some of the incidents that took place during that debate. I remember that the member for Edmonton was, perhaps, the loudest among many in

proclaiming to what he thought was an outraged country that Parliament was to he throttled; that free discussion was to he murdered; that he spoke then for the last time in a free Canadian Parliament. He could not have brought to the committee a better illustration to make plain to every one the folly of hiis own predictions now. Let him reflect for a moment on the prognostications that he made four years ago when the closure resolution was introduced. Free discussion was to be a thing of the past. Parliament was to be gagged just as he says now the press is to be gagged. Hon. members could no longer feel the freedom that they had felt before; he looked forward to a time when he would not be allowed to stand in this House and discuss the subjects of the day as- he had done in days gone by. The member for Edmonton himself is the very best of many illustrations of the folly and the failure of his own prognostications.
In this legislation we are not departing from any British principle that I ever heard tell of. It is not departing from British principle to say that if a man disobeys the law he shall then and there
9 p.m. be forbidden to disobey again, and if necessary prevented by physical' restraint from disobeying. That is the law of the land, imbedded in almost every criminal statute. If a man runs amuck and commits murder he is not told to go ahead and commit murder until the first offence is brought before a tribunal and he is tried for it. No; he is taken in hand by the physical arm of the law and he is put behind bars, where he can no more commit what he has committed. There he awaits his trial, 'long before he is proved guilty. The same holds true of every offence that a man may commit.


William Pugsley: But he is not punished until he is tried.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, he is punished before he is tried, by the punishment of restraint.


William Pugsley: But you propose to take authority to suppress a newspaper, without notice and without trial.


Arthur Meighen: 
Frank Oliver: I have very great respect for the judges of the Supreme Court, but a judge of the Supreme Court does not give judgment against me on the most trivial offence or in the most trivial case without my having an opportunity of stating my case or of having it stated for me before him; but under this measure a judge of the Supreme Court will render his decision on a statute made by the Government or its friends without my having any opportunity of stating my case.


Arthur Meighen: Why does the hon. member say that?


Frank Oliver: Where does the Bill say that a judge of the Supreme Court will give me such an opportunity?


Arthur Meighen: He certainly will in any first case.


Frank Oliver: There is no provision whatever for his doing so. It is .not contemplated in the Bill that there shall he any such notice or any such opportunity, and every argument that my hon. friend has made here within the last hour indicates that there is no such intention. This, he says, has tct be an exercise of authority on the instant, or there can be no sufficient protection of the public interest. I maintain that there is no such condition as requires my being deprived of the meet elementary right of a citizen in dealing with a judge of the Supreme Court.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon.
friend were a judge of the Supreme Court, would he render a decision without giving the newspaper proprietor an opportunity of stating his case?


Frank Oliver: I would not.


Robert Laird Borden: Then why does
he imagine that any judge of the Supreme Court'would do so? '


Frank Oliver: Because a judge of the
Supreme Court is given a statute-


Robert Laird Borden: So would my
hon. friend.


Frank Oliver: But a judge of the Supreme Court is given a set statute in which there is no provision for, nor any suggestion of, any right of representation by the newspaper, and therefore he would be in duty bound to act upon the recommendation made to him by the Secretary of State or by the Government or by its agents. There is no provision in the Bill for calling in The newspaper proprietor to make a defence. It would be absurd to suppose that a judge of the Supreme Court would go so far outside of the provisions and the evident intent of the statute, no matter how just he might think it would be to do so. My hon. friend made much of the fact that criminals were not allowed to run at large; that when an offence was committed the criminal was at once seized and prevented from committing the same offence again. My hon. friend's suggestion in regard to the administration of the law reminds me of the Englishman who w>as frequently called on a jury, and he was asked how, in his large experience, he made up his mind as to the verdict he would give. "Well," he said, "I looks him over, and I says to myself: If he did not do it, why is he there?" So my hon. friend places before the House the suggestion that the procedure with criminals is to punish, them whether there is a trial or not.
I should think that in the profession he follows, he would recall that there are such things as trials; that there is such a thing as a prisoner being allowed oult on bail; that there is such a thing as a jury of twelve men standing between the law and the criminal before the law can be enforced; and that the incarceration of a suspected man in jail is not the same as the suspension of a newspaper. The parallel case would be, just as my hon. friend sketched it to the House-that the prisoner was executed, and then a trial was held. He proposes that the newspaper shall be destroyed, and then-well, that is all there is to it. The newspaper will then he out of the Government's way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Pugsley: Not for a few minutes. I will not detain the committee long. There is a vital objection to this section in that it provides that summary action will be taken and a newspaper may be suppressed without any notice to the proprietor. It is not enough for the minister to say

that any judge having common sense would give notice. There is no provision fox notice being given. There is nothing in the section which would indicate to the judge for a single .moment that it was the intention of Parliament that notice should be given. If this section passes in its' present form, it indicates the clear intention of Parliament that the proceedings should be ex parte, and that the judge ishould act in an ex parte manner without the proprietor of the newspaper having any opportunity of being heard. That is contrary to the most elementary principles of justice; it is allied with what this Government have asked Parliament to do when they have taken awiay the sacred right of habeas corpus, a right which was wrested from the authorities by the British people over three hundred years ago and which has existed in every British country since then. If the ministers had given any thought to this question, they would have provided that before this summary action should be taken the proprietor of the newspaper man should have notice, should be summoned before the judge, and should be given an opportunity of stating his objection to the action being taken. It might be that lie could show that the article complained of did not bear the meaning attributed to it by the authorities. He might be able to show that the article complained of was published without his authority, without his knowing anything about it, or during his absence. Surely this law ought to provide that he should have an opportunity of stating his defence to the proposed action, but this section provided that his newspaper may be destroyed. That is the effect, because we all know that when you have destroyed even the one issue of a newspaper, you inflict upon the proprietor an irrevocable, damage. What would be the objection to provide in this section, just as is proposed by the amendment, that notice should be given to ithe proprietor of a newspaper before action is taken? This section provides that, simply on the approval of the Central Appeal Judge being obtained, the newspaper may be suppressed; and an order may be made preventing its republication at any time during the period of the war.
My hon. friend the Solicitor General says if a man commits a crime he is not left at large, but is arrested. That is perfectly true, but the law provides that he cannot be kept in prison without a [ireliminary examination which must take place almost immediately, and which must be held in 
a public court, when he will have an opportunity of bedng represented by counsel and of cross-examining the witnesses who may be called by the prosecution. That is an opportunity which the law has provided for the benefit of every man, no matter how vile a criminal he may be. If there is a long or unreasonable delay in bringing him before the (magistrate for preliminary examination, he has that sacred right under the Habeas Corpus Act, and he can apply to the judge who will issue an order to the jailer compelling him to show cause why that man is held in custody. In this case no such right is accorded to the proprietor of the newspaper. Proceedings may be taken against him summarily, and his whole property may be destroyed without notice. This is a provision entirely contrary to every principle of justice, and it is an unnecessary provision, because no great harm can be done by delaying for two or three days, or even a week, before final action is taken, thereby giving the man who is charged the same opportunity as is afforded to a criminal no matter how low nr how vile he may be, the opportunity of making his defence before final action is taken against him. It seems to me that the Solicitor General would be well advised if he would so frame this section as to have some regard for the principles of justice which prevail at this day in connection with the ordinary administration of law so far as any criminal is concerned. It is truly said that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. I think they have made this Government mad, when they have come to Parliament and taken away the most sacred right and the most sacred privilege that a British subject enjoys today, the right of appearing before a judge to determine why he is being held in jail. They have taken away that right, when they have provided that one of the greatest safeguards of liberty in this country-the press-may be summarily silenced and summarily put out of existence without any opportunity of being heard.
Amendment (Mr. Oliver) lost on division.


Mr. MURPHY:: Might I ask the Solicitor General a question? Possibly the matter has alreadv been explained, but I would like to be informed regarding it. The marginal note to subsection 5 of section 11 says: "Penalty for applying to more than one local tribunal for certificate." In what cases is it apprehended that more than one application will be made for a certificate?


Arthur Meighen: We give every man the privilege of choosing his own tribunal in his own province. The object of this subsection is to prevent a man passing from one tribunal to another-say, having his application rejected by one and then trying another.


Charles Murphy: From one province to another?


Arthur Meighen: No. From one tribunal to another in his own province. Once a man selects his tribunal he has to abide by bis selection.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Shall I report the Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the Solicitor General should at least outline in Hansard the rules of procedure by which a man will come before a judge for the suppression of a newspaper or for taking any action. I think the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) is quite right in saying there should be some procedure provided. We know ex-parte motions are made every day, and I think there should be some procedure by which a notice will be given to the other side, giving them an opportunity to come before the judge and show cause why they should not be punished. We are in the dark as to what line of procedure should be followed.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think there is any particular procedure about it. If it were to be taken as a matter of legal procedure and formality there would be no practical way of preventing the continued publication of objectionable and illegal matter, particularly in distant newspapers. For example, a newspaper in Vancouver would have to lay its case before the judge in Ottawa, and by the time they did that a very great deal of harm might be done in Vancouver. I apologize to Vancouver for even suggesting that any such literature might appear in that city; I only mention it by way of suggestion.
As an illustration, there is an Order in Council dated, I think, November 5, 1914, which proscribes a certain class of literature from publication and circulation in Canada. That Order in Council provides that the Secretary of State may, if such literature is published in a newspaper, take possession of the newspaper plant, prevent publication, place a censor in the plant if he desires, or compel the editor or proprietor of the paper to submit all articles to a censor before such articles are published. As a precautionary step this Order in Council provides that before the Secre-.
tary of State takes that action he shall first secure the approval of the Minister of Justice. The procedure is simply this: The Secretary of State has a case under consideration. He lays the facts before the Minister of Justice by way of memorial, and if the Minister of Justice approves of the intention of the Secretary of State as expressed in the memorial, he simply writes across it that he so approves. I presume much the same procedure would be followed here, that the facts of the case- and the facts would consist of the article itself-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If my hon. friend will pardon me. The Prime Minister said, in answer to the hon. member for Edmonton: " Does the hon. member suppose that any judge would grant such an order without hearing the other side?" That implies there shall be a hearing. How is that hearing to >be brought about?


Arthur Meighen: I presume the facts of the case would be laid before the Central Appeal Judge by way of memorial, and the facts would consist, in my judgment, of nothing more or less than the article itself. All the Central Appeal Judge would have to do would be to compare the article with the law, and I do not see how an argument would have very much place, although it might have some.
He would compare the article with the law and he would be guided by his common sense and a regard for the interests of the state as to whether or not the violation was such as to call for a summary remedy. Where there was no open defiance or flagrant challenge of the power of the law, or where there was perhaps some doubt as to the real intention of the writer, the judge might consider it a case in which the writer should be heard, and possibly warned. All he would have to do would be to telegraph the writer or the newspaper publishers and state that up to a certain time he would be willing to hear them as regards this offence. That is all the procedure that would be necessary. Or, he might communicate with them in some other way. It would be very ill-advised if we were to set about legislating any particular machinery into the operation of this Act in this regard by the Central Appeal Judge.


George Perry Graham: Has the Government considered the advisability of placing the censorship under the Department of Justice rather than under the Secretary of State as it now is?


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Justice has control of effective action in the way the Solicitor General has already mentioned, for dealing in a summary way with a newspaper. The Secretary of State, under the terms of the Order in Council, must submit to the Minister of Justice the considerations upon which the proposed action is based, and the Minister of Justice must approve. The censorship is dealt with almost altogether by the officers appointed for thaii purpose, and we have little to do with it. These officers come to us for direction whenever it is necessary. I do not remember that on more than half a dozen occasions during the last three years has the subject been brought to my attention. But in order that there might be definite safeguards, we did, a year or nine months ago, appoint a committee of the Privy Council. The Solicitor General is convener of that committee. Whenever any matter of importance, upon which the direction of the Government is desired by the censors, is brought up for consideration, it goes to that committee of which the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General and the Secretary of State are members. I think there are one or two other members of the Government who are on that committee, but I cannot recollect who they are. These matters are really dealt with altogether in that way. I would not like my hon. friend from North Gape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), or my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), to understand, or to regard it as essential in every Case, that notice should be given. There might be a case so absolutely glaring, so malicious, so dangerous, that the Central Appeal Judge would consider that he should not even wait for a copy of the paper but would be willing to deal with it upon a telegraphic. report of a deputy censor or other reliable authority. But in ordinary cases matters are not dealt with in that way. The newspaper has been warned two or three times, perhaps, or even oftener, that its course is not in accordance with the regulations laid down. We all know, of course, that a newspaper may introduce matter in its columns when those who are responsible for its management know nothing about it. It might be done altogether inadvertently and, in so far as that newspaper is concerned, it would be most harsh and unjustifiable to deal with a case of that kind without some injury as to the way in which such a thing had happened. No such practice has ever prevailed, and I am quite confident that it 
never would prevail-certainly, it would never prevail with my consent or approval. The whole question is more or less surrounded with difficulties and perhaps there were in the earlier part of this war more difficulties in this country than in most countries, more difficulties obviously than in Great Britain. There were many matters which it would be very inadvisable in the public interest to have published, and yet for nearly 4,000 miles our boundary ran along that of -the great neighbouring nation which was neutral in the war and in which, of course, no censorship regulations prevailed. The difficulty was to create such conditions in Canada as would prevent the publication of undesirable information in the United States. There was a good deal of difficulty about that. We had to take rather extreme powers under the War Measures Act for the purpose of preventing it. I think I am justified in saying to the committee that the censorship regulations have been so effective, and the press of the country and all the news agencies have worked so loyally in co-operation with the Government, that I myself am told of important incidents that have happened in this country and were never published, were never known even to the members of the Government generally, and which it was extremely important should not be known by the public. I could, if it were desirable, give to the committee a great many illustrations of that, and I have been very much impressed from time to time, when matters of this kind were brought to my attention, with the splendid, effective way in which the press and the news agencies of the country have, with occasional trifling exceptions, co-operated with the Government and the censorship authorities in bringing about such a condition.	,


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is well worth while to have the views of the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General upon this matter. It is not a light thing to put such a drastic power in operation without giving the object of it at least an opportunity of defending himself. I am sure the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister are quite familiar with the practice in this matter in our courts. What is proposed to be done here, if it is done at all, is nothing more or less than the parallel of a perpetual injunction proceeding. No perpetual injunction is granted without first, if necessary, an interim injunction for the purpose of giving an opportunity of going into the case and seeing whether the interim injunction

should or should not be made perpetual. If there was any urgent call an interim order could issue stopping the publication in the meantime and an opportunity could be given at a later date to make the interim injunction perpetual if necessary. Why should it be made perpetual in the first instance? That is what we are protesting against.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to welcome my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) back from his trip to Washington. During his absence I called the attention of the right hon. leader of the House to a vexed question which has some relation to this Bill; indeed it arises out of the enactment of the conscription law. Several young men who under this legislation are liable to be called out have written me stating that they carry life insurance, and that if they are forcibly enlisted the insurance companies will immediately raise their premiums to the standard of their war risks. Has the minister decided to implement the present legislation with a view to either paying that premium out of Government funds or fixing by amendment to the Insurance Act a maximum premium? I understand, in fact I know, that the insurance companies would not relish the idea of carrying insurance on the lives of soldiers at their normal rates of premiums, but, on the other hand, I would ask the minister if it is fair in such a case as this that a young man who carries insurance should be compelled by the effect of this legislation to pay perhaps double the premium on his life insurance. It seems unfair that a young man should lose all the benefits of all his past payments upon an insurance policy or that he shall have to incur heavy liabilities for the payment of his premiums in future. It may be that a young man will find some friend or relative who will make the payments in his absence and agree to ' pay the extra premium, but that must be the exception. What does the Government intend to do under those circumstances? We are told that it is the will of the country that 100,000 men should be secured to reinforce our boys at the front. We are told that this legislation, while drastic in its nature, is absolutely necessary. We are told, indeed we know, that as a result of this legislation young men will have to don the khaki and go into the trenches and possibly never return. I quite realize this condition of things, 'but at the same time, as was well proven in the course of
228i
this debate and notably on the occasion of the amendment moved the other day by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), it is established beyond perad-venture that there are men in this country making huge profits, and those profits are made because of the war conditions. Not later than last week a report was published on the authority of the Government . in which it was established that certain cold storage companies were piling up huge, scandalous profits. Will not my hon. friend take heed of what public opinion is demanding at the present time, and if it is necessary to recruit or to enlist under this law * 100,000 young -men, and if as a result of that enlistment the savings of those yeung men as represented by their insurance policies are lost or threatened, will he not see to it that the war profiteers Shall pay enough out of their profits to make up the difference between the ordinary premium and the war premium which is being asked by the insurance companies? I am in earnest in making this plea. The United States, on the occasion of the conscription legislation passed by the United States Congress, adopted a measure which meets the condition I have already described. The Prime Minister yesterday gave us to understand that this question had received the earnest and serious consideration of the Minister of Finance. This Bill is now practically passed. It will in a few moments he reported to the House to be taken into consideration for its third reading on Tuesday next, I understand: Perhaps my hon. friend is not in a position this evening to giye out to the country the decision which has been arrived at on this question of premiums. If he is not ready to .make a full statement just now, I would ask him to do so before the third reading, after he has taken into consideration the facts which I have	to his attention.


William Thomas White: The matter drawn to the attention of the committee by the hon. member is one of great importance and also of great difficulty. It is not possible for me to make a definite announcement upon this subject, which I have had more or less under consideration for some time past. At my request the Superintendent of Insurance has been looking into the whole matter of the insurance of Soldiers, with a view to ascertaining the nature of the insurance contracts covering soldiers' lives, and the increased financial responsibility which would devolve upon the companies by reason

-of the additional risk of carrying the policies of soldiers at the front.
I	gather from what my hon. friend has said that it was made clear to the House yesterday that there would be very considerable additional financial responsibility upon insurance companies. The rates of insurance companies have regard to the risk, and if the risk is greatly increased the companies, subject, of course to the terms of their policies, would naturally desire to increase the premium or terminate the policy. This is not a new question. It came up in connection with the voluntary enlistment system, and 1 do not think the question to-day is any different from the question that arose in connection with the insurance of those who volunteered their services.
The Canadian Patriotic Fund has been keeping on foot the policies of hundreds of soldiers who have gone to the front, for the benefit of their families. It must not be overlooked that the Government is providing pensions for the families of soldiers who fall in this war, and that fact must be taken into consideration when ithe question of insurance is being considered. When in civil life a citizen insures his life for the benefit of his family; if he dies the insurance policy is a very valuable asset to his estate, but there is no pension from the estate. When a citizen enlists, however, and goes to the front and falls in battle, there is a pension for his family and that is a consideration which we must bear in mind.
It would not seem to me off-hand that the insurance companies should be compelled to assume a greatly increased risk without some consideration from the Government. I cannot speak off-hand as to the terms of the policies. In some policies, I presume, there is a voidance clause in the event of war and the insured enlisting and being killed in battle.
My hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has mixed up with this question of insurance-and to that extent weakened what was otherwise a strong argument-some references to profiteers and the duty of the Government to provide money in connection with this insurance by taking away the profits of those who have made money during the war. I would like to say this to my hon. friend: The Government has not been neglectful of its duty with regard to the taxation of profits made by those engaged in business in this country. I say further, and this cannot be controverted, there is no war tax in the world to-day in any country that is now at war that is heavier than the Business Profits War Tax brought in under the Bud-
II	Sir Thomas White.]
get of this year. I say that with the most absolute confidence; it cannot be contradicted. The United States is considering a taxation measure at the present time which does not begin to approach the Business Profits War Tax of the Dominion of Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about the income
tax in the United States?


William Thomas White: That is a different matter. The income tax is a small tax as compared with the Business Profits War Tax. It may be two, or three or four per cent, but in Canada we are taking, as my hon. friend knows or ought to know, one-quarter of the profits from seven to fifteen per cent, one-half of the profits from fifteen to twenty per cent, and seventy-five per cent of the profits over twenty per cent. That is a very heavy tax indeed. It is the heaviest taxation in the world to-day upon war profits, and that fact cannot be over-emphasized because it has been misrepresented to the country. When I introduced the Business Profits War Tax I was severely attacked by hon. gentlemen opposite on the ground that it was too severe a tax-not because it was not severe enough. Let us be perfectly fair and frank about this mattej:. I laid it down in the Budget that those who make profits out of this war should contribute most to the expenses of the war, and that policy we have carried out.
My hon. friend, I think, impaired his argument with respect to insurance by dragging in this irrelevant question of undue profits, of which we have heard so much in this House. What I object to is that when I bring in a measure, as I did in the Budget, for the" taxation of business profits in this country, hon. gentlemen opposite object that the tax is too severe, and then afterwards accuse me of being too considerate with respect to the profits made in this war.	'
Coming back to the question which I assume my hon. friend has most at heart, namely, the -insurance of soldiers, I am not able to make a definite statement to-night, nor do I think it necessary that this Bill should be delayed until a definite statement is made. The situation is not materially different from the situation that existed with reference to those who went forward under the voluntary system; they also had insurance. As I stated, this whole matter is under consideration by the Superintendent of Insurance, and after I get his report and know precisely what are the various elements involved, I shall be in a position to deal with the matter.


George Perry Graham: If the Finance Minister will do me the honour of reading the few remarks I made on this subject when the hon. member for Rouville 'brought it up yesterday, it will save my repeating them now.


William Thomas White: I shall be very glad to.


George Perry Graham: I have been requested to ask the Prime Minister this question: Is he sure that the wording of the clause referring to exemptions, where the word " minister " is used, would include the officers of the Salvation Army, for example? They are not called ministers; they have the designations of officers in the army- captain, lieutenant, and so on. Is my hon. friend sure that they will be included in the exemptions under the clause as it is now worded?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I support my hon.
friend's contention that the officers of the Salvation Army ought to be exempt.
Mr. ME1GHEN: Any one who as a matter of practice officiated in the Salvation Army as a minister officiates in relation to his congregation would come under the terms of this provision, because the Salvation Army is a religious denomination. Any one in the Salvation Army who acted the part of minister, even though he might not be known as such, would be entitled to the same exemption as any one acting in a corresponding capacity in another denomination.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


George Perry Graham: Let us take time to'consider this matter; if it should happen that some very influential body suffered an injustice, every member of this committee would be sorry that he hurried. If the Government is sure on this point, I have nothing more to say. Could not the language be changed so that it would include any person in any denomination acting in a capacity corresponding with that of minister in a regularly constituted denomination? For instance, in one organization those who officiate are called readers; the word "minister" is not used.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think there is any doubt at all that the effect of the exception is to include such persons. A man does not need to be known as a minister to come under its provisions. I am not very familiar with the terms used in all denominations, but I think that in the Anglican Church the person known as minister in some other denominations is known by another name. No one would suggest for a moment that persons acting in that capacity were not exempt.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps they would be included under the term "clergy."


Arthur Meighen: They may be included in the definition of clergy; undoubtedly they would also be included in the term "ministers of all religious denominations." Consequently, any one acting in a similar capacity in the Salvation Army is clearly included. I recognize that this matter is one of great importance; that 10 p.m. it would be the greatest injustice if the Salvation Army should be treated differently from other denominations. However, in my judgment the Act clearly covers that denomination.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps it is not a denomination, legally speaking.


William Pugsley: I think they disaffirm the idea that they are a denomination.


George Perry Graham: I believe that they are incorporated; those who officiate amongst them have power to marry, as other ministers have. Could instructions be given to the tribunals that the word "minister" includes all such persons?


Arthur Meighen: That could be done by regulation under the clause which provides for uniformity. It would only be a matter of uniform application.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If you are to draw regulations-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, not carried.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Mr. Dugald Stewart: The motion before the committee is to report the Bill. Upon that motion there is not very much latitude for discussion.
Bill reported, amendments read the first and second time and concurred in, on division.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the Bill be read the third time?.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.
Sir E,OBERT BORDEN: The Bill can be
read the third time now only with the consent of the House, as it has been reported with amendments. I should be glad to go on to-night if my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has no objection. I understand, however, that he prefers that the third reading be postponed.


Wilfrid Laurier: It will be difficult to proceed with it this evening, as several members have to leave in a lew minutes. I ask, therefore, that the third reading be postponed.


Robert Laird Borden: To-morrow and Saturday are rather inconvenient days upon which to take up the third reading if there should be debate or division. I understand that the Senate adjourned to-day until Tuesday next; therefore the Bill will not be delayed by postponing the third reading until that day. I propose to take the third reading on Tuesday next.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 13, to consolidate .and amend the Railway Act. -Hon. Frank Cochrane. (Resumed from Wednesday, July 16).
Mr. D. Stewart in the Chair.
On section 393-Disobeying orders of board.
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: Subsection 2
renders the officers of the company-the president, vice-presidents and managers- liable to very heavy damages for disobeying the orders of the board. Subsection 3 provides a penalty for municipal officers who do not obey the orders of the board, and subsection 5 shows that the board has full charge of all prosecutions in connection with the matters involved.


George Perry Graham: This section, I presume, would apply to a railway company that declined to give the required information lor .a statistical report?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Undoubtedly.


George Perry Graham: I suppose the minister has had the experience that others have had before him of the difficulty of securing such information from some of the railway companies. This section applies to that disobedience to the orders of the board?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Not only does it apply to any railroad corporation, but it applies to any corporation or municipality over which the board has any control.


George Perry Graham: Has the board any control over municipalities?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The section says very distinctly-


George Perry Graham: It says so, but has it any right to say so?
[Bir Robert Borden.]


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Subsection 3
says:
Wherever it is proved that any municipal or other corporation has neglected or refused to obey any order of the Board made under the provisions of this Act, the mayor, warden, reeve or other head of such corporation, and every member of the council or other ruling or executive body of such corporation, shall each be guilty of an offence for which he shall be liable to a penalty of not less than $20 and not more than $5,000.


George Perry Graham: We have taken a chance for several years trying to control municipalities that are under provincial control; I suppose we shall keep on doing - so until we are stopped?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What procedure is provided for the enforcement of the penalty?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Nothing more than the procedure provided for in subsection 3 which I have just read. In addition to that, the section compels the president, the	vice-president-each	vice-president,
where there are more than one-and every director and managing director-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not asking the hon. member about that; I quite understand that; but I presume there is a method of enforcing those penalties provided somewhere in the Act?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Penalties may be enforced summarily in an ordinary court; or they may be enforced by indictment. How are those penalties enforced?
Mr. J, E. ARMSTRONG: The board have the machinery to carry out the provisions of this section.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The penalties will not be inflicted by the board. The cases would have to go to the courts of the country to have the penalties imposed.-Section agreed to.
On section 395-Purchase of railway securities.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The committee amended the first subsection. After the word "Act" in the eighth line, the words "or the Special Act" are inserted. The committee will understand that this Act refers to the Special Act in many cases, and in this one in particular where the words have been added.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 399-Removing industrial spurs without leave.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This section has been recast and made negative as well as

positive. The effect will probably be to increase the powers of the board, but it is conceded it is difficult to know what the meaning of the former section 365 was.


Mr. CARVELL:: This section provides a penalty for removing a spur or branch line constructed under or pursuant to this Act. An industrial spur is always put in at the expense of the company or person who wishes it. The railway company furnishes the rails on the ordinary standard agreement by which the company or person pay? the cost of the labour and the ties. The local parties pay interest or rental on this spur. The spur becomes the property of the company or person using it. If they have paid for it and it is their own property, why should they be liable to a penalty if they remove it?


Francis Cochrane: I understand the penalty is on the railway.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The section reads:
Any company or person who, without consent or order of the Board, removes any spur-[DOT]
I am not objecting to the section, but I never could understand it. There may be a previous section which provides that the board has the right to allow a second corporation or person under such terms as it thinks proper, the right to use a spur that is being put down for another person. I know of a case-and I am not going to say anything that will cause the minister .any unpleasant thoughts-where the Intercolonial took up a .spur without any trouble at all.


Francis Cochrane: I received a very large petition for the removal of that spur.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have not heard that
the Intercolonial have paid any penalty for removing that spur. If the Intercolonial came under the authority of the Eailway Board, if they remove a spur again, they will be liable to a penalty.
Mr. COpHRANE: There was no authority for putting down that spur, and it inconvenienced many people. I have in my office a large petition for the removal of that spur.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not going to argue that. I have seen the petition, and I have travelled over every part of the locality in which the spur was. Nobody was inconvenienced, and there was no earthly reason why that .spur was taken up except political reasons. A young man started in to do business in competition with three men who, for fifteen years, had carried on all
the business in that community. He paid his money and got his spur put in, and he was shipping potatoes and doing a nice business. In three weeks his spur was taken up. There was a street leading down to the wharf, and there was also a private way leading to .the wharf, and there were three or four houses on this private way.
You cross over the street and go up to the railway station without crossing the track at all, or, if you came up the private way you simply had to cross this spur. I just want to tell the minister, there is no amount of objection no amount of sophistry, and no argument or anything that can be said, which for one moment would justify the taking up of that spur. However, it was done by the Intercolonial and not by a private company, so I suppose there is no use discussing .it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 404-Improper use of highways.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The only change .made in this section is in the last line. The words " nor more than $5,000 " have been added.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That limits the damages.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is the
penalty for improper use of the highways.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was wondering whether it' was .advisable to include that amendment. The law as it stood provided that the railway company should be liable to a penalty of not less than $40, and there was no maximum. It is now provided the maximum shall be $5,000. I can quite understand there might be circumstances under which a railway company would be willing to pay $5,000, and even more than $5,000, to get the right to use a street.


Francis Cochrane: Would that give them the right?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will give my hon.
friend an illustration. About twenty years ago, in the town in which I lived there was a tmill-owner who wanted to get a .spur track from the railway siding into his mill. In order to do this he had to go about forty rods, along the main street of the town. The town authorities objected very seriously. About the end of April or the beginning of May, when he got through with his driving operations, and had a crew of about 150 men in town, we all went to bed in a peaceful way one night, as we do in that country, and when we woke up in the morning we found a railway running through

our main street. It was there for some years. Under present conditions the board would 'have power to deal with it, but there is an instance where this mill-owner would have been glad to get that right for $5,000. As a matter of fact he got it for less than that because he simply built the spur during the night. Were any reasons given why the penalty was limited?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: There were no reasons given.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 405-Failure to erect signboards at crossings.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The only change is that the word " railway " is added after the word " every " in the first line.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) asks me whether I do not think there should be something more than the ordinary sign " Railway crossing." I am not sure whether the law provides what the sign shall be. I know the Canadian Pacific railway invariably put up two boards, one across the other. I think that is really more effective than any printing you might have on the boards. I do not know whether it is provided for by statute or not.


Francis Cochrane: Why do you think it is better than the other?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If you simply have two boards, with nothing on them, I think they would arrest the attention of the average traveller more than if you had the words
" Stop! look! listen!" on a single board. Section agreed to.
On section 407-Safety and care of roadway, etc.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The only change is the addition of the word " wilfully" after the word " or " in the third line of subsection (d).


Mr. SEXSMITH:: In case some one passing through left the gate open and the cattle got in and were killed, who -would be responsible for them?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The farmer.


John Albert Sexsmith: Is he supposed to keep the gate locked?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is covered in another clause.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. friend will go back to section 387 he will find it specifically stated that the company is not liable 
if somebody leaves the gate open. I think that is only fair. The railway company must provide suitable gates, and if they do not the Board will compel them to do so I know in many cases the gates are not what they should be. However, the farmer has his redress by coming before the Board and having an order issued to the company to install suitable gates. If a tramp comes along in the night and leaves the gate open I do not think the railway company should be held responsible for it. It seems to me that would be carrying the thing to extremes; it would be making the company an insurer against every man's negligence and almost against his criminality.


John Albert Sexsmith: I think that is fair enough. A farmer could keep the gate locked.


Mr. STEELE:: Where land is being taken, that should be considered in fixing the compensation. It is a great inconvenience to the farmer to watch these gates.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That goes back to the question of compensation at the time the right of way is taken. There are a great many times that the poor farmer, in settling for the right of way, does not realize what it means to be compelled to drive his stock and operate his farm across a railway, but still the principle involved in settling compensation is that once settled that is an end to it.
On section 413-notification of accidents


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The only change is the insertion of the word "railway" after the word "every" in the first line.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That runs all through the Bill, and the reason is that in the old Act the word "company" only meant a railway company by the definition. Now the word "company" means every company over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction-electric light, power, telegraph or telephone company. Therefore, in these particular sections, it is necessary to insert the word "railway" in order to make it intelligible.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
, On section 416-blackboard; notice of overdue trains:
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The changes are these: The word "railway" is inserted after the word "any" in the first line; the words "or telephone" are inserted after the word "telegraph" in the second line, and the words "or telephone" are inserted in the last line of paragraph (a).


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think that is fair to a railway company under certain conditions. If any railway company, upon whose railway there is a telegraph or telephone line, does not put a blackboard up and give notice of the time at which trains will arrive, or as to whether they are late or not, it shall be liable. That would be all right in the case of a railway company that is operating its road by telephone or telegraph. That is becoming very prevalent. There are many railways that are being operated by telephone and I think on some portions of the big railway systems they are using the telephone almost exclusively, and, I believe, with very great benefit. But in eastern Canada practically all the telephone companies have instruments in the railway stations. I happen to have a little knowledge about telephone matters in New Brunswick. There was a time when our telephone instruments were put into the railway stations practically without any compensation, but an arrangement was made by which they pay a certain rental. I have known cases in which an independent telephone company feels that it is to its interest to have an instrument placed in the railway station. For the purposes of my argument, it does not make any difference whether they are put there at the expense of the company or put there for the benefit of the telephone company and its patrons; the telephone is there. But the telephone, in this case absolutely plays no part whatever in the operation of the railway. You are providing that a railway must do certain things if they happen to have a telephone in their office. The section ought to be so worded as to provide that the railway should do these things when the telephone is there and is used, instead of the telegraph, by the company for the purpose of operating trains. I do not know whether this has been brought to the minister's attention.


Francis Cochrane: No, it has not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: All over the country you will find telephones in railway offices which are there purely for the accommodation of the public and play no part whatever in the operation of the railway.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: They are installing the telephone to a great extent on the main lines, and this clause must be taken in connection with clause 304 dealing with blackboards at stations, overdue trains and further notice in English and French.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is quite true.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I quite understand what the hon. gentleman means when he says that telephones are frequently placed in the stations, and we compel the companies to allow them to be placed there for the convenience of the people. The hon. gentleman thinks that possibly there might be an unfair advantage taken of the railway under this clause?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, unless the telephone is owned or leased by the railway company for the purpose- of operating its trains.


Francis Cochrane: There would not be
many branch railways in your country operating by telephone.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: To a certain extent. My own town is a divisional point and trains are operated by telephone nearly 150 miles each way from the station. I happen to know one point on that line within two or three miles of town. It is a junction point, and they have telephonic communication between that junction point and the despatching office. When a conductor on that particular line reaches the junction he telephones in to the head office. As far as that particular line is concerned they aTe operating by telephone. That case would come under the provisions of this section. But that same office has -another telephone in it-a telephone of what is called the Farmers' line, and it has no relation whatever to the operation of the railway. I do not know that this is putting very much of a burden on the railway company, but I felt like pointing out the difficulty. I am sure that if the railways had noticed it there would have been some discussion.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not think it would operate to their disadvantage in our district. I am sure it is the proper thing to do in the more thickly settled portions of the country.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It means that the railway must at once put telephones into the offices.


Mr. WRIGHT:: It would only be objectionable to apply this provision where there was no station house, and we might limit it to places where there are station houses occupied by the company.


John Albert Sexsmith: It is -all in the hands of the railway company because it is optional with them whether they -allow a telephone company to install a telephone in their station. In Peterborough they have

36^6
a public telephone, hut the Canadian Pacific can compel the Bell Telephone to take the instrument out.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then the public have
some rights. The Railway Board has the right to order the railway company to install that telephone. Let me give an illustration. At this same junction point 'to which I have referred, up to about ten years ago they had a station house; an operator, and all the equipment of a regular railway station. The railway line was diverted for six or eight miles to avoid grades; the station house was abolished and the junction moved to a point a mile from the former location. Now there is a small building, simply a shelter, but yet it would come within the definition of this section. There is undoubtedly a station house at that junction point, but there is nobody in charge of it, and no one to keep the blackboard. If this were passed the Canadian Pacific might be compelled to keep a man there to keep the blackboard.


William Wright: [DOT] My suggestion would cover that point.
"Mr. CARVELL: I think so.


Mr. NICKLE:: I would move to substitute for the words " in operation " the words " for the operation of the railway ",


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That would only apply to a station in which there was a telegraph or telephone installed.
-Mr. CARVELL: They have a telephone in this one to which I refer. When the train on the branch line arrives at the junction the conductor calls up the head office by telephone and gets his orders in that way, so that all of the requirements of this section are found there.


Francis Cochrane: Then we would be
only emphasizing the trouble by saying " for the operation of the road ",


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Bo not the words
" in operation " cover all the points that have been made?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, no.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: In the operation of the line.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, if a telephone is workable it. might be said to be in operation.
'Mr. SEXSMITH: Section 303 says that every railway company on whose railway -there is a telegraph or telephone line in operation shall have a blackboard, and *so on.


William Wright: Would such a building as my bon. friend has referred to be considered a station? It might be held that there would have to be some one resident in the station or in charge of it before it would become a regular operating office.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it would be a pity to begin scratching up this section now. It looks very well as it is and seem? to be quite satisfactory.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not very strong on the point, only I felt that we should make this as correct as possible. I have called attention to it, and if difficulties arise I shall have discharged my duty.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 420-Penalty for failure to sound alarm.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This section deals with the penalty for failure to sound the whistle and ring the bell, and the damages and exceptions. Subsection 3 is altered to correspond with the change in section 309, subsection 2. While this was in committee the words "if approved by order of the board" were inserted between "by-law" in the third line of subsection 3 and the word "shall." It now reads:
Such by-law if approved by the order of the Board shall, to the extent of such prohibition, relieve the company from any penalty or liability under this section.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 422-Operation of trains.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Section 422 deals with the care and operation of trains. Paragraphs (g) (e) and (f) are new, added to correspond with provisions added by section 13 of chapter 32 of the statutes of 1909. The paragraph was changed to correspond with changes now being made to section 311. While in committee they decided to strike out certain words in the second line of (g): "moving forward in the ordinary manner." Then again, in the same paragraph, in line 6, after the word "train" they struck out the words "or of the tender, if the tender is in front." The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) will remember that the Brotherhood came before the committee and dealt with this question^ very fully and were very anxious that these changes should be made in this clause.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I remember. Of course I have always felt that all of these clauses are violated all the time, and I do not think you could successfully operate

a railway unless you did violate them. However, if the committee is willing to leave them there, I have no objection.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	[DOT]
On section 423-Obstruction of highway.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Section 423 deals with the penalty for obstructing a highway. Subsection 2 is new. TMfe object is twofold; first, at the request of the representatives of the municipalities, to prevent obstruction so far as possible.


Michael Steele: It says in the third line "officers, agents or employees." Would the station agent of the company be held responsible if a crossing within the yard limits was obstructed by a train?


Mr. HANNA:: His duty is to order the crossing cleared within five minutes, and he is therefore responsible to that extent.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not sure what the rules of the company are as to who is responsible, but certainly somebody should be held responsible. I think it is the trainmen who would be responsible for the blocking of a crossing.


Francis Cochrane: The station agent has control of the trains while they are in the yard.


Michael Steele: If " agent " does not include station agent I have no objection, but I think it would be very unfair to hold the station agent responsible for the blocking of a crossing, because, when he is busy at his post, it is impossible for him to know whether the crossings are blocked or not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the station agent is responsible for holding the trains within the yard limits and blocking the crossings, it is only right that we should get after him.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: He has always been held responsible. That part of the clause has not been changed at all.


Michael Steele: In a village where there are one or two crossings within the yard limits and the trainmen are shunting cars, a crossing may be blocked without the station agent knowing anything about it. I think it is unfair to hold him responsible.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But somebody must be held responsible; the public have certain rights. A railway company has absolutely no right to obstruct a crossing. If, under the rules of the company, the agent is the responsible man, then I think the public should have the right to get after the agent. If he is not the responsible man, let us find
the man who is responsible. The public have certainly a right to make some one responsible for obstruction of the crossing.


Michael Steele: I quite agree that obstruction of the crossing is a perfect nuisance, but I think the company should be held responsible.


Francis Cochrane: But the company
would not be there, while the agent would.


Michael Steele: How can an agent be held responsible when he is not in a position to know whether the crossings are blocked or not?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Assuming that the station agent has control over the trains while they are within the yard limits, then even if he does not know that the crossings are blocked, he should be held responsible because he ought to know it.


John Albert Sexsmith: I think the point taken by my hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. Steele) is a good one. I know a place where trains are going in and coming out perhaps fifty times a day, and the crossing will perhaps be blocked twenty times during, the day. It is impossible for the agent to know when a crossing is blocked when he is busy at his post. I think it would be unfair to hold him responsible.


Francis Cochrane: He has been held responsible for years.


John Albert Sexsmith: That does not justify us in still holding him responsible if he should not be held responsible.


William Wright: I think clause 2 should be dropped. Somebody must be held responsible for blocking the crossings in the station yard. If an employee is to be allowed to shift the responsibility to the company he could say, "I have instructions from the company to go on with the business," and nobody could get after him. At present the agent knows that he is responsible for keeping the crossings clear, and I think it would be unwise to make a change now. If the company is to be held responsible, in nine cases out of ten no one would bother to enter an action against them, but when the agent is held responsible he can be got after right away.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They can always get after the superintendent; he is always around.


Mr. MORRISON:: If the agent is responsible, I do not see why we should make any change in this clause.	[DOT]


William Wright: Why insert clause 2? It is absolutely unnecessary.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Clause 423 says:
Whenever at any highway crossing at rail level any engine, tender or car, or any part thereof, is wilfully allowed by the company, its officers, agents or employees to stand on any part of such highway for a longer period than five minutes at one time, or, in shunting, to obstruct public traffic for a longer period than five minutes at one time, every officer, agent or employee of the company, who has directly under or subject to his control, management or direction any such engine, tender or car, shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars, and the company shall also be liable to a like penalty.
Clause 2 was inserted at the request of the railway employees in order to relieve them from responsibility when the company is at fault, and not the employees; it is a case between the employees and the company. This clause is inserted to give the employee an opportunity of coming before the company or before the courts to prove that he is innocent.
On section 432-sending of explosives:


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The penalty here is made more severe. After the word "exceeding" in the third line of paragraph (b), we have added the words, "$2,000 or imprisonment for any period not exceeding two years." The next clause is also amended.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A very wise provision, indeed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 433-Carrying dangerous goods.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This section provides a penalty for carrying dangerous goods. It has been amended to correspond with the change in section 349.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 437-Failure to furnish returns to minister.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This section deals with statistics and returns. It is amended- to correspond with the change made in section 2, chapter 32 of the statute of 1909, and with the changes now being made in sections 379 and 380. The committee decided to strike out after the word company" on the second line the words "and every carrier by water." That was necessary owing to the change made in section 380.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 438-Returns to minister.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This section deals still further with statistics and returns. It has been amended in conformity with changes made by section 14, chapter 22, statute of 1911. The words "and any carrier by water" are struck out after the word "company^ in the second line. The words "or carrier," wherever they appeared in the section were struck out.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Where is the section providing that the conductors shall make a return in case of accident?


Francis Cochrane: We cut out the conductor.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thought that was left in.


Francis Cochrane: 1 think you objected to it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think not. We agreed that the conductor should send to the board a copy of the report which he made to the company.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 439-Refusal to make returns required by board.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: In the second line the words any "railway, telegraph, telephone or express company" have been added. Before the word "company" the word "such" has been added in eight or ten different placee. These are the only changes which have been made.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 442-failure of constable in duty.
Mr. .1. E. ARMSTRONG:	On the last
line of subsection 3, after the word "jurisdiction," the words "wherein the railway passes" were struck out and the following words inserted, "of the province wherein the offence was committed."
Section agreed to.	-
On -section 443-Various offences.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This section is the same as the old, except that in the second last line the words "with or without hard labour" were added after the word "imprisonment."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 444-Penalties not otherwise provided.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This is a further section dealing with penalties. In the

third line after the word, "company," the words "or any contractor or other person having to do with the Tailway or other works of the company" were added. In the seventh line, after the word "orders," the word "regulations" was inserted, making it a little clearer.
' Section agreed to.
On section 448-Procedure.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The only
change in this section is that in the second line of subsection 1, the words "order, rule or " were inserted after the word "any" and on the fifteenth line the words "or any order, rule or regulation of the board" were added.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 449-Railway constables.
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Paragraph (a) has been redrafted and made appropriate to present conditions. The requirement of being a British subject has been added in subsection 1. The committee thought it wise to strike out after the word " Quebec " in the fourth line, the words " or a commissioner of a parish court in the province of New Brunswick." On the eighth line the words " British subjects " were added and on the ninth line the words " recommended for that purpose by such company, clerk or agent " were struck out.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That was done at the
request of the Brotherhoods.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: In the form of the oath, the committee thought it wise to insert after the word " I," on the third line, the words, " am a British subject."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: A certain form of oath is given here by which certain officials are to be sworn in. Where these affidavits to be filed?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the board not make provision for the filing?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think so.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When a municipal
officer is sworn in, his affidavit is filed in the municipal office, where access may be had to it if one is desirous of finding out whether or not he complied
11 p.m. with the law. As the committee has thought it worth while to provide that this affidavit shall be made, there should be some means of finding out afterwards whether or not the law has been complied with.
Mr. NIiCKLE:	Does the subsection 3
cover that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, that does not meet
the suggestion of the member for North Cape Breton that the affidavit should be registered. In the committee there was a great deal of discussion about this, very largely on account of what took place at Fort William some years ago when a strike was on. The Brotherhood contended that the railway company brought in a lot of foreigners, went to some magistrate who was friendly to the company and had them sworn in-and I suppose they had a serious time. They contended that that should not be allowed; that only a British subject should be eligible for appointment as railway constable.
The affidavit was changed so that he must swear that he is a British subject, but there is, as my hon. friend has pointed out, no provision made for filing a certificate of that oath. The difficulty, of course, would arise if a person felt aggrieved and wanted to -bring an action in order to obtain satisfaction in the courts. He would be at a loss to know whether this man had a legal right to act as a constable or not. If a record of this oath were filed in some public office, he could go there and find out that information.


Francis Cochrane: Is it not filed in the office of the company?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend referred to it as being filed with the clerk of the peace or some muncipal officer.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the hon. member think the person administering the oath would not have a record of it filed?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If I feel I am aggrieved by the act of a railway constable, and I want to start an action against him, I am at sea. If the mail were a duly qualified railway constable and were acting within his right, he would he immune, but as the law stands, I have no way of finding out whether this man was a duly qualified railway constable or not. By filing a certificate of his oath, he justifies his appointment. If his appointment is regular, and he has hot exceeded his duties, I lose my case and have to pay the costs. My hon. friend suggests that there ought to be some provision whereby a record of this oath should be filed in the registry office or something of that kind, so that any member of the public may go to that office and satisfy himself beforehand whether this man had the authority or not.


Francis Cochrane: The registry office may be a long distance away.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is <a registry office in practically every town.


Francis Cochrane: There is not a registry office in every town.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are mails and
telegraphs and telephones.
Mr. SEXSMI'TH:	In a railway station
the record might be filed.


Francis Cochrane: If the registrar refuses to register for you, you cannot compel him to register.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I do not think you can.


William Folger Nickle: Why could not you file
it with the Railway Board?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That raises the objection of my hon. friend again; the Railway Board is still farther away. I do not, however, think there will be any difficulty.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This section has been in force now for many years, and there has been no complaint.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Before the committee where this matter was threshed out very thoroughly, only one instance was given where any difficulty had arisen, and that was in the case of a very serious strike/ at Fort William some years ago.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not taking any serious objection, but there is really no sense in requiring a public officer of this kind to take an oath unless a record of it is kept somewhere.
Mr. J. E.' ARMSTRONG: I can readily understand the force of the argument made by the hon. gentleman. Perhaps he might make a suggestion whereby the section could be amended.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not want to change the Act now, but it might be provided that those records should be filed in the municipal office nearest to the place where the man was sworn' in, or the nearest office to the terminus of the road, or something like that, so that any person, by making inquiry, could find out whether the man was sworn in or not.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 215-Notice of expropriation to be served.
Francis Cochrane: I have decided to yield to the temptations of my colleague on this 
committee. This is the section referring to expropriation proceedings. I am willing to adopt the old section 196.	-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad my hon. friend has had a change of heart. The present is always the time for a man to repent. Section 196 of the old Act reads:
If within ten days after the service of such notice, or within one month after the first publication thereof, the opposite party does not give notice to the company that he accepts the sum offered by it, the judge shall, upon the application of the company, appoint a person to he sole arbitrator for determining the compensation to be paid as aforesaid; provided that the judge shall, at the request of either party, on such application, appoint three arbitrators to determine such compensation, one of whom may be named by each party on such application.
Now, the law as proposed provides that instead of appointing three arbitrators, the county court judge or the district court judge would be the sole arbitrator.


Francis Cochrane: But, do we not have to change more than that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the law as it has been for probably thirty or forty years. The intention of the new Act was to make the county court judge the sole arbitrator.


Francis Cochrane: I think it is cheaper. Still the committee did not think so, and I agreed to change it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The only question is, how many sections you have to substitute.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You would have to
change a great many sections. You would have to get back to the old section 196. After that, there are only clerical changes, for instance, "arbitrators" instead of "arbitrator." However, if section 219 is changed, it will be all right to allow the minister ot any of the officials of the Government to work out the rest of it; it is very simple.


Francis Cochrane: I would be very glad to do so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am satisfied with that.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is it understood that section 219 is passed?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: With that understanding, yes.	-


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: May I call the attention of the committee to the fact that section 215, dealing with expropriation proceedings, was allowed to stand until this matter was disposed of.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Was not that the section in which we decided ten days' notice should be given instead of six days?


Francis Cochrane: I proposed that we adopt the old Act. That provided for ten days' notice, did it not?
Mr. CARVELL t That was six days.


Francis Cochrane: Would you rather have ten 'days?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In my practice I have found six days' notice is very short. I also wish to point out to the minister that in the changing of these sections there is one very important change in the new Act that should be retained. Under the old law it was only the railway company that had the right to proceed to the arbitration. Under the new law either the railway company or the landowner has the right. The officers of the Government will follow that out in redrafting the sections.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Mr. Dugald Stewart: Do I understand that all those sections relating to arbitration proceedings, from 219 to 237, will be carried?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: With the distinct.understanding that the old law is to be restored.


Francis Cochrane: And, there is one to be added.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Your legal adviser will see what is necessary to restore the old law.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The chairman informs me that section 215, dealing with expropriation proceedings, was allowed to stand owing to the connection the committee thought it had with section 219.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no change there.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: He had it
marked "passed," but wrote the word "stands" on the other side.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no change.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: All the sections from 219 to 232 are marked in the same way.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The committee is now prepared to pass section 215.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Sections 217 .and 218 were also allowed to stand.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Was not subsection 3 of section 217 one of the sections referred to by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Boulay) ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Subsections 3 and 4 of section 218 are both new.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are two instances there where you would have to change "arbitrator" to "arbitrators." I take it the officials of the Government will work out all these details.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It is understood then that in the sections dealing with expropriation proceedings the officials will notice that the word "arbitrator" is changed to "arbitrators."


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And any other necessary changes along that line.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Is section 217 passed?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think there was a question about that which we might as well settle now. It struck me as being a pretty reasonable request and one which should be agreed to by the committee, that in case service was being made by publication in the province of Quebec, if there be papers printed in French and in English, the railway company must publish the notice in both languages. I thought it was a fair provision be.oause, while probably in many cases these notices do not reach the parties interested, still, if you are attempting to give a man notice the idea of the publication is that the relatives or friends of some interested party may see it and may notify him. If in the province of Quebec they publish this notice only in an English paper, in all probability it never will be seen by the man interested.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It was understood by the committee, after listening to the hon. member for Rimouski, that he could readily bring it up at any session of Parliament as an amendment to the Railway Act, and that it could be discussed later.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not so understand it. However, he will probably be here at the third reading and he will have an opportunity then.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 219-Arbitrator.
Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Shall1 this section
pass?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Carried.


Francis Cochrane: I think the old Act
was different from many of these sections that you are carrying.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes, but the committee have asked that the minister allow his law clerk to make these clauses to conform with the old Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We are willing to trust the minister and his department to work these out; or we will go on now and work them out ourselves.


Francis Cochrane: You have adopted the old Act and all you want to do is to insert its provisions instead of the provisions with regard to the arbitrator here?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In the beginning the
question which we were dischssing was as to whether the arbitration should consist of three men as provided by the old Act, or of the county court judge alone. The minister has now decided that he will take the old Act. But, if we change subsection 1 of section 219, we must make certain minor changes in a great number of sections. Outside of those minor changes there are some fairly important changes in those sections which aTe to remain as they are now. For instance, under the old law only the railway company could bring the matter to arbitration; under the proposed law either the railway company or the land owner has the right to apply afteT ten days. It is left to the officials to make the minor changes subject to these important changes, just taking the sections and making them read so that they will correspond with secion 219. In the meantime we will carry them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 222-Company may offer easement, etc.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is an entirely new provision. It was held by the courts that the . company must take the whole thing, that they must buy the property from the earth up. The Bill provides now that the railway company can take what is necessary and give back to the owner of the land an easement, the object being to make it less expensive to the railway company and to enable the owner to obtain some very material rights. That is one clause that will have to be left as it is. The officials will have no trouble in working that out.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 223-Costs of arbitration; expenses of arbitrator.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Subsection 3 of that
clause will have to be struck out. That is

the subsection that provides that if the county court judge is acting as arbitrator he shall receive no costs.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think that is a pretty cheeky proceeding from the beginning. We are asking a county court judge to go wandering through the country for nothing.


Francis Cochrane: It will give him something to do.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On /section 227-Notice of award to be given.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I wish to call the attention of the committee to this section. It provides that:
After making the award, the arbitrator shall forthwith notify the parties that the award has been made, and shall forthwith deliver or transmit by registered post the award and the depositions, exhibits and all other papers connected with the arbitration to the clerk of the court, to be filed with the records of the said court.
The law has been changed in that regard, I am glad to say. Under the law as it is proposed here, the arbitrator must transmit the award to some proper officer. The way this has been worked out in the past has been that the arbitrator would notify both parties that he had made the award and that if they would pay him so many hundred dollars in costs they could get it. The result was that both the railway company and the land owner had to make a guess whether the award was in their favour or not. But they had to pay the arbitrator's costs, practically what he demanded before they could get the award. It is true that you could have the costs taxed by the proper officer. But I, myself, or rather my clients, have been held up a good many times and we have had to pay out a large amount of money to get awards. I am glad to see that this is provided for.
On /section. 23-Duties of Secretary of Railway Commission:


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: This section stood owing to n. question which I Taised with regard to paragraph (c) of subsection 1, which provides that the secretary shall obey all rules and directions which may be given by the board or by the Chief Commissioner. I pointed out that there ought to be some provision for the case of a conflict between the Chief Commissioner -and the majority of the board. I would move an addition to subsection (c) in these words:
And in the event of a conflict of such rules or directions those made by the Board shall prevail.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-Application of Act:
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The Government is
'bringing in a Bill to amend the Government Railways Act, and it was impossible to amend clause 5 to make it satisfactory. The House did not give the committee the necessary power to amend the Bill so as to include the Government railways. The House could not give such permission to the committee without the approval of the Governor General communicated to the House. Many portions of the Railway Act could not be applicable to the Crown, such as all provisions respecting stocks, shares and bonds.


Francis Cochrane: It was agreed to let
it stand in its present form until the introduction of the amendment to the Government Railways Act, and we shall have to let it stand.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The Government
system of appropriating land is altogether different, the Crown having a special court, that is the Exchequer Court, to deal with such matters.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister's contention is that we. should have no power to include Government railways in the operation of this Act by an amendment to this Act, but must amend the Government Railways Act by a separate Bill.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It would do no harm to pass the section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 388-Fires from locomotives:
Francis Cochrane: The hon. member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) moved to substitute for the words, " the railway making use of such locomotive," the words, " the railway on which such locomotive is used ".


Mr. DEMERS:: I beg to amend my
amendment as follows:
That clause 3SS be amended by substituting in the first paragraph, line 15, for the words " making use of such locomotives,' the words " operating the railway on which the locomotive is used."
Amended amendment agreed to.


Mr. SMITH:: I beg to move that all the words after " insurance " in line 35 of subsection 2 of section 388 be struck out. I pointed out last evening that if a barn, we will say, had been destroyed by fire and the insurance collected from an insurance
company, but not to the full value of the damage done, the owner of the barn could not sue the railway company for the balance, if in the meantime it had been found that the fire was started by a defective locomotive.


Francis Cochrane: Who would take proceedings? The insured or the insurance company?


William Smith: The insured.


Francis Cochrane: He has his money. What more do you want?


William Smith: The insurance he receives from the insurance company might not cover the damage done.


Francis Cochrane: The object is to let him sue the railway company for the balance of the damage done?


William Smith: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the owner got only $1,000 from the insurance company and damage was done to the extent of $2,000 he should have right of action for the other $1,000. Is that the contention?


William Smith: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: At common law the fact of a man having his barn insured does not prevent him from bringing an action against the man who sets fire to it. If the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) and the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) are satisfied with this amendment I shall make no objection, but we should be very careful when making changes in the law as to the rights of a man who has insured his property.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Of course, this is purely statutory; we are providing a liability against the railway company. We say that the railway company is liable up to the amount of $5,000, no matter whether they have used the proper appliances or not. I remember when, under the old law, one almost had to look down the smokestack of the engine to find out whether the spark arrester was working. If I have insurance upon my property, I ought not, in case of loss, to be allowed to get the full amount of my insurance and then collect full damages from the railway company; the two put together ought only to make good my loss. The contention of the member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith) is, as I understand it, that under the present law, if you accept the insurance, you have no right to look to the railway company for
REVISED EDITION!

the balance. If that is a true interpretation of the statute, I do not think it is right.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The member for South Ontario informs me that he has been asked by the local insurance companies to request that the words in question be eliminated from this subsection; that he has consulted with the best legal talent available, who assure him that if they are removed, the claim which the member for South Ontario has made in committee will be allowed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In order to expedite matters, I am willing that these words be struck out. If on the third reading we find that we are in error, we may be able to reinstate them. I must confess that it is hard to sit down here in committee and read over an intricate section of this kind and make up your mind as to its true interpretation.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. CROMWELL:: It appears to me that it is hardly sufficient to limit the liability of the railway company at $5,000. It is true that in some instances that amount may be sufficient, but in others it may not. If a property worth $10,000 or $12,000 was destroyed by fire caused by a locomotive, and the property was insured for $3,000, what recourse would the loser have? He could only go ,to the railway company. I think that the amount of $5,000 should be increased to $10,000 in order to protect sufficiently those who suffer damage by fire caused by locomotives. I hope this suggestion will be taken into consideration by the committee, because the matter is important to any one whose property is located near a railway line.
Mr. 8EXSMITH: Many valuable buildings are situated close to railway lines. I think it is highly improper that the amount of liability should be limited to $5,000.


Francis Cochrane: I think that $5,000 is enough.


John Albert Sexsmith: In case of fire, the claimant would have to prove that the railway company caused the fire. I do not see why a man whose loss amounted to $10,000 or $20,000 should be unable to receive from the railway company more than $5,000 because of this limitation. '


Francis Cochrane: There are not many cases where the loss exceeds $5,000.


John Albert Sexsmith: I know, but we should not fix the amount at $5,000.


William Smith: I agree that such a large amount might not always be involved, but there might be cases where $5,000 would not be sufficient to cover the loss. It seems to me that the .amount could reasonably be changed from $5,000 to a considerably larger amount.


Frederick Robert Cromwell: I move in amendment that in this section the words "five thousand dollars" be struck out and the words "ten thousand dollars" be substituted therefor.


William Folger Nickle: I think, from the language used by the two last speakers, that they are under a misapprehension as to the character and meaning of this section. If the machinery of the company-that is the locomotive-is modern and efficient, they become insurers to the extent of $5,000. That is, if a fire is caused by a locomotive and it was what we call purely accidental, the locomotive being properly equipped and everything being in proper working order, the company are insurers to the amount of $5,000. If there is a defect in the locomotive or any neglect in the operation of the railway, [DOT] then the company is responsible, in unlimited amount, for the damage done. It struck me that the hon. gentlemen, in speaking to the subject, rather laid down the proposal that there was a general limitation to the amount of $5,000. The limitation is only to the extent of insurance; that is, if the locomotive is modern and: well equipped and a fire occurs, the company can only be asked to .pay $5,000. If the locomotive is negligently operated or improperly equipped, the liability is unlimited.


William Smith: I understood that if the locomotive was properly managed and everything was in order, the railway company would not be liable at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If you prove that the fire is caused by the locomotive, you oan recover up to $5,000, even if they had the most perfect appliances in the world.


William Smith: I think a good deal more
of the section than I did, in view of that explanation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But to recover more than $5,000, you must prove negligence, either in appliances or in operation.


William Folger Nickle: Under the old law, the
plantiff had to show that the spark-arrester was defective or that there was some defect in the mechanism. Having shown that, he could recover damages, but plaintiffs were
JULY i9, 1917
under this embarrassment; as a
12 m. rule, they had no opportunity of inspecting the locomotive and they had great difficulty in showing that there was any defect either in the equipment or in the operation of the locomotive. The law was then amended in this manner; if there w>a.s reasonable ground for assuming that a spark had gone from the stack of a passing locomotive and had fallen on a man's field or hoarse, causing damage, then the jury were warranted in granting damages not exceeding $5,000. If the plantiff could show in addition that the spark-at-tesfer was defective or that the locomotive was incorrectly operated

for instance by blowing up the stack improperly when going up a grade-then the limitation of $5,000 was done away with and the plaintiff could recover to the full amount of the damages suffered by him through the negligent construction or operation of the locomotive.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a correct interpretation of the law.


Francis Cochrane: Five thousand dollars is .a sufficiently heavy liability.


Frederick Robert Cromwell: Supposing that I have a set of buildings in close proximity to a railway, and with all the modem appliances that the railways have now tc prevent fire, fire takes place caused by an engine. My property is insured for $3,000, but perhaps is worth $5,000, and I have in my bam stock and feed for that stock to the amount of $12,000. If my property is burned down through that fire, I am the loser. I get my $3,000 insurance, hut the railway company will pay me only the $2,000, the difference between the $5,000 and the $3,000 I have received from the insurance company. Who is to pay the balance? The railway company should have to pay up to the extent of at least $10,000, lpecause many people are in the same position as that which I have described. If fire should take place in a wood lot, the case would be similar. The owners might lose $25,000, and it would be quite a help to them if they could get $10,000 from the railway company responsible for the fire that took place. We should not give a charter to a company that has not a reasonable amount of responsibility to the people from whom it gets a charter.


Francis Cochrane: The railway companies have to insure up to $5,000 even when their appliances are in proper order. That is heavy insurance.
229}


John Albert Sexsmith: I cannot see where
they insure at all. They are liable when they cause a fire, but what right has a railroad, with a smoke-stack in accordance with the law of the land, to set fire to my property or your property and then not be liable? If you allow them to he a little slack, they will cause many more fires. A railway engine may be in the best of condition and still cause- fires in very dry seasons. Two or three years ago fire was caused from the railway at a certain place, and the grass was dry. The man happened to be away from home. If it had not been for a couple of people coming along all his buildings would have been burned down, and he would have lost $10,000 or more.


Francis Cochrane: The railway companies are blamed for setting many fires for which they are not responsible.


John Albert Sexsmith: It is up to the Tailway companies to prove that they are not liable.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Supreme Court some years ago decided-there were a series of cases-that if a railway company allowed dead grass or weeds to exist upon the right of way and a spark fell upon that and ignited it, thereby causing fire, they were negligent, and such a case does not come under this limit of $5,000. I hold no brief for the railway companies, as my business is to take actions against them. In the revision of this Act, however, a special committee was appointed, and all parties were invited to come and present their cases. The railway companies were represented, and this section went through the committee without any objection. This, of course, is the Parliament of Canada, and we are not bound to send for anybody or to Consider the views of any one, but it might be regarded as a little breach of faith with the railway companies if, under present conditions, we interfered with an important section like this. I am not intimating for a moment that we have not the power to change it.


John Albert Sexsmith: I cannot agree with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell). The railway companies had their legal advisers before the committee. The people did not come to present their case to the committee, and we are their only safeguard.


Francis Cochrane: People did come.


John Albert Sexsmith: Even if the railway companies were willing to accept liability up *o $5,0f>c. I do not see that that is-any

justification for saying that we should not increase the amount.


Francis Cochrane: They were willing to accept that.


Mr. BALL:: It is up to the railway companies to keep their smoke stacks in order. If damage occurs, they should pay all damage over the insurance, provided it is proved that they are responsible for the fire. I do not see why any private individual should lose on account of that fire. I do not think the burden of proving that a smoke stack is not in order should be placed on the individual.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: When the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Cromwell) spoke to me about this matter I thought, perhaps, we would be justified in increasing the amount. After listening to those hon. gentlemen who have been discussing the question, and after reading subsection 7, which reads:
Nothing in the last two preceding subsections shall prevent or prejudice any action or claim against the company for failure to use modern and efficient appliances or for other negligence-
I can readily understand that action can be taken against a company for any other negligence as well as for inefficient appliances, and I am satisfied now that the claim made by the hon. member for Compton is fully covered by subsection 7.


Frederick Robert Cromwell: A railway company is a very big corporation, and an individual is at a disadvantage in contending with it. He might not think it worth his while to take action against a large corporation, and, perhaps, be the loser. The individual who sustains the loss should be protected and should not have to take into consideration the fact that he is up against a big corporation. The Government should see that the individual losing through a fire, whether caused by a big corporation or by a, small corporation, should be protected.


Alexander Morrison: When a farmer suffers on account of a fire caused by a locomotive he has not the means of ascertaining whether that locomotive is in proper condition or not. The locomotive is out of reach.


Mr. MORRIS:: I am just a little interested in this matter. Although it has never happened in my own immediate locality, I have heard of great damage sustained by individuals who were not in a position to prove where the damage had originated. We knew from the circumstances of the
[Mr. Sexsmith.j
case that it had originated with the railway company, but it was impossible to prove exactly where, and the company took advantage of this fact. We knew, and the company knew, that they were responsible for the damages, but because the man could not produce the evidence necessary to fix it on the company, he had to sustain the loss. I think when the proof is sufficient that the railway company is responsible, they should be made to pay the damages.


Francis Cochrane: If you prove they are responsible, they have to pay.


James Morris: The difficulty is to prove where they are responsible. Several companies were using the same line. During the night several trains passed, and the damage was caused. The individual could not prove to the court nor to the committee which had the matter in charge which com-'pany was responsible, and had to sustain the loss himself.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Perhaps my hon. friend was not following the change made by the hon. membeT from St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers), and accepted by the committee. He suggested a change which provided that the company which operates the railway over which the locomotive is being used is responsible for the damage.


James Morris: That covers the point I had in mind.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Of course, my hon. friend realizes that it would not be fair to hold the railway company responsible unless you proved the fire was started by a locomotive or by the railway company in some way.


James Morris: That only throws the responsibility from one to another.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It fixes the responsibility.


Frederick Robert Cromwell: But, it does not affect what I have said. What I want is that the maximum responsibility of the railways be placed at $10,000 instead of $5,000, no matter what company is operating.


Francis Cochrane: If you prove there is negligence, there is no limit to the amount. You make it $100,000. Of course, the railways must have fairplay as well as any body else.


Frederick Robert Cromwell: But establishing liability is the consideration before the House.


Francis Cochrane: I got a telegram last summer from two lumbermen claiming that the Intercolonial had set fire te their tim-

ber. I had the matter investigated and found there was not any fire within ten rods of the track. Their own men had set the fire.


Mr. REID:: Did you pay them the $5,000?


Francis Cochrane: I did not pay them anything.


Frederick Robert Cromwell: I cannot see how it would be any disadvantage to the railway companies to place the sum at $10,000 instead of $5,000. We are operating a railway ourselves, and if we do any damage we have no disposition not to settle for the damage. The people of this country have given charters to the railway corporations, and I do not see any reason why those railways should not be responsible. It is only a matter of protecting the individual who is living close to the right of way and who may be in.danger of fire.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have had to face this question a good many times, especially the lawyers of this House. I have argued it to juries frequently. I am not addressing a jury now, and I am compelled to look at it from a broad business standpoint. In the .first place, we must remember this country could not exist without railways, and they are entitled to a great deal of protection. We must also remember that until electric dnergy is developed to a greater extent than it is at the present time the only known way of operating a railway is by fire; they cannot generate the power otherwise. They have to go through the country at a high rate of speed. I believe the railway companies are trying their very best to use all modern appliances to prevent causing fires. It never seemed to me fair that when a railway company is compelled to use such a dangerous thing as fire, and they cannot get along without it, you should practically put them in a position where they may be mulcted in very large damages for doing that which they are compelled to do, unless you can show that they have done it negligently. I have always felt that Parliament went pretty far when they adopted that clause providing that they were liable to the extent of $5,000 merely by proving the fact that the fire occurred. I hardly think it fair that this should be increased to $10,000.


John Dowsley Reid: The suggestion has been made that a man might have $10,000 or $12,000 worth of buildings destroyed, and that the company would be only liable for $5,000. I look at this clause as being more to protect the farmer who could not possibly insure
what this $5,000 is intended to cover, that is the growing grain. I claim a man is negligent of his duty, even in his own interest, if he does not protect himself by insuring his buildings. The insurance premium is not very high, especially if he takes a three years policy. If every man would protect himself there would be more reason for having this limit larger. As the hon. member for Carleton said, we have to be fair to the other side. Every man should take precautions instead of depending on the railway companies.


John Albert Sexsmith: I realize that the corn-try has to have railways and that the railways should have just and proper treatment. But, it is not the railways that are paying this;,, the people of Canada are paying it. We do not want the fire rate to get too high, because if we do the tariffs of the railways are going to be put up and the people will have to pay. The people of Canada are paying and the tariff is made sufficient to pay the loss of the individual who is unfortunate enough to have his property along the railway line. The railway? are not paying it. They figure out what their loss is going to be and they figure their tariffs in accordance with it.


Francis Cochrane: They have not '.be
right to figure their tariffs at all.


John Albert Sexsmith: They do.


Francis Cochrane: The commission figures their tariffs.


John Albert Sexsmith: But they put all these things in and the commission takes them into account. They try to set a limit of $5,000.


Francis Cochrane: The limit is not set.


John Albert Sexsmith: I do not say it is
absolutely set, but it is practically impossible for the ordinary individual to prove that a smokestack ha-s a hole in' it.


Francis Cochrane: Here is a man who
proved it.


John Albert Sexsmith: The case of the hon.
member for Carleton will bear out what I say. He had a good deal of difficulty and his client paid out a good deal in costs before he could prove it. I think the railways should be responsible for the fires they set.


Francis Cochrane: If you prove they set them, there is no limit to their responsibilities.


John Albert Sexsmith: There is no limit if yon prove they have a hole in their smokestack. But how can you prove that? You have to prove first that the fire was caused by the railway.


William Smith: All those properties -along the railway were there before the roads ran through.


Francis Cochrane: Not all.


William Smith: A great many. A farmer will not put up a valuable building to-day near a railway. The mutual companies -are refusing a great many otherwise good risks. I think there is a little in the [DOT]contention of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Cromwell). I agree that we have to have the railways in the country and that we should deal-fairly with them because we are obligated in many ways to them. But the matter of insurance that my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) spoke of is a pretty hard one to deal with. I am connected with an insurance company, and we scarcely ever have a meeting of the board but we have to refuse -a risk which would otherwise be desirable because it is located near a line of railway.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend from
Ontario (Mr. Smith) says that the buildings were there very largely before the railways were built. In many oases, especially if the farmer is looking after his interests, in estimating compensation for the land taken the increased insurance whiidh he must pay is part of the dam-ages and the arbitration courts allow very large amounts for that increased insurance; so that the railway company -before hand has paid in the money with which to carry -that insurance.


William Folger Nickle: The committee have opened up a very big subject and perhaps it would not be amiss, although it is late, to say a word or two in regard to the responsibility of any man for his own default. The general principle of the law is that no man is responsible for damage that is caused to another unless he has been negligent. W-hen railway companies came into existence and began to run, that principle of law was applied to their operation [DOT]and management. We gave them certain charter rights and there were certain rights incidental to their operation. One was the right to generate steam. To generate steam you need fire, and to get fire- you need a fire box and a flue leading from it. The principle of law was gradually worked out to be that if the engine w-a-s not negli-

gently operated, and if it was efficiently constructed, the railway was not responsible for damages resulting from fire. Time went on and there were no doubt cases where there were great hardships, where there was fire and it was impassible for the plantiff to prove that there had been any negligence in the operation of the road or the construction of the engine. Public feeling was aroused to such an extent that finally the Act was amended and it was declared th-at if there was fire and it was traceable to a locomotive the railway that owned that locomotive should be responsible to the extent of $5,000 no- matter whether there had been negligence on the -part of the railway company and its employees in the management or construction of the engine or not. There are two sides to this question. I have acted for railway companies and I have acted against them. I will take the case o-f a lumber company with a siding on the right of way of ia railway. They do not clean up the debris after their loading operations ~ are over, a railway engine comes along, a -spark is emitted from the engine, it falls on the debris and sets a fire which burns up a farmer's or lumberman's buildings. It is true that if there had been no railway there would have been no fire; but if the man who owned the adjacent land on which the spark fell had cleaned up there would have been no loss, or the loss wo-uld have been -less. What this committee is called upon to decide -to-night i-s this.: To what extent are w-e prepared to depart from the general principle o-f the law th-at says that a person or a company are not responsible for damages unless they have been negligent? The principle of the old Act was th-at to the extent of $5,000 the railway were the insurers. Beyo-nd that amount they were responsible to the extent of the damage suffered provided you could prove they were negligent. Whether $5,000 is enough or whether a couple of thousand dollars should be added to that is for the committee to decide, but I -feel that it would he most unwise to pro'vide that there should be an unlimited responsibility, because if that were the case it would put a premium on dishonesty to this extent, th-at those who had property adjacent to the line of railway -and could by no possibility suffer loss from fire, under proper conditions, might so arrange events that this property would be burned knowing that they would get the full value from the railway company. My hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Smith) says th-at i-t would -be difficult to

prove damages against a railway company. My experience 'has been that if you get a farmer's jury they will find some way of proving a defect in the construction and operation of the railway and that if there is a case at all the farmer jury will find something 'that was done that should not have been done, either in exhausting too rapidly up the stack, or that a spark 'arrester was defective in construction or in operation. As a rule the railway company has pretty hard going. The principle that underlay the. original Act was that $5,000 was thought to be reasonable compensation in the ordinary case, and that this amount did away with unnecessary litigation and gave reasonable insurance to the people who had property 'adjacent to the railway. Of course it must be remembered that if you unduly increase the responsibility on the railway, in the last analysis you throw that burden on the people in the way of increased freight and passenger rates.


Frederick Robert Cromwell: The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) has referred to exhausts. The exhaust from anything, even a railway locomotive, does not amount to much. It is not exhaust we are after, it is protection for the people who have buildings close to a railway chartered by the Government of Canada to build through a certain district. Why should the railway not be responsible for damages which they cause to the property owner? I do not see any obstacle in the way of increasing this amount from $5,000 to $10,000, and I hope the House will see fit to endorse the amendment I have proposed.


Marie Joseph Demers: While it is true that the railways are absolutely necessary to the country, it is also true that they operate under charters granted by this Parliament, and enjoy great privileges. 1 do not agree that it is easy to get a verdict against a railway company. It is almost impossible to prove negligence or improper equipment of engines. Then it must be remembered that $5,000 covers the total damage, no matter how many owners may suffer loss. A fire in Mississquoi county a few years ago burned an entire village and caused damage of more than $100,000, but under this Act if the law had been in existence at that time $5,000 is the total amount for which the company would have been responsible, and this amount would have been divided among all the property holders.


Francis Cochrane: I will agree to change the $5,000 to $7,000.
Section as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Reid the House adjourned at 12.50 a.m. Friday.
Friday, July 20, 1917.