1917-09-18

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIALS.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved:: That the recommendation of His Honour the Speaker, laid on the table of the House on the 12th instant, to abolish the office of secretary of the Hansard section of the Reporting- Branch of the House and to appoint an official shorthand reporter to that section in grade B of the first division, under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, be concurred in.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Is that the recommendation of the Debates Committee of the House?


Robert Laird Borden: This is entirely under the Civil Service Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand the Committee on Debates agrees to that?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
. PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J, A. CURRIE (North Simcoe) n-cved:
That the third report of the joint committee of both Houses on the printing of Parliament be concurred in.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I wish to direct attention to that portion of the report of the committee which is printed at page 1064 of the Votes and Proceedings:
3.	That the recommendations contained in the second report of the special committee appointed to consider, inquire into and report upon the reception, treatment, care, training and re-education of the wounded, disabled and convalescent returned soldiers of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, presented to the House of Commons on Tuesday, July 17, he not concurred in.
Obviously such a report is ultra vires of the Printing Committee. The matter was not referred to that committee, and if it were, the committee would not have powe'-to make such a recommendation. The recommendation contained in subclause 4-of 239 would appear to be open to similar objection.


Mr. MURPHY:: I drew the attention
oi the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) t( this matter last week, and! I understood a correction was to he made.


Mr. CURRIE:: Apparently, in the preparation of this report for the committee, the secretary did not make the matter sufficiently clear. The words " for additional printing " should he inserted after the word " recommendation." The House will understand that the reports of this Returned Soldiers Committee were published from day to day. That committee made this recommendation which was referred by the House to the committee on printing:
Your Committee also recommends that the Preliminary, and this Report and the Minutes of Proceedings and evidence submitted herewith, together with a suitable index to be prepared by the Clerk of the Committee, be printed in both languages in blue-book form for distribu-



CuMMONS

[Stage Direction]
tion, and as an Appendix to the Journals of the House.
Wihat the committee on printing had to pass upon was whether it was advisable for the report to be published in blue-book form and reprinted) in French, and also added as an appendix to the Journals of the House. To do that would cost the country about §40,000, and as the report has abeady been printed and every one interested can get a copy, the committee did not see that there was any necessity to add to the expense by issuing the evidence in blue-tbook form and adding another foot or iwo to the Journals. For that reason the committee deemed it advisable not to concur in the recommendation that was referred to it. We alone have the right to say what shall go into the Journals of the House, for instance, and the committee, after due consideration, decided that sufficient printing had been done to meet the necessities cf the case. I would ask for leave to amend the report by inserting after the word " recommendation", at page 1064, the words: " for additional printing."
Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman also explain the fourth paragraph?	_	*


John Allister Currie: That refers to a report
presented to the Senate on the inspection of food. It dealt largely with the manufacture of whole wheat bread. Sir James Eougheed considered it advisable to have pamphlets dealing with the manufacture of whole wheat bread printed, and we concurred in that for five hundred copies, at a probable cost of about $150.


Robert Laird Borden: That would require the same amendment as to additional printing.


John Allister Currie: Yes, that should be there also, and I would ask permission to insert the same words in clause 4.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the rerolution might pass with the proviso that the report would be considered as amended by the insertion of the words "as to additional printing" in subsections 3 and 4 of section 239. It would appear from the statement of the hon. gentleman that, in both these matters, there was a recommendation in regard to printing, which was referred to the Printing Committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: To have such a motion in order, it would have to be regarded as a clerical error.
Sir WILFRID _ LAURIER:	The whole
matter dealt with in the report is very

much involved, and my attention was only drawn to it yesterday. It is a very important question, and I suggest that it be deferred until to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no objection. I think the motion of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) is now pretty clear, although I confess I did not understand it when I first read it. As I understand the explanation, certain questions as to the printing of the second report of the special committee mentioned were referred to the committee on printing, and they took the matter into consideration and made this recommendation. Paragraph 3 of this report would express the meaning intended to be conveyed, if after the word "recommendation" the words "for additional printing" were inserted. The same insertion should be made after the word "recommendation" in paragraph 4. The report of this committee deals altogether with the question of printing, which was properly referred to it in each case. However, the matter may stand until to-morrow.
Consideration of the third report of the Joint Committee on Printing deferred.


John Allister Currie: That the fourth report of the joint committee of both Houses on printing of Parliament be concurred in. He said: this report deals with the printing of Parliament and of the various departments. It contains suggestions, but makes no recommendations. A report was made last year, and a further report this year which is to be found on page 1094 of the Votes and Proceedings. For several years the committee have been endeavouring to bring about some reduction in the cost cf printing which has increased very greatly in recent years. It will be seen from this report that in 1913 the cost of the pri" ting of Parliament was $1,274,870. As a matter of fact, in five years it had increased from half a million to over a million and a quarter, and now in 1917 it is up to>
two and one-half millions dollars. We do not see that this expenditure is of any great importance, as far as information to the public is concerned. A report w.as made by the King's Printer with regard to the cost of printing of the various departments, which is referred to in this report. For instance, here is a report on the high cost of living. When that volume is completed and printed in French the cost to this country will be something like $40,000. That item was given me by the King's

Printer. Already $26,000 has been expended on the English edition, and, -with the French edition and the other two volumes, the total cost will be $40,000. That sum of money will uniform four battalions of infantry, or it -will provide four aeroplanes fully equipped. It will build four drill-halls, or four public post offices. Such unnecessary expenditures are being made annually, and there seems to be no one who can turn off the tap.
There is another report here on the Wabana iron mine which is in Newfoundland. The Mines Department, which is a great sinner in respect to additional increase in the cost of printing, has spent something like $5,000 publishing a big book with regard to a mine not in Canada, and with which Canada has nothing to do. There ie also a great deal published in regard to other matters which it would take a Philadelphia lawyer to understand. Volumes are published on the hydrometric survey of rivers away up on the Hudson bay which no one is interested in. This book is not only published once, but annually. This question of the cost of printing has been referred to us by this House to see if we can make some suggestion in regard to it. We have suggested that the map-making of the country should be placed! under one bureau, and that there should be standard maps. At present each department gets a fresh map, and there are hundreds and thousands of maps published which are of no use, whereas, if there were a standard map, reference could be made to it.
Then another matter for consideration is the material that is printed. We consider that the Government should take from the ranks of the Civil Service an editorial committee of, say, three men, to consider such questions and make suggestions. This editorial committee would meet and decide with regard to the publications in any department, and nothing but the personal order of the minister would override their decision. As near as I can ascertain, 80 per cent of the printing is done without reference to the ministers of the different departments. If there were an editorial board of that kind, the various departmental officers, if they wanted to publish anything in regard to the Wabana iron mine would make a report, which would come before the minister, giving an estimate of the cost, and the minister would consider whether it would be in the interest of the country to spend ten or fifteen thousand dollars in useless work. That committee would also prevent duplication. We have been endeavouring to prevent duplication in the various departments. Some of the -most expensive documents issued by the Government are those dealing with trade, and we are endeavouring to arrange so that there will be only one publication dealing with trade, whereas at present there are two or three. The Census Branch issues a publication dealing with the trade question, and t'he Customs Department publishes two or three volumes dealing with other such matters, and the Department of Trade and Commerce issues other publications. This matter has been going on previous to this Government coming into power, nothing has been initiated by this Government to create additional cost. We *think there should be something done to improve the system and that this proposed board should have the supervision of these matters, and refer to the chief of the department any publication in that department that they did not consider it advisable to print. The report is before the committee. There is no recommendation that requires an expenditure of money.


Robert Laird Borden: The effective suggestion which has been placed before the House by the committee is this:
The most effective way to bring about economies in Canadian Parliamentary and Departmental printing is, in the opinion of the committee, to create an editorial board of three members of the Civil Service, thoroughly conversant with public affairs, and with a knowledge of Departmental workings. This board should have plenary powers' to order such excisions of "copy" of Departmental reports, leaflets, bulletins, memoirs, etc., or to refuse to sanction the printing of any report if, in their judgment, the public interest would not be seriously affected by such refusal.
It would be the duty of the Board to call upon the Deputy Head of any Department or Branch of the Public Service created by Parliament, whose requisition and "copy" for printing were under consideration, to show cause why any proposed reductions in "copy" should not be made or, the printing thereof suspended entirely, and only upon direct written authority of the Minister of the Department interested [DOT] should the decision of the Board of Editors be countermanded.
The Board should present a report of its operations annually to Parliament within three weeks after the opening of each session thereof, such report to give the dates when first and last "copy" of every departmental report is received, and specifying the reductions in text, and the reasons therefor. In cases where the decision of the Board has been overridden by the Minister of any department Parliament shall be advised.
The suggestions1 in the three paragraphs which I have just read are worthy of at-

tentive consideration; that consideration will be given. I have already discussed the subject to some extent with my colleagues, and I feel confident that we shall either adopt the report of the committee as it has been presented to the House, or modify it to the extent of (having two or three members of the Government associated with the members of the Civil Service in the editorial committee referred to. That might, perhaps be desirable. However, we have not reached a fixed conclusion on that point. I am confident that some effective way of carrying out the suggestions of the committee will be found.
It is pointed out- in the report that in some of the departments the recommendations made last year by the committee have been pretty fully carried out. In other departments, it is thought, there is still room for improvement. This report will be commended to the consideration of the permanent 'head of each department with a view to having the suggestions of the committee carried out in their entirety in the respective departments, unless there is good reason to the contrary. It is possible that in making some of these comments the committee did not have before them absolutely full information as to the subjects which are dealt with, but generally speaking I believe that the suggestions are worthy of consideration, which will be accorded.
As to the increased cost of printing during the last five years, it is due in part to the increased printings rendered necessary by the war and in part to the increased cost of paper, which has been very great, especially during the past two years. I have no objection to the House concurring in the report which the committee have made.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not sure that I approve the recommendations made with regard to certain information which is annually given to Parliament. The information given to Parliament by any department is under the responsibility of the minister; he prepares his own report every, year, and he may supplement that report by other information which he thinks it advantageous to publish. I do not think that we can gain anything by taking away the responsibility of the minister in this matter. I see here that several-I will not say criticisms, rather reflections, are made with respect to some of the publications. The report of the committee says:
"Economy" will have to be Canada's watchword tor many years to come, and the printing:

Bills of Parliament and the public Departments present a fertile field for action in this regard. That our great neighbours to the south realize this in connection with Congressional publications is shown by the decision of the Senate of the United States to cut down this year its printing hills by $470,080. This has been brought about by reducing the bulk of some reports and suspending entirely the publication of others.
Well, that is a matter for the minister. He is giving the information to f>he public; it is for him to see that that information is as concise as possible. It does not follow that the giving of the information should be entirely suppressed. Then the report goes on to mention the United States reports which have been cut down:
Among the latter may be mentioned: Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce, Annual Report of Foreign Commerce and Navigation, Report of District of Columbia Health Office, Bulletins of the Bureau of Ethnology, annual report ditto; Bulletins of the Bureau of Fish -eries. Geological Bulletins, Geological Professional papers, Geological Water Supply papers, Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, Nautical Almanac, Annual Report of Bureau of Soils, and many others.
Some of our publications are similar to these. The Department of Trade and Commerce issues a good many reports; according to this recommenda/tion, the precedent of the United States should be followed and many of those reports should he cut down. The report oi the committee says that in the United States the monthly summary of foreign commerce has been eliminated. We have something like that here; it is a very useful publication, and should not be cut down. We have also a report of foreign commerce and navigation; I would say the same about that report. If we find that departmental publications are too bulky or give useless information, we can call attention to the matter, but for my part I should not like to suppress the publication of these reports or to take away from the minister the responsibility of having them brought down in proper form.


John Allister Currie: It is not the intention of the committee to take any of the responsibility from the minister. The formation of an editorial board will not have that effect; it will not interfere with the duties of the minister or the functions of the departments. It will endeavour to cut down the size of the volume by better editorial work and it will point out to a minister, when any of his officials send in a volume for publication, whether any other department has published a similar volume. The Conservation Commission, for instance, is issu-

mg very extensive reports covering matters that have already been covered by other departments. The editorial board would have supervision in that regard. The committee had no intention of interfering with the duties of any of the ministers or the work of any of the departments; the only desire was to see that more supervision should be exercised with a view to preventing too great a cost in the publication of these reports. The Auditor 'General's _ Report, for instance, has been published in English and in French. The department has decided to publisn the headings in English and in French and to put the whole thing m one volume. For years we have been spending about $25,000 more than was necessary on that report. The intention of the committee was, according to the request of Parliament, to bring in a report with a view to a reduction in the cost of printing. We are at war, and it is necessary for us to economize. On behalf of the committee, I thank the Prime Minister for his suggestion that the departments should be asked to give consideration to the report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and fourth report of the committee concurred in.
John Allister Currie: That the fifth report of the joint committee of both Houses on the printing of Parliament be concurred in.


Wilfrid Laurier: What does this report deal with?


John Allister Currie: This is a recommendation that, in the absence of the sittings of the Printing Committee, the joint chairmen may have the power to order publication of any documents that may be sent from the House. That is done every year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders o.f the Day:
Right Hon.   S@: At the front, officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the various divisions are, by authority, allowed to wear distinctive badges. Soldiers from those divisions returning to Canada have (been in the habit of wearing them. Recently, by somebody's order, not always carried out in the most courteous manner, officers, non-commissioned officers and men, on reaching Canada, have been brusquely told to remove .those badges. I would ask the Minister of Militia by whose authority that is done and why?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: The badges to which my hon. friend refers are what are known as identification (badges of the divisions at the front. The badge appears on the arm or sometimes on the back of the tunic. They are no.t badges for distinguished conduct in the war. I understand the badges for the Victoria Cross and the Distinguished Service Order are not on all fours with these badges. The order is an order of the Imperial Army, and requires those badges to be removed when the soldiers leave France if they are on leave. I have only heard of one case in this country in which a soldier has been spoken to on the street, and there was no attempt at that time to speak to the soldiers in a discourteous manner. It was the provost-marshal who spoke to the man about his wearing the badge being against the regulations.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: I have twenty instances, and I want to know why soldiers are not permitted to wear those badges in Canada.


Albert Edward Kemp: It is an order of the Imperial Army, and the Canadian Army follows that order in that soldiers remove those badges when they leave France.


James Joseph Hughes: I have never seen such an order for the Imperial service, although I have tried verj hard to find it. I have known officers returned to England being ordered to wear those badges.



FIRST CONTINGENT DISTINCTIVE BADGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
John Allister Currie: I would ask the Minister of Militia if an order has been promulgated permitting soldiers of the First Division to wear their blue shoulder strap? There is an Imperial order in England to that effect. I understand that some provosLmarshals have ordered soldiers to take off their blue shoulder badge or, if they are in the artillery, their red shoulder badge.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am unable to answer my hon. friend's question to-day. I will endeavour to obtain information regarding it.



THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 132, to amend the Companies Act. -Mr. Meighen.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 66, to amend the Judges Act.-Mr. Doherty.
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: This Bill, as introduced into this House, provided simply salaries for an additional High Court judge of the province of Saskatchewan, as required by the legislation of that province, and for a County Court judge in the province of Ontario similarly required, and it made a regulation as to the travelling expenses of judges and as to the application to circuit court judges in Montreal of the provinces providing for inquiries applicable to the present County Court judges.
The Bill as it left this House was approved by the Senate in its entirety, but that honourable body added a number of amendments dealing with the general subject of the duties of judges. I am not prepared to say that certain of those amendments in principle might not be accepted, but before we could accept them I think they would require considerable modification from the very general terms in which they are expressed, and the very general effect given to them. They raise a very important question which it seems to me can hardly be dealt with suitably by this House in considering amendments introduced by the other House to a Bill of this nature, and especially at this .stage of the session, when it is difficult, if not impossible, to give to these important amendments the consideration they deserve.
The first of these proposed amendments is to repeal certain legislation enacted in the year 1906. That legislation, which amended previously existing legislation, made special provision for the payment of full pensions to judges after they had reached a certain age and had served a certain number of years upon the bench. The amendment before us proposes to repeal the legislation of 1906, which would leave the law as it stood previously to that time, and provide for the pryment of a two-thirds pension only, in cases where a man had served fifteen years or had become incapacitated by illness. Speaking for myself, I would raise no objection to the proposed repeal, but for the fact that it raises an important question as to the protection and preservation of the rights of judges appointed under that legislation. The only proviso in the amendment protecting any vested right is one .to protect the rights of judges who have actually
[Sir Edward Kemp.l
retired under that law and are in receipt of tiieir pensions.
The next amendment deals with section 33 of the Judges Act, ighich in general terms prohibits judges from engaging in any other occupation or business. The proposed amendment would prohibit the judges from performing any duties outside of their judicial duties. I am not prepared to say that there would not be an advantage in making more precise the prohibitions at present existing, but the prohibition as adopted by the Senate is very widely beyond the mark, because it is obvious that there are some duties that man must perform, even though he be a judge, which are not judicial duties.
The other amendments follow, I think, upon this last-mentioned' one. They contain a prohibition against the judge receiving a remuneration for the performance of any duty outside of his judicial duties. As the section stands, he is already prohibited from performing any such duty, and the amendment makes certain limitations and restrictions to the general prohibition proposed, in favour of duties imposed by the provincial legislatures.
I am not prepared to say that in principle these amendments have not a great deal to commend them to the consideration of this House, but it seems to me quite clear that before we could accept them they would have to be modified in very important particulars in their wording. As I have already said, they bring up very important questions in connection with the independence of the judiciary, which I think deserve very careful consideration before such serious modifications in the law are made.
Although I have had no formal conference,
I have had some communication with the hon. gentlemen of the Senate and they seem disposed rather to share the view that these important questions could be dealt with in another manner. For these reasons, I beg to move:
That the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill be not concurred in, and that a message to that effect be sent to that honourable House.


Wilfrid Laurier: Please read
the amendments one by one.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must present the motion as I have it, unless the minister consents to alter it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no objection on my part if it is thought desirable, but the same reasons apply to all the amendments.


Mr. MACDONALD:: What is the nature of these amendments?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The amendment is:
Page 1, line 32.-After clause 4 add clauses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, as follows:
5. (1) Sections 20, 22, as enacted by section 3 of chapter 39 of the statutes of 1908, and 26, as enacted by section 9 of chapter 28 of the statutes of 1913, of the said Act are hereby repealed; but such repeal shall not be construed to affect the pension of any judge who before the passing of this Act has resigned or been retired.
(2) Section 26 of the said Act, as enacted by section 9 of chapter 28 of the statutes of 1913, is amended by striking out the words "sections 24 and 25" and substituting therefor the words "section 24."


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Why is section 25 left out? As I understand the amendment, it limits the pension !a judge of a Superior Court shall receive after a certain length of service, or after he has reached a certain age, to two-thirds of his salary, but it leaves the law as at present, regarding the right of a judge to retire after a shorter period in case of illness.
I am inclined to think there is a great deal of good sense in the amendment which has been made by the Senate. If the country provides that after a reasonable term of service a judge may retire with two-thirds of his salary, and enjoy the leisure a judge is no doubt entitled to enjoy -upon retirement, the country would be treating him with a fair measure of justice, and I, for one, would be disposed to support the amendment which has been made by the Senate.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I agree with my
hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley). There are instances throughout the country where judges have reached the age when it is known to the Bar they are not able to give that full service to the country which ought to be expected from them, but they carry on a little longer than they otherwise would with the hope of getting their full salary on retirement. One does not need to particularize these cases, because I am quite Isure hon. gentlemen know of them. This is not a desirable state of affairs. It is a good rule and in the interests of the country, and would be more satisfactory in the administration of justice, that judges should retire after the period of service fixed by the Act, with the certainty of getting two-thirds of their salaries, and that they should not get any more by prolonging their stay upon the Bench. I do not very well see why the Minister of Justice would not accept an amendment of that kind.


Robert Laird Borden: The amendment which it is now sought to strike out of the Judges Act was introduced, I think, in 1908, and there was a subsequent amendment in 1913. The considerations upon which that legislation was submitted to Parliament were very mulch along the line just placed before the House by my hon. friend from St. John and my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). It was supposed that the operation of the Act in question would bring about the retirement of judges after a certain period, and under conditions when that retirement might be considered to be in the public interest; that is to say, it was believed at that time, whether rightly or wrongly, that a judge sometimes continued in the discharge of his judicial duties for a longer period than was consistent with the public interest because of his desire to retain his full salary by continuing in office, which desire, from his standpoint, might have been emphasized by the condition of his personal affairs. Then it was supposed that if a judge had given a certain service, or reached a certain age, and if he was in a position to retire upon his full salary, a condition then thought undesirable would he remedied, and the very thing which my hon. friends desire to avoid would be avoided. I am not at all confident that the operation of the statute has been precisely along the lines anticipated when th:.-4 p.m. legislation was first introduced, and I believe there is good reason for reconsidering it. At the same time, 1 do not think it can be reconsidered in precisely the form which has been suggested, nor do I think it desirable that we should undertake the revision of the Act by the method which is suggested here, namely, an amendment to a Bill of this character. We must remember that one of the most important principles with regard to the independence of judges-and no one could overrate the importance of that consideration-is permanence of tenure of office during good behaviour, and fixity of remuneration. It is therefore apparent that continued or repeated changing of the salaries of judges, or of the pensions to which they become entitled upon their retirement, is undesirable. For that reason also, I think it important that the principle of the amendment and the method of the amendment should be very carefully considered, and that it would hardly do for this House, with the hurried consideration we can give the matter at present, to deal with so important a subject now.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not rise to a point of order, but so far as my experience goes, when a Bill comes amended from the Senate, the question is first put upon one amendment, then upon the second, then upon the third, because the House may concur in one, and not in another.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will look up the point. As I view it at present, I think it is open for the House to concur in or reject the amendments as a whole. In any event, the motion is in respect of the first amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my right hen. friend is perfectly correct, as a matter of procedure. We are proceeding with the amendments one by one. There are five different sections added to the Bill, and we are taking them one after another. L think the matter had better be postponed, for another reason. When we do not concur in an amendment made by the Senate to one of our Bills, it is usual that we should accompany the non-concurrence with the reasons. My hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) has stated the reasons in his observations, bu:. it seems to me, practice requires that they should be more formally stated, and should be embodied in the motion presented to the House. I would therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the matter be taken up on another day, when the motion would embody the reasons which would lead the House to the conclusion that the amendments be not concurred in. What I say would apply to the section as to which we have already expressed	non-concurrence-that is it
should be regarded as still open, for the purpose I have mentioned.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I move that the debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



MILITARY VOTERS ACT, 1917. SENATE AMENDMENTS CONCURRED IN.

Charles Joseph Doherty: That the House do concur in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 127, the Military Voters' Act, 1917. He said: The first amendment is to section 1 and consists in striking out the adjective "complete" before the word demobilization. That refers to the application of this Bill.
The next amendment is to section 2 paragraph (c) and corrects the name of the Royal Naval Air Service. The words "aviation service" had been used in the Bill.
Then there is a group of amendments made in order to place an officer in the same position as a private with reference

to his discharge from the army. An officer is not discharged, but is either permitted to resign or his services are dispensed with.
There is an amendment to section 2 striking out the word "other" which had evidently crept in through a printer's error.
There is an amendment to section 13 dealing with the duties of the returning officer as to sending his report to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. As the Bill left this House that section provided that he should do this after the sixth day after he had made his final addition. The amendment of the Senate consists of inserting the word "immediately" before the word "after." There is no doubt that was the intention, and the insertion of the word "immediately" makes that clear.
Amendments concurred in.



INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENT. SENATE AMENDMENTS CONCURRED IN.

Charles Joseph Doherty: 

SALARIES OF RAILWAY COMPANY EMPLOYEES.

Robert Laird Borden: That the House proceed to Public Bills and Orders, for the purpose of taking up Order 37, Bill 103, from the Senate, concerning the payment of salaries or wages of employees of railway companies. He said: This Bill has been passed on previous occasion by this House, but was rejected by the Senate. It has now been passed by the Senate and sent down to us. The provisions have relation to the wages or salaries of persons employed on railways. These provisions are embodied in the Railway Act which is now before the Senate. I sincerely hope that Bill will pass the Senate, although there is isome controversy about certain clauses. If that Bill should not be passed

by the Senate, it is desirable that the measure before U6 should b.e passed by this House, and for that reason I desire to take it up to-day.
Motion, agreed to.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden Bill 103 concerning the salaries or wages of employees of railway companies, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
On section 1-R.S., c. 37; a. 259 amended. Payment of wages.


Mr. CARVELL:: This Bill 6eems to be an exact counterpart of a section which we added to the Consolidated Railway Act, which provides that the employee shall be paid semi-monthly. I am heartily in sympathy with the provision.


Robert Laird Borden: In case the Railway Bill should not pass the Senate, I think it is desirable this legislation should be enacted, but I shall not move the third reading of it at present, in the hope that the Railway Bill will pass the Senate, because it would be undesirable to have the same enactment in two different Bills.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I feel that it would be a great misfortune if the Consolidated Railway Bill did not get through the Senate, especially as I understand there is no question about the provisions of that Bill, excepting two matters, which are very largely-I was going to say-personal and local affairs. One of these matters is some sort of a quarrel between the Hydro-Electric in Ontario, and the Toronto Electric Light Ci mpany and the Toronto and Niagara Power Company. The other difference is between the Bell Telephone Company and the Independent Telephone Companies. The special railway committee occupied six or seven weeks in considering this measure, and representatives of labour unions and other interests in Canada attended the meetings of this committee and took part in the discussion, and I think it would be a great misfortune if all the time and labour of the special railway committee and of these gentlemen representing other interests should go for naught, and that the Bill should not become law. I simply opposed these clauses as a matter of principle and had no personal interest, but if it should turn out that these two clauses were the only hitch, surely they will drop them and hu us have the Bill, because I think there were very many important changes embodied in that measure which the business of this
country demands. Nothing has happened in my somewhat lengthy Parliamentary career that has pleased me any more than the sense of public duty which seemed to inspire the special 'Committee of this House which considered that Bill. There were no politics in it. I never saw an instance, from the beginning to the end, where political feeling played the faintest part in the consideration of the measure. Every one was actuated by the desire to make that Bill as perfect and workable as possible, and the underlying principle of the whole Bill was that wherever there was a question of dispute between corporations and the public, it was invariably left to the Railway Board to decide, and while I do not know that they want any bouquets or compliments from me, I may say that I think the Railway Board to-day is an institution of which this country should be proud. I feel that we are safe in leaving disputed matters to a board of that kind, and, therefore, if the Senate cannot agree on those two clauses, I hope an arrangement will be made by which the remainder of the Bill will become law, and those two matters can be taken up next session.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree with the hen. gentleman in regard to the good service rendered to the country by the Board cf Railway Commissioners. It is beyond question that the members of the board are inspired by a strong sense of public duty, and give the best of their energy and ability to the work with which they are charged. It would be a great pity if the work of the special committee, which reported the Railway Bill to the House, should be lost. I am very glad to hear what my hon. friend has said of the work of that committee. It is entirely in accordance with what I have heard from other sources. It is most desirable that the Bill should be passed. I can assure my hon. friend that I have impressed that point as strongly as is in my power upon those now dealing with the Bill. It is my hope that it may get through. If it should not pass, it is important that this provision, and possibly one or two other provisions which were inserted in the Railway Bill, should become <*. I do not think any explanation of the provisions of the Bill before us is required. It is a very simple Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day. This is in order that some additional provisions which are

not controversial in the Senate may be considered and perhaps added to- the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported. SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Bt. Hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) for Committee of Supply:	.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I take advantage of this -motion, Mr. Speaker, to bring to the attention of the House a matter of very great importance. I should have brought the matter up earlier in the session had it not been for the fact that upon previous occasions when the House was going into -Committee of Supply I was unable to arrange with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. J. D. Hazen) for a discussion of the matter upon days convenient either to ihim ox to myself. In this respect I do not blame the minister, whose department the matter specially affects. He spoke to me last week expressing his desire that the -question should be discussed, and regretting that personal reasons compelled him to leave here on Saturday.
The matter which I desire to bring to the attention of the House is the right of the Victoria Sealing Company, of British Columbia, composing nine-tenths of the people engaged in the sealing industry in Canada, to participate in the fund which is to-day in the hands of the Government as a result of the Pelagic Sealing Treaty which was entered into at Washington, on July 7, 1911. In order that the House may fully understand the matter, it will be necessary for me to read from public documents at .some length, but in a comprehensive way I shall state at the beginning the facts of the case.
On the date which I have mentioned there was a gathering at Washington of representatives of the United States, Russia, Japan, and Canada-the latter acting on behalf of Great Britain-and there was entered into what is known as the Pelagic Sealing Treaty. Under that treaty, in consideration of British subjects giving up the right to sealing in the Pacific ocean, Canada was- to receive a certain percentage of the value of the seal skins taken by the United States, Russia, and Japan at their respective rookeries in the Northern Pacific. The treaty was for a period of fifteen years from December 15, 1911, or so long there-

after as the treaty should not be terminated by either one of the contracting parties giving twelve months' notice of their desire to bring it to a conclusion. For the period of fifteen years British subjects refrained from engaging in pelagic sealing, and there will be paid to Canada in respect of that period an amount approximating $-7,250,000. Already $200,000 have been paid by the United States to Canada on account of the amount payable to Canada as a compensation for her refraining from engaging in the sealing industry. There existed in British Columbia at that time what was known as the Victoria -Sealing Company, which had been formed in the year 1900 by British Columbia sealers, all British subjects engaged in the sealing industry. This company controlled 43 out of the 46 vessels on the Pacific coast engaged in the sealing industry.
The money received by the Government of Canada under the treaty mentioned was not to go into the treasury, but to compensate those who had been engaged in the industry, and who, by reason of Canada's undertaking, were prevented from further engaging in this very profitable means of earning money and of developing an industry. Out of that $200,000 there has been paid out, as the result of certain recommendations made by Mr. Justice Audette, the sum of $60,000; the balance is in the hands of the Government. That amount of approximately $60,000 was not paid to the company to which I have referred; they claim that it should have been paid to them. Under the facts which I propose to present, I submit that this Government should provide for the payment of that money to the Victoria Sealing Company. Not only should the remainder of the amount received be paid over to them, but also whatever amount should be arrived at, upon a proper assessment of damages based upon those considerations, not purely of law, but of equity and fair dealing, which, according to our legal authorities, bind the Government in their dealings with subjects in cases of this kind.
The complaint is that the Government retain that money, and apparently propose to retain future moneys paid in on that account, without any regard to these owners of 43 vessels which had been engaged in the sealing industry. I wi-sh to press upon the Government the wisdom of providing for an .assessment of damages. Had we been able to bring the matter to the attention of the House at an earlier date, which unfortunately we were not for the reasons

I have 'mentioned, we should have asked the Government to provide that the matter he left to a committee of the House for investigation. Or, if that were not done, a tribunal might be constituted to assess the damages on the basis I have stated.
That the House may be properly seized of the facts, I may be permitted to give some general information upon the subject. By a Treaty between Her late Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, an agreement was come to whereby the matters in dispute between the two powers relating to the Behring sea fisheries were submitted to a tribunal which met at Paris in 1893. On that tribunal Great Britain was represented by the late Lord Hannen and the late Sir John Thompson, then Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; the late Sir Charles Russell, former English Attorney General, and afterwards Lord Chief Justice of England, and Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, who at that time was Minister of Marine and Fisheries of the Canadian Government, weie counsel for the British Government. The claim put forward on behalf of the United States at that time was to the effect that the Behring sea was a "mare clausum," or closed sea, and that, therefore, the British sealers had no right to fish there. Having regard to the principles of maritime law which applied to different nations as to seas which were known as closed seas within the terms of international law, power was given to the Paris tribunal to decide the question, and it was also agreed, in the event of their denying the claim of the United States, that they should make such regulations as they might deem advisable for the preservation and protection of the Behring sea seal fisheries.
The events which led up to the arbitration are: The sealing industry of British Columbia began in 1873 by the fitting out of a few vessels for hunting seals in the North Pacific ocean and the Behring sea. It gradually grew in importance until, at the time of the Paris arbitration, there were 59 sealing vessels sailing out of the port of Victoria, and the industry supplied occupation and profit to some 1,500 people. During the period above-mentioned, the only other people who engaged in seal fishing in the Behring sea to any extent were subjects of the United States. There was, however, a considerable difference in the manner of killing the seals as between British subjects and the citizens of the United
States. I do not want to go into the details of pelagic sealing, but it is necessary for the purpose o<f understanding the matter to know that the teals have their "rookeries" on shore, to which they resort for breeding purposes, and none of these rookeries are situate in British territory, but are situate in the territories of the United States, Japan and Russia. The British sealers, therefore, were obliged to pursue their industry entirely on the high seas, whereas the American sealers did most of their killing on land, the privilege o.f doing which the United States Government leased to certain of its citizens, just as we give canning licenses to men who engage in the lobster industry or fishing licenses to those who engage in that industry. In the year 1886 armed revenue cutters of the United States began to seize all British sealers operating in the Behring sea, and the British sealers appealing for protection, their right to pursue their calling on the high seas was supported by the British Government. Diplomatic negotiations took place with the United States Government, and in the year 1891 a temporary modus vivendi was arrived at whereby a partial and temporary prohibition of sealing on the high seas was agreed to, somewhat similar to the permanent prohibition which was finally determined by the arrangement at Washington in 1911. At that time the position taken by Great Britain was expressed by the Right Hon. W. H. Smith, then the leader of the British House of Commons, who, in announcing to the House the arrangement arrived at, said:
I am going to do a friendly act in the interests of a friendly power, but if I do that and interfere with certain men and their business, I shall pay compensation out of the British Exchequer, upon proof being made to the commissioner as to how far they have been affected by that partial prohibition.
At that period of our history in connection with this question, the British Government laid down the proposition that the parties who had been engaged in this industry, the continuance of which was interfered with by arrangements with a foreign power, should, in equity and right, receive compensation by reason of the fact that they were debarred for the time being from pursuing their lawful occupation. The result was that following the policy announced by Mr. Smith, the sum of $200,000 was paid out of the British Exchequer to the Victoria sealers as compensation for the partial and temporary prohibition which involved


Mr. BURRELL:: What is the date of that?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: July 7, 1911. It will be noted that that report of Mr. Found was made practically at the time of entering into the treaty, and therefore is of more significance, because those were the conditions under which the treaty was entered into, with the full knowledge and belief that these gentlemen composing the company were going to get compensation. A specific recommendation which, he made in regard to that reads:
Article 11 of the Treaty provides for an advance payment by the United States to Great Britain of $200,000 on account of seal skins to which Great Britain is entitled under the Treaty. This money has already been paid over to Canada and can he made available by authority of your Royal Highness for the payment of compensation to those damnified by the Treaty. No doubt the object in securing such advanced payment was to enable the necessary compensation to he paid without drawing on the treasury.
In the opinion of the undersigned, in the light of the conditions obtaining such sum will provide liberal compensation to those directly affected by the Treaty and should not therefore be exceeded.
The undersigned has therefore the honour to recommend:
(1) That compensation be paid out of the $200,000 received from the United States government under the Treaty and that the total amount paid in such connection do not exceed that sum.

He varies that recommendation by a more liberal interpretation in another part of the report, which I will not read to the House. I am quoting from Mr. Found's statement in regard to the matter, because it proves conclusively that the Government officials in Canada, who had everything to do with the question of working out this treaty arrangement, recognize unequivocally, as between man and man, according to the principles of morality, equity, and justice as administered by a court of law, that the Victoria Sealing Company were entitled, upon that basis, to receive compensation. There can be no manner of doubt about that.
Now, Mr. Justice Audette acting as a commissioner, finally made a report on this matter, after long delay, on the 10th day of January, 1916. It is complained on behalf of the sealing company, and on behalf of Sir Hibbert Tupper, that the first knowledge he received of the finding of Mr. Justice Audette or his opinion rather, was some statement in a fishing magazine, at any rate, it was not until the summer of last year that they were able to get the document printed in answer to a return in this House. He deals with the various classes of eases that were submitted to him. He divides that classification.submitted to him into four. Therefore, it may be stated that he disposes of the sum of $60,000 out of $200 000, but he declines to give any sum to the sealing company as compensation, notwithstanding the facts I have mentioned m detail to the House in regard to the whole question. He says:
Having- thus passed in review the general heads of complaint put forward by the sealers against the regulations, and approaching the consideration of this claim in a spirit of justice connoting the idea of doing what in equity and good conscience is fair and just, and after giving this branch of the commission special care and labour, as it involved both large amounts and a large number of claimants, I have come to the conclusion and find that the Canadian sealers are not entitled to be paid any compensation by the Crown for alleged damage resulting from the said regulations.
Of course, his opinion is nothing more than a,n opinion, because no jurisdiction, authority, or power, was conferred upon Judge Audette to make any final decision in the matter. It is in accordance with that opinion, which was afterwards affirmed by an Order in Council made by the Government last year, that I appeal to the Gov^ eminent and this House to look into this matter, and deal with it upon the broadest principles, and upon the most generous lines.

It seems to me that one cannot look over these facts presented here and say that the Government can be doing their full duty if they disregard the fact that this money came into their hands simply as trustees for Canadian citizens.
It is not the money of the Government of Canada; the Government holds it in trust for those who were entitled to compensation and who were damnified in any way by the operation of these regulations.
The learned judge based his con elusion that the Victoria Sealing Company was not entitled to compensation upon several grounds. First, he said that the provisions of the Paris regulations were analogous to any other restrictions imposed upon an industry by a State for the benefit of all those engaged in the industry. He says in effect that the men engaged in the sealing industry have no more right to complain of the Paris regulations than men engaged in the salmon or lobster industry have a right to complain about a change made in the fishing season. I submit that that is very narrow ground to take on an international question. To say that matters affecting the . interests of people engaged in this international industry should he settled on the same basis as matters affecting people engaged in am industry such as lobster fishing, which is carried on only during certain months of the year, is hardly taking broad grounds. I do not think that Sir John Thompson, Lord Justice Hannen, Sir Charles Russell and Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, when they sat in Paris and promulgated these regulations, were looking at this matter from that viewpoint. Matters affecting those engaged in this international industry ought to be settled on the same high plane -as that taken by the plenipotentiaries of the great powers who met first in Paris and afterwards in Washington.
The learned judge stated as a second reason, for his. conclusion that the Paris regulations did not provide for any compensation to the sealers. This was primarily the reason why the Canadian Government insisted at the 1911 conference at Washington that the compensation should be given.
It was because these Paris regulations provided for no compensation that Sir John Thompson objected to their being put in operation. The Government of the day, as shown in the letter that I read from the then Prime Minister, Sir Joseph Pope, pointed out that no arrangement could be made except on the basis of compensation. These

Paris regulations were passed in the interests of the United States sealing people. When in 1911 the matter was being dealt with, it was suggested that, the industry having suffered on account of these regulations, some compensation should be provided.
The learned' judge, in his opinion, said further that the sealers had no legal rights that could be enforced against the Crown. That, of course, is a legal truism. But the relation between Sovereign and subject is put very clearly in the illuminating judgments given in England in a case having relation to a treaty under which money was to be similarly disposed of. The judgments are those of Chief Justice Cockburn and Mr. Justice Lush in the well-known case of Rustomjee vs. the Queen in the Exchequer Court of England, and, on appeal, of Lord Chief Justice Coleridge. Chief Justice C'ockburn said:
The effect of the .	.	. treaty-
He is referring not to the Pelagic Sealing Treaty, hut to another.
-is .	.	. simply this, that it places the
fund at the disposition of Her Majesty for Her Majesty at her discretion to cause distribution of it to be made as shall make good the claims which her subjects have against the foreigner from whose Government the money is received.
Mr. Justice Lush said:
No doubt a duty arose as soon as the money was received to distribute that money amongst the persons towards whose losses it was paid .	.	.	; the distribution when made would he
the act of a sovereign in dispensing justice to her subjects. .	. For any omission of that
duty the sovereign cannot be held responsible. The responsibility would rest with the advisers of the Crown, and they are responsible to Parliament and to Parliament alone.
And lastly on appeal, Lord Chief Justice Coleridge said:
We do not doubt that on the payment of the money .	.	. there was a duty on the part
of the English Sovereign to administer the money so received according to the stipulations of the treaty. But it was a duty to do justice to her subjects according to the advice of her responsible ministers.
These are the principles upon which funds of this kind were disposed of, according to English decision; and these are the principles which should guide the Canadian Government in dealing with 'this question. I again assert that the money w-hich the Government have received and which they will receive from time to time during the next fifteen years is not the property of the Government of Canada per se; it is in
their possession as trustees along the line of the decisions to which I have referred.
It must be borne in mind that if it had not been for the Victoria Sealing Company, the Canadian Government would have had no claim to compensation. Besides those owned by the company, only four vessels, operated by Japanese and Indians, were engaged in the sealing industry in British Columbia, in defiance of the regulations. I have pointed out that in 1911 the 35 vessels of the company were tied up at the wharf, prevented from sealing on account of these regulations. Had it not been for that fact, the Government of Great Britain would have had no case for compensation in the negotiations at Washington, because there would have been nobody to compensate.
With regard to the opinion of Mr. Justice Audette, I wish to read a telegram *sent by Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries from Vancouver'on May 20, 1913. It is as follows :
Telegraphic report of Commission re sealers in effect bars out all claims save those affected by treaty 1911. Kindly wire if scope not intended to include the claims of those affected by regulations under Behring Sea Award.
To which the minister replied, on May 21, 1913:
Telegraphic report incorrect. Commission will enquire into validity of claims under Behring Sea Award and report to Government as to whether or not such claims should be entertained.
So that it was the intention of- the commission to consider these claims and to have a report upon them. Then there is various correspondence in which Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper as counsel for the sealers complains that he was not advised as to the filing of the report; that not until it had been brought down in the House last year, during the midsummer, and finally printed had he received a copy.
On February 28, 1916 an Order in Council was passed- approving of the opinion given by Mr. Justice Audette. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper came to Ottawa and on November 1, 1916 he advised the Victoria Sealing Company as follows: "
During my visit in Ottawa I had a conversation with the Prime Minister and all I can say is that he seemed favourably disposed, so far as he was personally concerned, to allow a rehearing, but felt it would be necessary to convince the Minister of Marine that the sealers' request be complied with. I think I have already told you the idea the Minister of Marine entertained, viz.: that Audette made an award or a judgment and that this was final.
I think I successfully pointed out to the Prime Minister that this was not a proper view; that by the Order in Council and Com-

mission Audette was appointed a commissioner to take evidence and if he saw fit, to report with the evidence his opinion.
It would be unfortunate, in a case of this kind, if the Government or the Minister of Marine and Fisheries undertook to hold that Mr. Justice Audette's report on this matter was in the nature of a judgment which was final. It can be readily seen, from the Order in Council which I read and from the commission issued to Mr. Justice Audette, that it was not intended that he should dispose of the matter in the same way as a court would dispose of it, and in the second place, it would be most unfair to those gentlemen who had created a case for the Government in this international matter which had formed the subject of consideration at Paris and Washington, if they were to be told here: There is no appeal from this inquiry; we, the trustees for this money, will not listen to a request from you to be classed as a cestui que trust; we have created a tribunal, and although your claims are based upon the broadest grounds of justice, equity and fair play, yet, we will not consider those matters upon that basis, and we will simply hang upon the decision of Mr. Justice Audette upon the point, and let the matter stand.
The result was that on the 21st of November, 1916, Mr. Adams of the Victoria Sealing Company wrote to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, as follows:
On the 26th of April last the Victoria Sealing Company, Ltd., sent you a protest against the findings of Mr. Justice Audette regarding the Sealing Commission, for which he was appointed commissioner. A reply to the petition that a rehearing of the matter be given has never been received by this company, although the shareholders have been anxiously looking for it all this time. Would you kindly let us know whether the petition for a rehearing is to be granted, or whether it is refused.
To this letter the deputy Minister of the Naval Service replied on November 29:
I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 22nd ultimo, calling attention to the protest of the Victoria Sealing Company, Limited, against the findings of Mr. Justice Audette in connection with the Pelagic sealing claims, and the request for a hearing in the way of appeal before the Governor in Council or otherwise.
In reply, I am directed to state that as the claimants were given full opportunity to substantiate their claims before the commissioner, and the award was made in the light of the evidence submitted, it has been decided after careful consideration of the matter, to accept the award of Mr. Justice Audette as a final closing of the case.
Then there is this letter written on December 16 by the Victoria Sealing Com-

pany to the deputy Minister of the Naval Service:
Re Victoria Sealing Company.
Sir:-
I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 29th November, 1916. I observe you state that the award was made in the light of evidence submitted and that it has been decided to accept "the award of Mr. Justice Audette" as a final closing of the case. I desire respectfully to call attention to what may possibly have'been overlooked in this connection, namely: there has been no award. In this connection I refer to the Order in Council of the 10th June, 1913, which appointed Louis Arthur Audette, assistant judge of the Exchequer Court, "a Commissioner under Chapter 104 of the Revised Statutes of Canada for the purpose of investigating all such claims .	.	. and that as soon as
possible thereafter the said commissioner do report to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries his proceedings under said Commission together with the evidence and his opinion."
I also refer to the Commission which appoints Audette "to be our Commissioner to conduct such enquiry," and again: 'We do hereby require and direct you, our said Commissioner, to report to our Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada the result of your investigation together with the evidence taken before you, and any opinion you may eee fit to express thereon."
Counsel for the Crown on the opening of the Commission stated he had been "requested by the Dominion Government to represent the Government upon the discussion of these claims before the Commissioner." He added: "I may say at the outset that the Government does not recognize any legal obligation or technical liability"; and again he stated that as a representative of the Government together with those who represented the claimants he hoped they would be able to "give Tour Lordship something upon which to base your report and finally to enable the Government to satisfy the claims and compensate those who have been injured by these international enactments."
The Commissioner also on the same occasion said :	"I think we have gone beyond the
question of liability or rather of legal liability. We know there is no legal liability. My idea is to do what in equity and good conscience would suggest itself. You are more in the bounty and grace of the Crown here than anything else. But you must show some reason why you make a claim and you must have some reason which would appeal to any one on a question of justice and equity.
In matters of much smaller importance when Mr. Justice Audette is acting in the capacity of a judge, there is a provision for an appeal to a higher tribunal, and since in this case he was simply appointed to take the evidence for the information of the Government, and if he deemed fit, to express an opinion, the Victoria Sealing Company, Limited, ventures to press its claim that before the case is finally closed those interested may be permitted to show cause why' his opinion should not be adopted by the Government.
To this letter the deputy minister replied at a later date, and, quoting from the Order in Council, said:
In accordance with this, the Commissioner submitted his report and gave his opinion as to

the persons entitled to he paid compeiisation and the amount of such compensation. The Government, after consideration of his report and findings, approved of them by Order in Council of the 2Sth of February last, and since then those entitled to compensation have received it. As I previously informed you, it has been decided to accept the disposal of the claims that has been made as a final closing of the matter.
Later on, as a result of the intervention of Sir Charles Hibhert Tupper on the question, j;he Prime Minister wrote to Mr. Adams, the secretary-treasurer of the Victoria Sealing Company, on January 6, 1917:
In reply to your letter of the 22nd November last I beg to say that the report of Mr. Justice Audette and the petition for rehearing had been referred to the Hon. Arthur Meighen, Solicitor General, for report.
I have given the facts in the record as they come before me, and apparently the matter is in this position: that the Government have referred it to the Solicitor General for report. I am not here to criticise, and I do not widh to 'be understood as doing anything 'but putting before the House and the Government the case in regard to a very important international matter, and to ask the Government to take it into their very serious consideration, because it is a matter that has been the subject of consideration of three international tribunals. We had, first, the Paris tribunal of 1893; then we had the conference in Quebec in 1898, and then we had the final adjustment in 1911, all being based, so far as I can judge from those documents, upon the fact that the Victoria Sealing Company were, in the first instance, the major people in the industry; that they were paid compensation at one period on account of .the regulations interfering with them, and that at this later period they were unquestionably prevented from engaging in their business by reason of the regulations based upon the Paris award. Were it not for the fact that they weTe damaged by reason of the operation of those regulations, the Canadian Government would not have had a case to obtain a single dollar .from the American Government, with the exception of what they might have had for 'those four other isolated vessels which were fishing illegally. It is a curious way in which to dispose of an international trust, to provide for a payment of money to men who disregard the international agreement and fail to compensate those who 'observed the regulations to which the good faith of the country was pledged, who kept in touch with the Government of the day from time to time, and
who dealt with the situation, having regard to those principles upon which international matters should be dealt with.
I submit that the Government ought to * regard this question as still open, and take such course as they may deem fit. Once they recognize the existence is a valid claim they should assess what would be considered reasonable damages. The Victoria Sealing Company simply asks that the Government of Canada shall keep faith with them, and that the compensation agreed to in 1898 through Sir Louis Davies, again agreed to in 1909 with Earl Grey, and admitted to be their just due in 1913 by Mr. F. Curran, Crown counsel, before the Royal Commission, shall be paid to them by the Government of Canada as the funds .come in from time to time. The company only recently discovered after a long period of time that the Order in Council had been passed.
So the matter stands this way: The Canadian Government, having 'been entrusted by the Imperial Government for the first time in history with the conduct of negotiations involving a question of foreign policy and justice as between the Crown and its subjects, has exploited the injuries of British subjects to obtain on behalf of those subjects compensation amounting to $7,250,000, and having from time to time over a period of twenty years, by words and acts, given those subjects to understand that they would be fairly and equitably compensated, now turns round like a defaulting trustee and denies any part of that compensation to those on whose behalf they received it.
Had t'he reasons given in the report of the commissioner been contained in a judgment in a case between .subject and subject, there would have been a right of appeal where the grounds of the decision could have been reviewed. That appeal could only turn on the broad principles on which this matter aright to be determined, and not upon any narrow ground, not upon any technical provision of law.
It does seem to me that it would be a disgrace to Canada if, after our'dealings'on this question with the various nations interested, after utilizing this particular company as one institution which gave us the right to compensation, we should turn round and say to that company: We will pay you nothing because you cannot sue the Crown. The Government should proceed upon the broad principles laid down by Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and the

other justices in England in connection with the other treaty to which I have referred. The Government should act in a manner comporting with the dignity of the sources from which this money comes, and comporting with the dignity of the distinguished men who carried on these negotiations. I ask from the Government, who axe the custodians of this money, consideration of the request of this company, which I have endeavoured to present, not with any harshness or in any spirit of criticism, but simply as a case which I believe deserves the fairest possible consideration from the Government.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Martin Burrell: At six o'clock the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) had just finished presenting to the House a question of some interest, a question which has been discussed here on one or two other occasions. He asked the Government for further consideration of the matter in so far as it conferred a compensation on certain parties to whom he thought compensation should be given. The minister concerned and his department gave very careful consideration to this whole subject, before Mr. Commissioner Audette was appointed to investigate the question and also after that appointment; and they have also given very careful attention to the findings of Mr. Justice Audette, and in those findings they concur. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) regrets not being here, and has asked me to deal with the matter in his absence. The hon. member for Pictou has argued that as a result of the Pelagic Sealing Treaty of 1911, a large sum of money will accrue to the treasury of this country, money which does not strictly belong to the people of the country generally, but which should be directed simply as a matter of compensation to those who have been engaged in the seal industry for many years prior to the treaty. He spoke particularly of the Victoria Sealing Company as being the parties chiefly interested. He has pointed out that they were not compensated, whereas the four or five other vessels which were, according to his assertion, sealing illegally at that time were compensated. In the first place, I can hardly agree with either of these contentions of my hon. friend. I do not wish to take up 
the time of the House in traversing the whole history of the matter, interesting as it is, but I want to touch on one or two points which, unless explained, might not be as clear to the House.
The United States acquired the Pribiloff islands as a part of Alaska, by purchase from Russia in 1867. Five years later she gave a lease for twenty years to the Alaska Commercial Company of the exclusive sealing rights on these islands. At that time and for some years afterwards there was no pelagic sealing of importance, so the lessees had a monopoly of the industry, resulting in very large profits to them, as well as to the lessors, the United States Government. In the early eighties some Canadians took up pelagic sealing in a more consistent way, and as good profits were made the industry soon grew. The lessee and the United States Government, seeing formidable competitors appearing, tried to stop them. The United States Government took the ground that Behring Sea is mare clausum and that as the seals were born and spent an important portion of each year on their islands, they were actually their property. In 1886, acting on the assumption that Behring Sea was a closed sea, they seized some Canadian sealing vessels in that sea many miles from land. The House will recall the diplomatic negotiations which followed at that time. No seizures were made the following year, but as pelagic sealing kept on growing, further seizures were effected in 1888 and in 1889. Vigorous diplomatic correspondence ensued, and in 1891 a modus vivendi was entered into, with a view to preventing further overt acts during negotiating, by which Behring Sea was closed to pelagic sealing and land killing was restricted to the number required to provide food for the natives on the islands, seal meat .forming an important portion of their food. This modus vivendi was continued in 1892. The negotiations finally resulted in an agreement to submit the whole question to arbitration, which arbitration took place in Paris in .1893. A condition of the arbitration was that the question of the natural history of the seal should be considered with a view to the proper protection of the herds. Canada's contentions were absolutely upheld. Pelagic sealing was vindicated as a legal method of hunting, and the United States was required to pay heavy damages for the seizures and interference made; but regulations for the protection of the seals, since known as the Paris award regulations were also

provided by the arbitrators. These regulations restricted the use of fire-arms to rifles outside of Behring Sea, and prohibited the use of fire-arms altogether in such sea, and also provided a close season for Behring Sea during the months of May, June and July.	_
During the first year the regulations were in operation there was a very large catch of seals, but every year subsequently the catch diminished very rapidly. It was obvious to everybody who studied the history of seal life that the regulations could only retard the extinction o'f the sealing industry, and it was very questionable whether they could permanently save it if pelagic sealing was followed. I need not go into the reasons except to mention that the killing of the seals on the rookeries enables the killers to select the male seals, whereas in the pelagic sealing there must be indiscriminate killing of the females as well as the males, and in the end the absolute extinction of the whole industry. As I have stated, the industry began to fail rapidly after 1894, and fell into such a bad way that British 'Columbia sealers got together and finally in 1900, formed what is known as the Victoria Sealing Company, because they realized that if all the sealing vessels which were then in existence went out in the indiscriminate loose way they were then going out, the whole business would be put an end to in a very short time. At that time there were 46 British Columbia sealing vessels, of which 43 were embraced in the Victoria 'Sealing Company. Year by year fewer vessels were sent out. In 1904 only 16 vessels were sent out by the company; in 1908, 4 vessels; in 1909, one vessel; and subsequently none. So that for two years before the treaty of 1911 was effected the Victoria Sealing Company had ceased to be a factor in the industry. While the Victoria Sealing Company dropped out of the business entirely after 1909, a few independent British Columbia boats continued in it.	[DOT]
Had it not been for the continuation of these few boats in the industry, carrying on active sealing operation, there practically would have been no reason for the United States entering into this treaty o' 1911, so far as Canada is concerned. It was therefore obvious that the best interests of all concerned wTould be served if an ar. rangement could be made by which the nonrookery-owning powers-the powers that had not an interest in the land operations of sealing-could fairly share in the business and have pelagic sealing done away with altogether. To this end, negotiations were taken up and resulted in the eminently satisfactory treaty which we are now discussing, of July 7, 1911, by which Canada receives 15 per cent of the gross number of skins taken on the United States and Russian sea islands, and 10 per cent of those taken on the shore islands, without incurring any expense as to the management of the herds. The treaty also provided for an advance payment of $200,000 on account of the skins which Canada would be entitled to under it, the object, no doubt, being to pay compensation to be paid under the treaty without drawing on the treasury. The treaty is for a terfn of 15 years, but it is expected that it will be continued indefinitely thereafter.
Following the adoption of the treaty, claims for compensation began to pour in, not only on account of it but also owing to the Paris award regulations, and for various other reasons. It was finally decided by the Government to appoint Mr. Justice Audette of the Exchequer Court a commissioner to investigate all claims flowing from or arising out of the pelagic sealing treaty of 1911, as also arising out of the Par's award regulations of 1894. His instructions will be found in the Order in Council passed appointing him. Some 1,605 claims amounting to over $9,000,000, were submitted to Mr. Justice Audette, and in order that the claims might 'be properly investigated without avoidable trouble or expense to the claimants, Judge Audette went to Victoria, British Columbia, and also to Halifax and Sydney and Ottawa, holding meetings at each place. Evidence under oath was submitted and counsel was employed by the Government to see that its interests were properly considered, as well as by the claimants with Tegard to the claims under the Paris award regulations, among which were those of the Victoria Sealing Company. The commissioner found they could not be paid, and he concluded his reasons ifor so finding in the following Words:
It Is conceded by all parties that the sealers have no legal claim. Their claims do not originate In tort, as in the case of the illegal seizure of the vessels under the British flag in 1886. This commission originated absolutely in the benevolence, grace and bounty of the Crown; and while I am not here holding the scale of justice on strict legal rights, but with rights emanating from equity and good conscience, I am unable to find that the sealers were in any manner injured and damaged by the regulations that would entitle them to compensation. It would be contrary to the prin-



COMMQNS

[Stage Direction]
ciples of natural justice to declare these claimants entitled to recover, where no pretence of right in law, equity or good conscience (ex aequo et borio) has been made out.
It has been contended that because the nation is recovering a large amount in consideration for the entering into the treaty of 1911, a monetary condition which would never have been obtained but for the regulations which kept the seals alive up to that time, that the sealers should recover. A most erroneous view to take under the circumstances. Whatever amount is recoverable-or recovered-under the treaty, forms a national fund absolutely at the disposal of the sovereign under constitutional principles, and which falls into the Canadian exchequer, and it is not even in any way earmarked to compensate the sealers under the treaty of 1911, and indeed, asserted with much more certitude not to compensate under the regulations which wdre made under the Paris Award in 1893 and which did not provide for the payment of any money but only sought thd protection of the herd.	_
If the Government were using moneys derived from the treaty of 1911, as claimed by some counsel, to pay the claimants under the regulations-moneys coming from two countries that had nothing to do with the regulations would thus be used. Hence it could not be done.
Having thus passed in review the general heads of complaint put forward by the sealers against the regulations, and approaching the consideration of this claim in a spirit of justice connoting the idea of doing what in equity and good conscience is fair and just, and after giving this branch of the commission special care and labour, as it involved both large amounts and a large number of claimants, I have come to the conclusion and find that the Canadian sealers are not entitled to be paid any compensation by the Crown for alleged damage resulting from the said regulations.
The commissioner found that the only persons entitled to compensation were those who were engaged in the industry in 1911, with certain minor exceptions, such as hunters who were prevented from hunting in that year, ow'ing to sickness or otherwise; also, the ships which were engaged in that year. The total amount of the compensation awarded was $60,663.75. The commissioner's report was approved, and these claims have been paid and it has been decided not to re-open the question. It is curious to note, as showing the arguments which appealed also to the Japanese Government, that in compensating their claimants they dealt only with those men who were actually engaged in the industry when the treaty came into eeffct in 1911. It is quite obvious that this large fund, which, we hope, will accrue .to the country from the preservation of these seal herds, belongs, not in particular to one person or another who may at one time or another have been engaged in the (sealing industry, hut belongs to the people of Canada in recognition of a right which they had to con-

duct pelagic sealing, and because that right has been extinguished or is abolished- has been given up by the whole people of Canada-therefore Canada is entitled to the compensation, and not those individuals who may have been engaged in the industry at one time but who, on account of regulations and conditions which were established to preserve the seal industry, and without which the industry would have become extinct, were compelled to abandon the industry. The Government therefore decided that the only people strictly entitled to any compensation are those who, at the time of the affirming of this treaty, were actually engaged in the business, and to whom, therefore, the contracting parties had to say: You cannot conduct sealing operations any longer.
With respect to the gentlemen of whom my hon. friend spoke to-day, it can only he again observed that they actually, by the conditions which existed at that time, had gone out of the business entirely two years prior to the contracting parties entering into that treaty. I can add nothing further than to say that this is the view taken by the minister and the department and the view generally taken by the Government. I cannot give my hon. friend any assurance that the Government would think it right, wise or advisable, after the whole matter has been thoroughly gone into by Mr. Justice Audette, a special commissioner who heard all evidence presented on behalf of the claimants and who had made a certain report, to appoint (another commission to investigate the work of Mr. Justice Audette. We feel that he dealt with it fairly and justly, and, on the whole, the Government feel that it must adhere to that report.
Right Hon.   S@: My- hon. friend ('Mr. Burrell) who has charge of this department in the absence of the Minister of Naval Affairs 'Concluded his observations by stating that he could not give any assurance that the Government would take into its favourable consideration the claim put forth this afternoon by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald') on behalf of the sealers of British Columbia. My hon. friend from Pictou did not expect any assurance to that effect to-day, but I still express the hope that the consideration of the Government will be more favourable in the future in regard to this question. It is impossible to deal fairly with this question, in my judgment, if we deal simply upon the strict letter of the Treaty of 1911. In order to do full

justice to the whole question on behalf of the people of Canada and of the sealers of British Columbia, I think it is imperative that we should go very much beyond the Treaty of 1893 which resulted in the passing of the regulations which are at the source of all the complaints we have now to deal with. Up to 1873 there was no such thing as pelagic sealing. As stated by my hon. friend, when the Pribyloff Islands belonged to Russia, and after their acquisition by the United States, the method of taking the seals was to kill them on the land. I am prepared to concede that perhaps this method was more conducive to the maintenance of the herd than any other. But my hon. friend will grant that the seal belongs to everybody, and not to one class of people in particular. In 1873, when some enterprising Canadians in British Columbia undertook to go into what was known as pelagic sealing-that is the hunting of the seals on the high seas-they were absolutely within their rights. This' industry became profitable. But the possessor of Pribyloff island, the American Government, and the lessees of the American Government, looked upon the pelagic sealers as intruders, interlopers and trespassers. T'he habits of these seals are peculiar. They live in the high seas in winter and resort to the land in May, June and July foT breeding purposes. When August comes they disperse again to the ocean and come back to the island the following spring. When they were dispersed on the ocean the British Columbia sealers pursued. In this, as I have said these sealeTS were perfectly within their right, and the only objection which was made was that pelagic sealing tended to deplete the herds. As stated by my hon. friend the objection was that the sealers who killed on the land destroyed only the young males, whereas on the high seas not only the young males but also the females were killed. But, as the pelagic sealers were absolutely within their rights, the protest of the American owners of the islands did not impress them. As has been stated by my hon. friend, in 188G the American authorities chose to seize several of the sealers. They claimed, as has been stated by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and repeated by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) that the Behring sea, where the seizures took place, belonged to the United States. This contention was rejected by the commission, and rightly so. I believe upon this point that the commission were unanimous. If I remember rightly the American counsel claimed that pelagic sealing ought to be altogether forbidden. The tribunal did not agree to this, but simply passed certain regulations to limit the pelagic sealing, and make it more difficult. These regulations were four in number. First, a close season- was established lasting, if I remember well, from May to August or September. There was a shoal oE sixty miles along Pribilof island where the seals breed. A zone was established around this shoal within which pelagic sealing w-as absolutely prohibited. Then, the use of certain weapons was prohibited; and, lastly, the use of -steam vessels was also forbidden. With these restrictions-the season, the zone, the weapon, and the vessels -the operation of the sealers was greatly limited, and undoubtedly they suffered damage. There cannot be a shadow of a doubt that they -suffered damage. They made complaints and representations to the Canadian Government. I may observe to my hon. friend that, if the award was unanimous as to the right of Canadians to engage in pelagic sealing, the award which established these regulations was not unanimous. Sir John Thompson, the appointee of the Canadian Government on the Board, did not agree to thi-s part of the award. The fact that a man of the eminent authority of Sir John Thompson would not -agree to these regulations is a very strong point on behalf of the sealers, and it is, to my mind, conclusive evidence that the -sealers had a just cause of complaint when these regulations were made. Therefore, it will be easily understood -why the sealers made complaint to the Canadian Government representing that they had been unfairly dealt with, and were entitled to compensation. That was in 1893. The matter was taken into consideration by the government of th-at day, but no conclusion was arrived at. In 1898, when the Joint High Commission was appointed to settle many questions that were then pending between Canada and the United States-the Atlantic Fisheries, the Alas-kan Boundary and others-this question of the seals was taken up by the Government. The Canadian representative brought the matter to the attention of his fellow-members of the commission, and claimed compensation for the British Columbian -sealers. It is to be observed that the fairness of this claim was not disputed by the American commissioner; on the contrary, it was accepted -as fair, and witnesses were examined by the commission to ascertain what would be the amount of compensation to which the Brit-

ish Columbia sealers might be fairly entitled. The matter, however, did not reach a conclusion, because the commission adjourned, and took up the consideration of the Alaskan boundary question, and the sealing question was never resumed. The matter stood where it was. The British Columbian sealers never ceased to make complaint to the Government, representing that they were entitled to compensation for the loss of their industry.
In 1909, when the Canadian Government was approached by the United States Government on the subject of the entire suspension of pelagic sealing, the Canadian Government agreed to the suspension of pelagic sealing for fifteen years, but only upon the condition that compensation should be given to Canada for the loss ol the right which she was sacrificing.


Martin Burrell: Was that in 1909?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. The commission was appointed in 1910, if I remember rightly, and the final treaty was passed in July, 1911. It was stipulated as an absolute condition by the Canadian Government for the giving up of the privilege ol pelagic sealing that compensation should be afforded, and that condition was accepted by the United States authorities. Generous terms of compensation were granted; fifteen per cent of the value of the catch of seals killed on land, and an immediate advance of $200,000. What was the object of this compensation? My hon. friend says that it was a consideration for Canada's giving up her right to use the high seas for pelagic sealing. But Canada would not, for a sum of money, have given up such a right as that upon the high seas. The Canadian Government could not have been blind to the fact That people were engaged in that industry; that the industry had been seriously damaged year after year by the regulations which had for their object the restricting of pelagic sealing. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that the Canadian Government could not ignore the claim of these men who had been engaged in pelagic sealing and whose rights had been so restricted. For my part, I always thought that the best way of investing this money would he to compensate the men who had suffered from these regulations. These men who built schooners and manned and equipped them for use in pelagic sealing were absolutely within their rights; they were absolutely as free as anybody else was on the high seas. Suddenly the Canadian Government said; You shall not carry on your trade any longer. The com-
missioner who was appointed, Mr. Justice Audette-a man of eminent ability, I admit; a man upon whose judgment I rely-


Martin Burrell: Before my hon. friend
leaves that point, may I ask him whether he has considered what would have happened if the sealing had been carried on after 1911 as it was from 1895 down to 1911? The evidence is that if there had been' no treaty, these people would have been put out of business by the absolute extinction of the seal herds.


Wilfrid Laurier: The result of
these regulations was to make the business less profitable, and the sealers who had organized themselves into a corporation went less and less into the business. It is said that for three or four years before 1911 they had ceased to send schooners out on the high seas. But they never ceased to make application for compensation in respect of the damage that these restrictions had caused to them. If they went out of business, what was the reason? Simply that the regulations had made sealing unprofitable. That is to say, they suffered in consequence of the regulations imposed upon them.	'


Martin Burrell: That may be so, but if these regulations-which, after all, have had some effect in preserving the herds-had not been enforced, the sealers would have gone out of business sooner, because no seals would have been left.


Wilfrid Laurier: Many industries which have flourished for a time in newly discovered districts have in the course of time exhausted .their material. The ore of many a mine has become or may yet become exhausted, and when exhausted no claim can be made from the state; but if while there is ore in th^ mine the miner is prohibited from working by the state, the latter receiving profits from the prohibition, the miner, out of the profits derived by the state, ought to receive compensation. So in this case. These men were exercising a right. Possibly in the course of time the sealing would have .been exhausted; I am very much afraid that a great deal of our wild animal life will be exhausted in the course of time. But so long as the trade is there, it can be taken hold of; and if the trade is suddenly cut on by legislative action, it seems to me there is just claim for compensation on the part of those whose rights are affected. I may be told that there is no legal claim; that the Government can

in this -case exercise its right of eminent domain. I admit that, but the sealers never had the pretension to claim from the Government any legal right in the matter. I put it simply on the ground of good conscience:	since the Canadian Government
has received several hundred thousand dollars, by way of compensation,' which are now in the public treasury, is it not right and fair that the men whose business has been destroyed hy the action of this Government, whatever its 'motive may have been, should foe compensated? It is not to the honour of 'Canada that the Government received this money from the American Government and has not compensated the men whose money has been put into the sealing industry. These men built something like seventy schooners, which have remained idle; the money which they put into their 'business has been absolutely lost. Yet they have received not a single dollar of compensation. Moreover, their schooners are useless for any other purpose than that for which they were designed and built. In view of the fact that the Government has received a large sum of-money in consequence of the very impediment which they have put in the way of these men, in fairness and equity the Government should compensate them -for the money they put into the (business. By action of the Government of Canada-with the purpose of which I am in sympathy-the business of these men was completely destroyed; therefore, out of the money received by the Canadian Government by way of compensation these men should foe the first to foe compensated.
I have read with care the judgment of Mr. Justice Audette. It seems to me that he takes a narrow view of this matter. He seems to have approached it more or less from the point of view of narrow justice, as it were, rather than from the point of view of, as he says, good conscience and equity. Well, every man may have his own opinion about what is equity, and justice, and good conscience. The application of a definite law dealing with a specific matter is one thing, fout in this case no question of law is involved.
It is altogether within the discretion of the men who are now in office to say whether those people shall be compensated or not. If it were a case of taking money out of the treasury for those people, I might say that the Government should not be asked to put their hands into the treasury in order to compensate them, but this is 378
money paid by the American Government for the destruction of those people's industry. There is absolutely no question on that point. Having received the money on that basis, equity and good conscience make it imperative that the money so received should go first to compensate the men whose business has been destroyed. Will this not appeal to the judgment of the gentlemen who are on the treasury benches? Up to the present time, they have refused to depart from the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Audette. My only objection to his opinion is that he takes too narrow a view. This is a matter which is of no personal concern to any one of us. I do not know who the claimants are. I saw Captain Adams only once in my life. I was, however, in office when this treaty was negotiated. I gave the matter my best consideration, and I thought then that when we received money as compensation, the first men to be paid out of that money ought to be those whose business and livelihood had been destroyed, and whose good money had become worthless. For these considerations, I hope, although my hon. friend will refuse to give an assurance that those men will foe more equitably dealt with than in the past or that their claims will be considered, that the Government will reconsider their attitude upon this matter, and see that after all, if we are to treat this matter in equity and good conscience, we should give those men the money.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton) :: Mt. Speaker, were it not for the fact that a great many people from the county which I have the honour to represent here were interested directly in this industry which is now under discussion, I would not venture to add a word to what has been so ably presented to the House by the leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Pietou, and replied to by the Minister of Agriculture. As early as the year 1887, several vessels from the Atlantic coast went around Cape Horn and engaged in this	business on the	British	Columbia	coast. Ever since	then,	until theindustry was closed out by international regulations and regulations of this Government, the owners of those vessels kept in touch with that industry. Amongst those men were Captain Charles Haekett, Captain J. W. Peppett, Captain Cutler, Captain	Ryan, Captain	Frank	Haekett,Captain Desmond, Captain	Bissett
and Captain LeBlanc. Some of them were absolute owners of the vessels, and all of



them were interested in the business which they followed. From 1887 down to 1893, and since then down to 1911, at the consummation of the treaty mentioned by several hon. gentlemen here to-day, they conducted a profitable business in the sealing industry with their headquarters in British Columbia. As has already been fully explained, for international reasons and for the purpose of conserving this very valuable industry, and conserving the lives of those seals, it wias thought proper to enter into negotiations, and an agreement was made by which that industry was closed out. Those men had a vested interest and a vested right in that industry, just the same as the Minister of Agriculture has a vested right in a certain industry in British Columbia. And I presume that if those who are engaged in the fruit industry of British Columbia were, for some reason, prevented from engaging in that industry, he would ably advocate their rights. I think he would say that if those who have put their money into orchards, or mines, or fisheries in British Columbia were, for some international reason, cut off from their employment, and if moneys were paid into the treasury of Canada as a compensation and consideration for the closing down of those industries, those who were in those businesses and whose occupations were so cut off should be the first to be considered in the division of that money. The interpretation given to that treaty by the leader of the Opposition should receive due consideration. If a certain document is in writing or if a certain statute goes through Parliament, the man who wrote the document or who drafted the Act or had a hand in putting it through Parliament, has perhaps no more to say as to the proper interpretation of it than anybody else, because a judicial interpretation must be given as to the meaning the words in it must bear. But when international negotiations are conducted, as the negotiations in regard ' to this treaty were conducted, and when all the motives and ideas are not put into writing, the views of the then Prime Minister of the country, who was one of the parties to those negotiations, and who knew what the negotiations were, should be considered when the matter is discussed. We are told by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, but who was the Prime Minister of this country at the time this treaty was negotiated and received the approval of His Majesty and passed into an international bargain, that the intention was that, so far as that agreement cur-fMr. McKenzie.]
tailed the profits of any people engaged in the sealing industry, they should be compensated as far as the money received would go. That is the interpretation given to the treaty by the man who negotiated it._ That being the case, that being the idea conveyed to those people by the Government of the day and by the Prime Minister who negotiated the agreement, it is incumbent upon those who succeeded him in office to carry out that policy. The Government may eay: If we had been in power at the time, we would not have made such an agreement; we would not have stopped the industry, we would not have interfered with the people who were working in it, and if we had interfered with them at all, we would not have paid them any compensation. But the King and the power of the King were represented at that time by the Prime Minister of that day, and he made a certain arrangement. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Government of the day to carry it out. This principle has been recognized in this country before. Hon. gentlemen in this House, and particularly hon. members of the Government, remember the treaty of Washington, in connection with which there was what is well known as the Fisheries Award. There was paid into the treasury of Canada on account of the award the sum of $5,000,000. The Government of the day did not think that was money that they could apply in the ordinary way; they considered it was something that belonged practically to the fishing industry of this country. What happened-and what is the law to-day-was that at least a certain amount of that money was placed at interest, and the interest of it is paid as a bounty to the fishermen of Canada. Everyone knows that the fishermen of Canada on both coasts receive a bounty. That money comes to them out of this Washington treaty fisheries award. Because the treaty of Washington permitted a condition of things that meant interference to some extent with the fishery business, the money that came to the Government by reason of the concession given to American fishermen was divided amongst the fishermen of Canada, and is being divided in that way to-day. The taking of this money which we get for the sealing industry and establishing some equitable basis upon which it will be divided amongst those people whose interests are affected by reason of the treaty, would be only carrying out, and perhaps extending to a certain degree, the principles that were estab-

lished by the Government of the day in connection with the award paid to this country under the treaty of Washington.
I submit, therefore, that it would not be doing anything new if the Government took this money and made such an equitable division of iit between the corporations and the men who were engaged in this business on the basis of the facts as they were ascertained.
As I understand the findings of Mr. Justice Audette, they do not go the full length ot the principle involved in this quest'on. I understand his position to be that no person has any claim on the Government for any part of this money, and. that no person could at law establish a claim against the Crown for it. I need not tell you, Sir, or any member of the Government that you cannot establish a claim against the Crown except by statute; that is, unless there is an Act of Parliament fixing that obligation upon the Crown. Mr. Justice Audette could have made a finding of that sort at the start. The moment he discovered there was no such statute he could have said that it was useless to go any further. But that was not the idea of starting the investigation, and perhaps I am doing him an injustice in saying that that was his conclusion, but, nevertheless, as I understand it, that was his conclusion.
The Government, as representing the Crown, are mere trustees of this money. They receive the money in trust for a certain specific purpose, and it is their duty to divide it properly and equitably upon the basis of the facte as they appear. In the colony of Newfoundland and in the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia, and particularly that part of Nova Scotia to which I belong, there were hundreds of people engaged in this industry. Many vessels were bought on the Atlantic coast, taken around the Horn and engaged in the sealing business on the other side. But all these people were put out of business 'by the treaty. I submit that when there is in the hands of the Government money that was paid to them under a treaty that put an end to this industry, the people who were engaged in it have a claim in equity, and justice, and good conscience against the Government. I submit that if it is found that Mr. Justice Audette's decision is not wide enough, or that he has not gone sufficiently deep into this question, further investigation should be made, and a further opportunity to be heard should be given to the people whose interests are
378}
fi977
affected. If the Government should find that they are mere trustees for this money, and that it was to be given to the people who were engaged in this industry, I trust they will not permit any mere technicalities to stand in the way, but will deal with the matter broadly and properly as the justice of the case demands.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It appears to be common ground
that there is no question involved here of a legal right on the part, of those whose cause has been pleaded here this afternoon. The question is one entirely of what ought to be done in equity and good conscience, and the question was so submitted to Mr. Justice Audettte, and so dealt with by him. The contention of hon. gentlemen who have spoken in support of 9 p.m. some further recognition of this claim seems to me to rest, if I may say ,so with all respect, upon a misapprehension of what it was that this money was paid for. Their reasoning would lead one to believe that they look upon it as money paid for damage suffered in the past. Now a glance at the treaty of 1911 will show that what was paid for was the foregoing by Canada, on behalf of her citizens, of the right to carry on pelagic sealing for a period of time in the future. The loss, therefore, that was, being compensated for was a loss that might occur to people in the future.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Here was the Victoria Sealing Company with its vessels all prepared, but they were unable to carry on their business by reason of these regulations. The minister must not forget that the basis of our contention in the negotiations with the American Government was the fact that in, the past there were deprivations of that character.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was coming to the
position, as I understand it, of the Victoria Sealing Company, but I think it is well to get clear at the outset what this money was paid to us for-because until we know what it was paid to us for, it is impossible for us to ascertain who has any particular or specific claim upon that money as distinct from the claim of the whole public of Canada, [DOT] for whom the Government received' and holds this money. What was paid for, was the foregoing for fifteen years, then in the future, of the privilege on the part of Canada, as representing all Canadians, of exercising the right of pelagic sealing. Now that right of pelagic scaling that we agreed to forego for that period of time in the

future was the right to pelagic sealing as that right could legally be exercised at the time the treaty was entered into; that is to say, the right to pelagic sealing subject to the regulations of the Treaty of Paris. That right had been 60 limited and so restricted by the regulations of the Treaty of Paris that this Victoria Sealing Company in particular h.ad, as I understand the facts, abandoned the business.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No,	the Victoria
Sealing Company never abandoned the business.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Ceased to carry on the business.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: By reason of the
fact that the regulations of the Treaty of Paris prevented them from doing so.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That	is precisely
what I am pointing out. The regulations of the Treaty of Paris made it not worth while for the Victoria Sealing Company to carry on the 'business, and that was the condition when the treaty was entered into whereby Canada, on behalf of her people, renounced the Tight of carrying on the business under the treaty which is now in question, and received compensation for her renunciation of the right to carry on the business under those conditions. That right to carry on the business was open to every Canadian citizen just as fully as it was to the Victoria Sealing Company, and the compensation was to Canada as a whole for foregoing something in the future.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not necessarily, it was not so stated.
Mr. DOHERTY": That is the treaty. What did we do? We agreed to forego the right to pelagic sealing for fifteen years to come, and for that -we were to (be paid this proportion of the catch that was to be got in those fifteen years to come.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not in the fifteen years to come, because there was no right to make it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We agreed to forego the right. Our people had the right to carry on the pelagic sealing, subject to the regulations of the Treaty of Paris.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, my hon. friend is not correct in that, because, if he will permit me, the conclusions of the Treaty of Paris say that we could carry that on in the open sea, but it was of no value, seeing that we could not Teach the rookery.
[ Mr. Doherty.]


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is all a question of pelagic sealing. If that was of no value at all, it cannot have been of any value to the Victoria Sealing Company any more than to anybody else. Whatever its value was, much or little, that is what we had in 1911, and that was the only thing we could forego, because we could not forego what we had not. The United States Government undertook to pay this compensation to this country, as the representative of all its inhabitants, for our renunciation of the exercise of that right, whatever may have been its value, for a period of time to come. That right, as it stood at that time, the thing that we agreed to forego, was a right which in the judgment of the Victoria Sealing Company was not worth while .for it to exercise, and it had ceased to exercise that right. The Victoria Sealing Company therefore stood in the same position as any other citizen of Canada who did not find that under the conditions it was worth while to carry on that business. When we come to deal with consideration of individuals, we have to remember that the money we have is not the price of anything that happened in the past. It is the price of our foregoing a right for the future, and whoever would be affeoted fairly and equitably in the future by that remuneration of ours, ought to get compensation, and fairly enough those who were actually exercising this right at the time we agreed to forego it, have been considered and have been compensated. The refusal is as regards the people who, three or four years before, made up their minds it was not worth their while to exercise the right-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


Charles Joseph Doherty: -demonstrating therefore that they would not be among the class of people affected by the fact that we renounced that right for the next fifteen years.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the argument my hon. friend is making, he is excluding altogether the fact that this company kept its ships tied up by the wharf on account of the understanding with the Government.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With all respect, I think my hon. friend is quite mistaken when he says that those people who sent their ships out did so in violation of the regulations of the Treaty of Paris. I think the best demonstration of the fact that they did not violate the treaty is that they were able to carry on operations with impunity, and were never seized. They went out in the
- SEPTEMBER 18, 1917
*exercise of the rights of pelagic sealing, subject to the regulations of the Treaty of Paris, and they thought it worth their while. They are, therefore, among the class of people who, presumably at all events, would ' have gone on if this last treaty had not been passed, and they are the people who in a particular manner, different from all other citizens of Canada, are affected by our renunciation of that right. They are fairly and equitably the people who ought to be compensated, and they are the people who were compensated. But to carry the argument made on behalf of the Victoria Sealing Company to its logical conclusion, if that company is entitled to remuneration on the grounds stated, then it seems to me that anybody who at any time had carried on the business of pelagic sealing, ought to get compensation, because that ground is that though they had ceased to carry on the business, and though it clearly appeared that they were not going to carry it on in any way during the fifteen years covered by the treaty they had at some past time carried on the business of pelagic sealing. That was the matter that was submitted to Mr. Justice Audette. I think that there can be no claim upon those moneys on the part of those people as being deprived of something they otherwise would have had in the future is most clearly established by the fact that when it is sought to support their claim-and I refer particularly to the very interesting and very forcible speech of the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)-it all has to be made to rest upon the damage it is claimed they sustained by reason of the regulations under the Treaty of Paris. Well, those regulations were passed and were in force for a number of years before this treaty, and those regulations were made by competent authority to control the carrying on of that business, and the loss that resulted to the Victoria Sealing Company or anybody else from the enactment of those regulations-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There was nobody else so far as Canada was concerned.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My hon. friend from North Sydney (Mr. McKenzie) has just been telling us of a large number of people in his part of the country who were engaged in pelagic sealing.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They were in the Victoria Sealing Company.


Charles Joseph Doherty: being utilized to compensate people who, in the conditions created hy t'he treaty, existing subsequently to the treaty, are carrying on their business at a disadvantage. They are people particularly affected hy the result of the treaty in a different way from every other individual Canadian . But here we are asked to apply that money not to indemnify anybody affected by the consequent effects of the treaty but somebody that-suffered a damage by reason of something that was done years before.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is that not merely a
question of degree? In the fishery case they were at a disadvantage but were permitted to go on; but in the other case they were stopped altogether.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Being permitted to go on they are a class of people directly and particularly affected by the continued operation of that treaty, and therefore, if we get compensation for foregoing on behalf of the people of Canada the right under that treaty to carry on certain fishing operations, I can see the fairness and equity of applying some of that money to compensate people who, by reason of that treaty, are hampered in the industry they carry on. I am not contending that people who were carrying on the industry, at the time of this last treaty and were cut off from doing it should not have compensation to the extent of the damage they proved, and they have had it. I was just pointing out that the case we now are dealing with differs in every respect from the case of the fishermen to whom my hon. friend from North Sydney refers. I quite appreciate the sympathy of hon. gentlemen with these gentlemen who are interested in the sealing industry, but I must confess that, eliminating the question of legal obligation, trying to judge it as a question of what is fair and reasonable, I do not see that the Government of Canada, which has received this money in trust, just as all the moneys of Canada are in its hands in trust for all the people of Canada,-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh no, this is a special trust.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is precisely where I join issue. It is in trust for all the people who, during those fifteen years are deprived of this privilege, and I am prepared to concede that in equity and fairness, if there is any individual Canadian who shows that by Canada's renunciation of that right for that fifteen years he suffers a damage or an injury distinct and differ-

ent from that which is suffered by the wjaole public, he ought to get compensation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What better case
could my hon. friend have in considering the matter of damage than that of a company which has tied up at the wharf six schooners especially built for the sealing industry and which is unable to use those schooners under the Paris regulations, and has not used them for fifteen years?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They were unable, under the Paris regulations, to use them and that was their settled and defined position; and this treaty did not make them any more unable to use them, it left them precisely where they were in that regard. We are asked to compensate a man for being prevented under this treaty from carrying on a business that, in the conditions that existed before this treaty, he was unable to carry on.
What I have sought to make clear is that the damage to these people, in so far as they were damaged, resulted from what had taken place years before this treaty, and that this treaty left them neither better nor worse off; and this money was paid to us for the foregoing of a right, subsequent to the execution of the treaty that these people, by their own admission, were not in a position, by reason of anterior events, to exercise or avail themselves of.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How could it be possible by the law of Canada settled under this international agreement, for anybody to set up a claim during the fifteen years for the right to legally go out and seal in Behring sea and assert that they had vessels or schooners or anything of that kind, when it was well understood, it was known as a matter of public law, that it was impossible for anybody to go sealing?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They were all subject to the regulations. The right that they had was to go out and fish subject to the regulations. On their behalf and on behalf of all the people of Canada, Canada renounced that right, and anybody deprived of the right which he was exercising to fish under the regulations was entitled to compensation. All of those who went so far towards showing that as to show that they were carrying on the business under the regulations, got compensation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where is the rest of it going?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The rest of it belongs to Canada in the right of the whole of the

people of Canada. None of us can go pelagic sealing.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the regulations under the treaty of Paris put an end to pelagic sealing, what had we to give up by this treaty of 1911?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It did not put an end
to pelagic .sealing, it regulated and restricted pelagic sealing. If they had put an end to pelagic sealing then we would have had nothing to give up, just as the hon. gentleman says: It is not quite conceivable that if we had had nothing to give up, our American friends would have undertaken to pay us something approximating $7,000,000 for that nothing. We had something to give up, and there were people carrying oh pelagic sealing subject to the restrictions and regulations, and that is the right we had.
-Mr. MACDONALD:- Only four. What does the minister say to the consideration of this matter given by Mr. Found in this report to the Naval Department?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have heard the reading of that report, and it would seem to indicate that Mr. Found was under the impression that something ought to be paid to these gentlemen. I hav-e difficulty in accepting that conclusion, although I have not carefully read the report. I have Tead with considerable care the report of Mr. Justice Audette, and I may add that before the matter wae submitted to the commission I had occasion to go with some degree of care into the consideration of this question, and for what value that may have, I may say that the conclusion of Mt. Audette was by no means a surprise to me. The impression I had formed was that that wae the only conclusion that could properly and fairly be reached.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the hon. gentleman think that, from the standpoint o-f equity, justice and fair play, a company with whom the Canadian Government was negotiating right along, with whom the Government had conferences immediately preceding the -treaty of 1911 as to the question o-f compensation, a company who had vessels prepared to go sailing, which were tied up to the wharf at Victoria, would have no bona fide reasonable claim* for consideration upon the Government of the day, and for some allowance out of this fund which is paid to tho-se who are to be prevented from sealing, realizing that nobody else would, in all human probability, prepare facilities for the purpose of engaging
in sealing during the next fifteen years, that are to come during part of which time sealing is prohibited?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 'We look at the matter from different angles. I do not think it would be equity, justice and fair play to the people of Canada in general if we took their money and gave it to some one for whom we were sorry because some years before-
Mr. -MACDONALD: What interest has the man in the interior in sealing?


Charles Joseph Doherty: None special to himself. But here is $7,000,000 belonging to Canada, which the man in Ontario has -a share in, just the same as the man in British Columbia, and the only reason put forward so far I can see for paying -the money to these paaiti-cular individuals is -that, unfortunately for them, they invested money in an enterprise which, by regulation of competent authority, was made unprofitable. That seems to me to be the situation, and we are asked to take the money of the people of Canada and pay to these people for foregoing the right to carry on pelagic sealing under unprofitable conditions not by reason of this treaty, buit of the position created by previous regulations. We are asked to take the money- of the whole of the people of Canada and pay it to these gentlemen because we are sorry for them.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The whole question is a relative one. You can well understand that a man in British Columbia would not engage in sealing in Nova Scotia, or a man who was interested in the cultivation o-f soil in the prairies, who knew nothing about seas, would not engage in sealing in other parts o-f the Dominion. But if you have a case where the people have the vessels which are actually engaged in the enterprise tied up to the wharf, prepared to go out, hut prevented from going out by reason of regulations made by this Government with a foreign government, does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the owners of the vessels in close proximity to the place where the sealing can be carried on have no equity by which, they would be given the fir-st right to participate in the fund? The Government having agreed to a fifteen-yeai; prevention of sealing, nobody else in Canada would ever engage in it in that period.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have tried to say what I mean to say.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I know -what the hon. gentleman has to say, but he has not met my point exactly.



EXPORT OF POTATOES.

Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I wish to call attention oi the House very shortly to a matter of which I gave notice to the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) yesterday, regarding the duty on potatoes. Some two or three weeks ago I asked the Government if ' it was their intention to make potatoes free under the provision of the United States Tariff Bill and under the War Measures Act.
I was promised consideration, and as nothing was said about it, on Thursday last I asked the Government the question. That question and the statement respecting it made on behalf of the Government are as follows:
Mr. F. B. Carvell (Carleton, N.B.) :	A week
or so ago I asked the Government if they would not consider the advisability of removing the duty on potatoes, the effect of which would be that our potatoes would have the right to enter the United States free of duty. I was promised consideration of the matter and I would now ask the minister if he is able to give an answer.
Sir Thomas White:	The matter referred to
by my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) is one relating to the tariff. Announcements of that kind are not discussed in advance for reasons which will be obvious to the House. I am unable to make any statement with respect to the matter except to say that any action the Government may take will be announced in due course. It is impossible for me to make a statement in reference to the matter at the present time.
While the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) is usually very courteous,
I thought he was rather testy about the matter, and I was rather surprised at the attitude he assumed. Therefore, I thought it in the interest of my constituents that I should give this matter some little publicity before prorogation. I do not intend to move an amendment, because I realize that such a motion on going to Supply would be treated as a vote of want of confidence, and this is a matter
of such great importance to my constituents that I am not going to offer an amendment and have it voted down. On the other hand. I want to present the case to the Government, and see if they will not act and do justice to the great body of people in the Maritime Provinces especially, and people all ever central Canada as a whole. I do not know that it is necessary to state that the cultivation of the potato is by far the greatest agricultural industry in. the Maritime Provinces. In the last two years the value of this crop in the Maritime Provinces has far exceeded any other agricultural product, and I think I should be safe in saying, all other agricultural products put together, though possibly this last statement may be a little extreme. In my own constituency last year according to the best of figures I could obtain, they received something like seven or eight million dollars for the potatoes which they disposed of. In that item I include the counties of Victoria and Carleton, because that is the constituency, a part of which at least I now represent. These two counties are by far the greatest potato-producting counties in Canada. But all the other counties along the St. John river, and to a very great extent on what we call the North Shore, and around the county of Westmorland, are great potato producing counties. In addition, there is the province of Prince Edward Island, where, if they had proper transportation facilities, the crop would far exceed that of any other portion of Canada, and I believe, of the North American continent. The House will see, from my cursory statement, that the potato industry in the Maritime Provinces is an important one, and any legislation affecting the production or price of potatoes is a matter of prime importance to the people of that portion of Canada. To give you some idea of the importance of this industry, I shall tead to the House a statement which I received to-day from the Commissioner of Customs:



STATEMENT SHOWING THE IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF POTATOES, BY COUNTRIES, DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH, 1917, AND ALSO DURING THE FIVE MONTHS ENDED 31 AUGUST, 1917.

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal year ended	Five months	endedImports entered for consumption.	31 March,	1917.	31 August,	1917.Bush.	Value.	Bush.	Value.Great Britain 	28	$ * 73	$ ..Bermuda 	5	9British West Indies	[DOT]>...	2	2	5	4Hong Kong 	36	36	10	17China	2	2	Japan 	343	269	United States	567,759	546,476	431,119	765,538Totals 	568,170	$546,858	431,139 $765,568	
STATEMENT SHOWING THE IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF POTATOES, ETC.- Concluded.
Exports, produce of Canada.
Great Britain	
Bermuda	
British Guiana	
British West Indies	
Fiji Islands	
Newfoundland	
Alaska	
Cuba	
China	
Greenland and Iceland	
Hawaii	
Miquelon and St. Pierre	
Porto Rico	
United States	
Totals	
Fiscal year ended 31 March, 1917.
Bush.	Value.
2	$ 2
43,606	48,737
66.S38	77,222
51,338	58,943
1,921	1,442
56,426	40,985
153	220
997,581	1,226,774
208	156
118	144
9,352	6,825
40	59
1,645,155	1,837,583
2,872,738	$3,299,092
Five months ended 31 August, 1917.
Bush.	Value.
808	$ 2,017
4,365	7,952
7,940	16,486
6,636	13,709
33	60
596	996
2,202	5,146
166,019	325,111
45	113
* 549	1,189
1,136,366	1,941,638
1,325,559	$2,314,417
I have computed the duty upon potatoes imported during the periods mentioned. The duty on the potatoes imported in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1917, would amount to $109,371, and, during the five months ended August 31, 1917, $86,227, a total of about $200,000.
You will see that during the last fiscal year out of 568,170 bushels of potatoes imported, <>67,759 bushels came from the United States. Practically the whole of our import, therefore, is from the United States. During the first five months of this year, out of a total of 431,139 bushels imported, 431,119 bushels came from the United States. That is to say, with the exception of 20 bushels, all the potatoes imported into Canada during this fiscal year came from the United States. When you come to the exports, the proportion is nearly the same, except in the case of Cuba. We exported to Cuba last year practically a million bushels of potatoes, of a value of $1,225,000, and during the first five months of this year we exported 166,000 bushels valued a.t$325,000. To the United States we exported 1,645,155 bushels valued at $1,837,583 during the last fiscal year, and during the first five months of the present fiscal year 1,136,366 bushels valued at $1,941,638. A considerable proportion of the exports that I have mentioned would be of the crop of 1915, hut a very large proportion would be out of the crop of 1916. We are safe in saying, therefore, that considerably over 2,000,000 bushels of potatoes were exported from Canada to the United States last year-it would probably come nearer 2,500,000 bushels.
Mr. EDWARDS:: Can my hon. friend say
how much of that was from eastern and how much was from western Canada?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I have not the figures. I telephoned the Commissioner of Customs to-day and I am giving the statement as I have it. I am satisfied, however, that practically the whole of that export would be from the eastern portion of Quebec, and tlie Maritime Provinces.


Martin Burrell: Quite a lot from the
West.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There may be some from British Columbia.


Martin Burrell: And Alberta.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There would be nothing
from Ontario last year.


John Wesley Edwards: There was a shortage m Ontario and a surplus, I understand, in the Prairie Provinces.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have tried to get the data, but have failed; I am giving the House the information that I have. A very large percentage of this business must have come from the Maritime Provinces and eastern Quebec. No portion of Canada has made such tremendous strides in the production of potatoes as the province of Quebec from Levis eastward, and, to some extent, westward. It is wonderful what the people of Quebec are doing, especially on the southern bank of the St. Lawrence river from Levis all the way to the Gaspe peninsula.
We know that practically all the potatoes that are imported into Canada come in the early summer, before our potatoes are available. So.that the duty of $200,000 that we pay on potatoes imported into Canada is paid at a time when we are compelled to import new potatoes because none of our own are available.
When you consider that those are the prices of the exporting country, and add to

that the cost of transportation and the cost of two or three profits, you will find that, by the time you get the potatoes to the consumer, instead of the cost of those potatoes being increased by $200,000, the increase as a result of that duty will be nearer $400,000. Those early potatoes are consumed very largely by people who are able to buy and pay for them, so that the increased price of them does not impose a hardship upon the ordinary labouring man that would be imposed by increased prices of many other articles through increased duties. It, however, greatly increases the cost of living in Canada under present conditions.	[DOT]
I wish to direct the attention of the House particularly to the question of the export of potatoes. In New Brunswick our farmers are raising, not a few hundred bushels but thousands of barrels. Many farmers in my constituency last year raised from 1,000 to 3,000 and 4,000 barrels each -we reckon our potatoes altogether by barrels instead of by bushels. Therefore, when you add a small amount of ten cents, or fifteen cents, or twenty cents a bushel, you have made a wonderful change in the income of the farmer. The duty on potatoes going into the United States is ten per cent ad valorem. If potatoes are worth $2 per barrel, as they are in New Brunswick today, and we send them over to the United States, if everything went properly, we would pay twenty cents a barrel for the purpose of getting those potatoes into the United States; or in other words, the farmer would get twenty cents a barrel more than he can possibly receive under present conditions. That is the way in which it works out. I am not going to argue now whether the importer or the exporter pays the duty, because that very largely depends upon the special conditions existing regarding each particular transaction, but so far as we in the Maritime Provinces are concerned, there is not any question about the matter-the Canadian farmer pays the duty. I live within ten miles of the boundary line and our farmers live up and down along that line, and potatoes are being raised on both sides of it. In Aroostook you will find that potatoes are worth the value of potatoes on our side of the line plus the duty. There i's no use in making any argument about the matter; those are the facts. A man can argue as mucn as he chooses, but those who go into the Maritime Provinces and get to know what they are speaking about would not listen to him.


Mr. MORPHY:: What is your market, and how are your potatoes transported?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Our potatoes in New Brunswick-go practically altogether to New England points, and they go almost wholly by rail. Potatoes from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are carried by water to a great extent. In Nova Scotia, a limited trade has been carried on for many years, but that with the West Indian islands trade is only a bagatelle as compared with the trade with the United States. We hav.>, however, a big trade with Cuba, and that goes partly by water and partly by rail.
I am satisfied, if you investigate the details of the returns, you will find that a great proportion of the potatoes sent to Cuba last year, which came from my constituency and along the river St. John, were shipped by rail to Boston and from Boston to Cuba by water. That is the ordinary route of travel. I have one client and constituent who last year, to my knowledge, sold considerably over $100,009 worth of potatoes to Cuba alone and they all went by rail to Boston and thence by steamer. I have another client ^id constituent who must have handled $50,000 worth of potatoes in the same market, and from my knowledge, I believe a large pro-[DOT] portion of those potatoes came from New Brunswick. I find that during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1917, and the first five months of this year, we have sent to the United States about $3,800,000 worth of potatoes upon which we have paid a duty of 10 per cent, or $380,000. We have simply contributed that amount of monev to the revenues of the United States. In addition to that, we have sent to Cuba over $1,500,000 worth of potatoes, practically all of which went through American ports. If the duty were removed from potatoes going into the United States, we would save the duty on that portion as well, because the United States have a preferential treaty with Cuba-that is, potatoes from the United States can be sent into Cuba at a lower rate of duty than potatoes coming from any other part of the continent. If potatoes werd made free into the United States, of course our potatoes would all go to the United States and none of them direct to Cuba, they would be exported to the United States and then when they were properly in that country they could he sold to Cuba or wherever the buyers chose to send them. The result would 'he that all the potatoes going to Cuiba, as well as to the United States, would go free of duty, and that

would mean, on -the figures I have given, about $500,000 of extra money in the pockets of the people of New Brunswick.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What advantage does the hon. gentleman find in shipping potatoes to Boston? Is there an increased price to any extent, and what is it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is an increased price and an increased market. Last year' potatoes reached an exorbitant, outrageous price.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: But in an average year?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not take last year as a guide, because when farmers are getting $6 or $7 a barrel for potatoes they have no cause to complain of tariff regulations or regulations of any other kind. I am dismissing that from my argument, and I am trying to discuss the matter under ordinary conditions.


Mr. WRIGHT:: What is the difference in quantity and value between the potatoes exported from Canada to the United States and the potatoes imported from the United States into Canada?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is very great. Take the year ended March, 1917, and the first five months of this year. During that period we imported from the United States 1,000,000 Ibushels, and we exported to the United States about 2,800,000 'bushels. You would have to add to that, if you want to get a real understanding of what the difference would be in case the duty were removed, the quantity of potatoes which we sent to Cuba and which would amount to 1,150,000 bushels. I am speaking in round figures. Therefore, the quantity of our export to the United States would be easily four times the quantity of our imports.


William Wright: That would be for last year, not for an average year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am taking last year
and the first five months of this year. Prior to 1916 very few of these were sent to the United States, because after the passing of the Underwood tariff, under which potatoes were practically free-there was only a ten per cent ad valorem duty-certain very shrewd Yankees who live about forty or fifty miles from my home conceived the idea of throwing mud at the Canadian potatoes by claiming that they were afflicted with a disease known as powdery scab. It was all a myth; there never .was any powdery scab, but just the ordinary scab that we have seen on potatoes ever since we were
children. But these gentlemen scared their Government and our Government and everybody else, and I think I am safe in saying that it cost this Government almost $100,000 to fight the disease. Regulations and a rigid inspection were put in force and it was almost imposible for us to ship our potatoes across the line. But last year, when the United States wanted our potatoes, they did 'not bother very much about powdery scab or about regulations ana inspection. They wanted our potatoes' and were glad to get them. So last year would be the first in a great many years when trade flowed freely without any unnatural barriers. I admit that the valuation is very, very far in excess of what the same volume of business would amount to in an ordinary year.
Coming back to the question put by the Minister of Agriculture, I stated that according to the reports- furnished by the department practically a million bushels of potatoes were imported in the two years I have been discussing. We exported in the same period to the United States about
2,800,000	bushels, and to Cuba 1,500,000 bushels. Altogether we exported practically
4,000,000 bushels. So far as I know, the regulations regarding powdery scab and inspection and all that sort of thing are not being adhered to at the present time, and trade flows as freely as it naturally can, except for the duty. The United States customs authorities fix an arbitrary figure in arriving at the valuation. As I understand it, they do not take the invoice price of each carload of potatoes, but place an arbitrary figure upon potatoes from a certain area. At the present time that arbitrary figure for the Maritime Provinces is $3 a barrel, Actually our farmers are only getting $2 a barrel. The result is that under their method of assessing the duty is increased by fifty per cent,. With that exception, .trade is flowing as ,it naturally would under ordinary conditions.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What justification is there for them doing that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not complaining. It is a regulation of the United States Government, and I suppose they have their own reasons for it. I do not mean for a moment to -say that they are doing it to be unneighbourly, or anything of that kind.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What does our Government do in return?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know. I only happen to know this because a few days ago

I received a letter from an organization in New Brunswick, known as the New Brunswick Potato Exchange, who are really the greatest potato dealers in Canada, pointing this out to me, and wanting to 10 p.m. know if something could not be done to remedy it. The result of this method of determining the duty by the United States is that we pay a great deal more than we really should. *
I would not attempt to say what the surplus in the United States will be this year, but I know it will be very large. As regards Canada, I have been told by gentlemen interested in the business that, without taking the Maritime Provinces at all, the surplus in Canada will be six or seven million bushels. If that toe true, it is perfectly safe to say that we shall have a surplus in Canada of at least 10,000,000 bushels, because in the maritime province alone I think we shall have a surplus of about
5.000.	000 or 6,000,000 'bushels. So if I am right in the information I have received- and if I am not the minister can correct me-the surplus this year will be easily
10.000.	000 bushels. In other years, when there has been a shortage of potatoes in Quebec and Ontario, we have been able to ship out potatoes there, tout when there is no shortage in Quebec and Ontario, we have no market for- our potatoes except the United States. Let me give the House an illustration of what that means. In the spring of 1915, there were, I think I am safe in saying, from half a million to a million bushels of potatoes sold in New Brunswick at 15 cents a bushel, and tens of thousands of bushels were thrown on the dump because there was not stock enough to eat them up. The reason for this condition was that there was no demand for potatoes in Quebec and Ontario, and we were debarred by the regulations from sending our potatoes to the United States. The House can readily see the importance of having the United States -market open to us. If the provinces of Quebec and Ontario want potatoes, we have them for them, but if they do not want them, unless we can sell to the United States or Cuba, we have absolutely no market and are in exactly the same position we were in in the spring of 1915.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Do the farmers of New-Brunswick make potatoes their -sole production?
M. OARVELI.:	I am sorry to say that
they do, to -a greater extent than they ought to. I know for a fact that one of my con-

stituents made $20,000-and this was clear profit-from forty acres of land.


Mr. HANNA:: That was an exception.
Mr. CitRVELL: I admit that if the price of potatoes was always the same as last year's price, I would not be arguing for a remission of duty or anything else,- but would be asking the Food Controller to "get busy as quickly as he could. But this year, as I said before, there is an enormous surplus in Ontario and in the West and in the East, and unless we have access to the United States market we cannot -sell our product. Fortunately, we have access now, but we are compelled to pay ten per cent duty. As I pointed out it really means 15 per cent because of the way the value is assessed. If bon. gentlemen will look at the United States tariff of 1913 they will find the free list starting at item 387. Item 581, page 54, deals with potatoes, and is as follows:
5S1. Potatoes, and potatoes dried, desiccated, or otherwise prepared, not specially provided for In this section: provided that any of the foregoing specified articles shall be subject to a duty of ten per centum ad valorem when imported directly or indirectly from a country, dependency, or rather subdivision of government which imposes a duty on such articles imported from the United States.
In other words, potatoes are free unless they come from a country which imposes a duty upon potatoes coming from- the United States, in- which case the duty is ten per -cent ad valorem. The section of the United *States tariff dealing with wheat, item 644, is as follows:	,
644. Wheat, wheat flour, semolina, and other wheat products, not specially provided for in this section: provided that wheat shall be subject to a duty of 10 cents per bushel, that wheat flour shall be subject to a duty of 45 cents per barrel of 196 pounds, and semolina and other products of wheat, not specially provided for in this section, ten per centum ad valorem when imported directly or indirectly fro.m a country, dependency, or other subdivision of government which imposes a duty on wheat or wheat flour or semolina imported from the United States.
It will be seen, therefore, that the latter part of these two clauses are identical. The law was made exactly the same regarding wheat, wheat products, semolina, and potatoes. Under the W-ar Measures Act, - as hon. members are well aware, during the recess of the present session of Parliament, and only three or four days before Parliament re-assem-bled, the Government passed an Order in Council placing wheat, wheat flour, and semolina on the free list. I ishall not go into that -question again, because

it has already been discussed in the House. At the same 'time I think I have .a right to argue, and I am sure no hon. gentleman will disagree with me, that having ithe right to do-this with wheat and wheat products, they have the same right with regard to potatoes. Therefore, it comes down to a question of policy. The law is there and the machinery is there. All it needs is a simple Order in Council which may be passed in ten minutes at any time, and potatoes can be made free.
If they are made free coming into Canada, we can send our surplus product into the United States free of duty. As I pointed out during the last year and a half this has meant a tax paid by the people of my province, -and very largely of my constituency, amounting to about half a million dollars. This year we [DOT]shall be in a much worse shape than we were last year, because we must sell our potatoes to the United States and Cuba, as there is no ouher market for us. What I want the Government to do, and what in my judgment they should do, as a matter of fair-handed justice is: treat us the same as they treated the West, pass an Order in Council removing the duty on potatoes coming into Canada, ard automatically you will remove the duty on potatoes going into the United States from Canada. Then, if another year the 'Government, whoever they may be, feel that conditions have changed and that it is not in the best interests of the country to retain potatoes on the free list, all they have to do is to repeal the Order in Council and the law comes back automatically to what it is at the present time. I am not asking the House or the Government to amend the Tariff Act. I am simply asking that as a measure of justice to my constituents during the present season-and the crop is being harvested now- an Order in Council be passed, placing us in >a position to send our product to our only market, and T&aliae therefore the best price available. I think that with the quantity of potatoes in the Maritime Provinces to-day, which must be sent to the United States and Cuba-which for the purpose of my argument is the same thing- it will mean at least $400,000 that we would save which otherwise will have to go into the coffers of the United States. This is a lot of money, and means a great deal to the farmers of eastern Canada.
I do not think I have anything further to say upon the subject. I have tried to discuss it in a fair, non-partisan and business-like manner. I have pointed out the conditions existing, I have pointed out the
law as -it is, and lindicated the remedy. I simply ask the Government to give us the remedy for the present year. You need not change the Tariff Act. I sincerely hope the Government will take these representations into consideration, not within the next month or six weeks, but immediately, and will pass the necessary Order in -Council so -that our people may get the best price possible for their product. We shall have no market in Ontario, in Quebec, or anywhere else except in- the United States and -Cuba, barring, of course, a few thousand bushels-a mere bagatelle-that go to the West Indies.


John Wesley Edwards: Last year when the potato crop became a somewhat serious question in the province of Ontario, I obtained some figures in regard to the production of that very important vegetable, which figures I would like to submit for the consideration of the House. Potatoes -are entirely different from wheat. What I mean by that is I do not think the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) is quite logical in saying that inasmuch as the Government removed the duty from wheat and wheat products, they should for the same reason remove the duty on potatoes. Wheat will keep from one year to the next; potatoes must, practically speaking, be disposed of in the year they are grown; they will not keep indefinitely. The price of wheat is not fixed in Canada, hut in Great Britain. This is not the case with potatoes, the price of which is regulated by the supply on this side of the Atlantic. I think my hon. friend also -makes a mistake in assuming that the only market the Maritime Provinces will have for their potatoes is in the United States and Cuba. I think he is mistaken in assuming they will have a market for their surplus potatoes in the United 'States, Let us look at the figures of tbe production of this v-ery important article for the years 1915 and 1916, and compare the production in those two years.
In 1915 the total yield of potatoes in Canada was 62,604,000 bushels. In 1916 it was only 61,128,000 bushels, or a decrease of
1.476.000	bushels. Let us see where that shoitage took place. It did not take place in the Maritime Provinces. Prince Edward Island produced 2,828,000 bushels more in 1916 than in 1915; Nova Scotia produced
2.185.000	bushels more than in 1915; and New Brunswick 1,716,000 bushels more than in 1915. That is to say, the Maritime Provinces in 1916 showed an increased production over 1915 of 6,729,000 bushels of potatoes. The province of Ontario, how-

ever, in 1916 showed a shortage of 6,250,000 bushels from the production of the previous year; while Quebec showed a shortage of
2.800.000	bushels. Thus the shortage in Ontario and Quebec more than overbalanced the increased production in the three Maritime provinces. Under normal conditions Quebec and Ontario should have supplied a market for the over-production of the Maritime Provinces. Let us look at the production in the West. Manitoba showed an increased production in 1916 over 1915 of
1.600.000	bushels, and Saskatchewan an increase of 850,000 bushels, while Alberta showed a shortage of 500,000 bushels and British Columbia a shortage of 1,100,000 bushels, as compared with the previous year. In other words, Ontario and Quebec together showed a decrease from the previous year's production of over 9,000,000 bushels; the western provinces showed an increase over the production of the previous year of 850,000 bushels; while the Maritime Provinces showed an increase of 6,729,000 bushels. We were in the position, in Ontario, and in Quebec to a lesser extent, of having a very great shortage in a very important crop. Ordinarily we would have been helped out in Ontario by the Quebec crop, which as a rule is quite large. We did not have an opportunity to bring potatoes from the western provinces, although they showed, some increase.
The United States in 1916 showed a shortage of 75,000,000 bushels from the previous year. There seemed to be a general shortage on this continent except in the Maritime Provinces and one or two western provinces. In England there was a shortage of 13,250,000 bushels; in Ireland, a great potato producing country, a shortage of over 47,000,000 bushels; and in Scotland a shortage of over 6,500,000 bushels; while the potato crop was also short in Italy and. Switzerland. Totalling the figures, we find a shortage in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom in 1916 as compared with that of 1915 of 153,000,000 bushels. Consequently for any surplus that we had in the western provinces or in the Maritime Provinces we had' a very serious competitor in the United States. There was a shortage throughout the United States, and consequently a demand for potatoes from any source. Taking one year with another, the nineteen northern states, the principal potato producing states of the Union, produce over 60 per cent of the crop of potatoes in the United States. But they fell away below the average in 1916-some 44 per 
cent-and more than 50 per cent below the average of the previous five years.
Let us consider this for a moment. The situation in Ontario last fall was this: There was a great shortage of potatoes here and the prices went up rapidly. I could have bought all the potatoes I wanted about potato digging time in the fall for $2 a bag. But, like every person else, I thought that price was pretty high; it was a great d al higher than we had been accustomed to paying in Ontario, and people held back and did not put in a supply. The cold weather came on and we could not bring potatoes from the Maritime Provinces or from the West without risk of frost and the price went up out of sight. That explains the high price of potatoes in Ontario ana Quebec last year.
My hon. friend seems to think- and I do not wish to question his sincerity in the matter-that the solution of the difficulty, so far as the Maritime Provinces ate concerned, is the removal of duty so that potatoes may pass readily from the United States into Canada or from Canada intr the United States. I do not agree in that conclusion. I recognize that the potato crop in the Maritime Provinces is a very important crop, and I suppose that if the potato growers in the Maritime Provinces were making an average of $500 an acre, ot a clear profit of $20,000 on every forty acres of potatoes, they would not do much grumbling whether they had a duty or not. I do not suppose the hon. member wants us to infer that they are making that on the average. I will admit that in the ordinary year there will be little prospect of Maritime Province potatoes coming in any great quantity into the province of Quebec.
There will be a greater market in Ontario than in Quebec. I know that Maritime Province potatoes have come into Ontario for years and years, I think to a larger extent than into Quebec, because we raise less potatoes in Ontario than they do in Quebec.' But, in view of the fact that they have just as good soil for raising potatoes in the United States as we have in Canada, and that the principal potato producing states in the Union are the Northern States, which produce over 60 per cent of the total output of that country, taking one year with another, where is there going to be any relief? If we happen to have a shortage in Ontario and Quebec, as we had last year, there will be just as good a market in Ontario and Quebec for Maritime Province potatoes as in the United States. If there happens to be a shortage in the United

States, potatoes will go that way. On the other .hand, in the United States, where, taking one year with the other, they have invariably a very large surplus-up in the millions of bushels-if the barriers are taken down, the potatoes will go from the United States into the Maritime Provinces, or other provinces of Canada, where ordinarily the Maritime Provinces would be looking for a market.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We raise a surplus of potatoes in the Maritime Provinces.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would be "carrying coals to Newcastle."


John Wesley Edwards: If you say there will be no market fot United States in the Maritime Provinces because you have more than you require, I say that, taking one year with another, the United States have more than they require for their own use, and taking potatoes to the United States will be "carrying coals to Newcastle." If the argument holds in one case it will hold good in the other. If the production of potatoes in the United States is chiefly confined to the Northern States, you have your competitors right at your door. Taking one year with another, there is a large surplus of potatoes in the United States. They are looking for a market. They ship their potatoes to ail parts of the world, wherever they can find a market for them The position is somewhat similar in regard to hay. You will see a great difference in the price of hay, sometimes a dollar or two a ton, within a distance of a hundred miles. There will be a remarkable difference in the quotations at Toronto and the quotations at Guelph. Locality cuts a bigger figure in fixing the price of potatoes than anything you can name. In various parts of Ontario the price of potatoes varies greatly. Potatoes were selling at $4 a bag in Kingston when you could buy all you wanted in Pembroke for $2.75 or $3 a bag, and Pembroke is only a short distance away. But they happened t< have a very good crop in that locality There will not be the relief the hon. gentleman anticipates from the removal of the duty.
The hon. gentleman may say "what objection have you? If it is not going to be much of a relief it is not going to be much of a damage." That is a fair argument, but my main objection is a question of principle. I think if we accede to the demand from one section of the country, for instance from the Maritime Provinces, in regard to potatoes, another section of the country will make a demand in regard to some product which abounds in that section. I do not think that is a good practice to follow. I maintain that we have to take into consideration climatic conditions. The climate of this country and the climate of the country with which we have to deal have to be considered. Our farmers are handicapped in this time of world competition because we compete with countries thousands of miles away which formerly we did not consider rivals. We must take into consideration the climate of Argentina, for instance, and the climate of certain parts of the United States, if we are going to be true to our own people. 1 say it is not a proper principle to enunciate that we should have free trade with this country, or free trade with that country. It might be all right, if conditions were alike in other respects, but the tariff is a means to a certain extent, of equalizing conditions which are rendered unequal because of a rigorous climate in one case and a mild climate in another. In Ontario and Quebec we have to provide against the frost, whereas our competitors to the south of us do not have that expense, by reason of the mildness of their climate. I do not think there will be anything like the relief the hon. member anticipates by making potatoes free, and I think it is introducing a dangerous principle.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Garvell) deserves a great deal of credit for bringing this question to the notice of the House and askina the Government to take some action immediately to relieve the situation in the Maritime' provinces. We in the Maritime provinces-and I speak more particularly for Prince Edward Island-did not feel the necessity for a market in the United States during the pa.st two years for our potatoes but conditions this year are such that there is practically no other market for the surplus product of the Maritime provinces. We either have to sell in the United States, or not sell at all, because potatoes are not wanted in Ontario, or in the western provinces, or in any part of Quebec. A small quantity may, and probably will, be wanted in Newfoundland, but only a small proportion of what we have to dispose of, and, therefore, the market of the United States is the only market we have in the universe.
There is a market in that- country for our surplus potatoes-not at a high price this

. year, but at some price, 'because 90,000,000 or 100,000,000 people consume an enormous quantity of potatoes. I believe that the crop in the United -States this year is estimated at about 420,000,000 bushels. The member for Carleton estimates-I think his estimate is low-that we shall have a surplus crop in Canada of 10,000,000 bushels. There will be a surplus crop of 6,000,000 or.
7,000,000 in the Maritime Provinces, 3,000,000 of which will be produced in Prince Edward Island. Of course, we can feed some of this surplus crop to the stock, but there is not enough stock to consume anything like the whole of it. The crop this year will be as good as that of last year, when we had a splendid market in Ontario, in some parts of Quebec and in the United States. Ontario seldom takes any considerable quantity of potatoes from the Maritime Provinces, at any rate from Prince Edward Island; ordinarily they produce almost enough for themselves. In order to produce potatoes or any other commodity successfully, a steady market is much more necessary than a market that may give a high price one year and an exceedingly low price the next two or three years. That is one reason why the market of the United States, so far as potatoes are concerned, is so valuable to the farmers of the Maritime Provinces. When the importing country is very short of the product imported and must get it at any price, the importer pays a large portion of the duty. But when conditions in a country like the United States are such as they are this year; when they have a large crop and do not find it necessary to import our potatoes, then the exporter pays the duty on potatoes sent into that country. Why is it that we can find a market in the United States for our surplus potatoes? Because of the fact that eight or ten million bushels of potatoes more or less will make no appreciable difference in a country which has a crop of over 400,000,000 bushels. The United States market will not be greatly affected by our surplus potatoes being sent into that country; therefore they can take our surplus produce, at some price.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And they are taking it.


James Joseph Hughes: And they are taking it; as a matter of fact it is the only place to which we can ship our potatoes at this time. The farmers of Prince Edward Island will get a very low price for their potato crop this year, no matter what the Government may do, and an addition of five or six cents a bushel to the price that they would otherwise get would be of immense benefit

to them. A few days ago I happened to be in Boston and, talking to some potato buyers there, I noticed that in figuring up the price that they could pay for potatoes, they invariably deducted the duty. I do not see any reason why the Government should refuse'to grant the concession asked for on behalf of the farmers of the Maritime provinces. In the month of April last the Government by their provision for free wheat, gave the farmers of the West access to the United States market for that staple product. Every body admits that that was a great advantage to the western farmer; it was asked for by representative men from western Canada, grain growers and other bodies, as well as members of Parliament representing that part of the country. The right to send wheat and wheat products into the United States free of duty must be of great advantage to the people of this country, otherwise these strong representations would not have been made in favour of (government action. Why, then, does the Government hesitate to act now? I trust that the Government will not hesitate further; I do not think that on principle they can reasonably do so. They should not hesitate to relieve the farmers of eastern Canada and the maritime provinces of the payment into the United States treasury of at least 5400,000. I am satisfied that the removal of. the duty upon potatoes entering the United States this year would mean $150,000 to the farmers of Prince Edward Island.


John Wesley Edwards: Does my hon. friend contend that the maritime province farmer pays the duty imposed by the United States if he sends his potatoes into that country?


James Joseph Hughes: I certainly do, under present conditions. The member for Carleton stated most emphatically that the difference between the price of potatoes in New Brunswick and the price of potatoes in Maine, across the boundary line, is simply the amount of the duty.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am a potato grower
myself, and I keep in close touch with matters of this kind. I say most emphatically that there never was a time during the last two or three years-during the last five years, for that matter-when potatoes in the State of Maine, ten miles from my home, were not worth more than potatoes in my country just to the extent of the duty. Even when potatoes were worth $7 a barrel in my town, they were worth $7.70 to $8 a barrel ten miles away in the State of Maine. No matter whether the price is

high or low, the difference between the price in the State of Maine and the price in the county of Carleton is simply the amount of the duty.


William Wright: Is it not a fact that my hon. friend and others on his side of the House have constantly argued that when products are imported from the State of Maine into Montreal and other parts of Quebec, the consumer invariably pays the duty, and that if they go the other way the exporter pays the duty? Hon. gentlemen are advancing a double-barrelled argument.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have not the right to
argue the matter now, but I have stated upon a pretty good business knowledge of the facts what the condition is as it exists to-day in regard to the marketing of our own potato crop.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member for Carleton has answered tne question proposed by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) and the question proposed by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright). I stated in the early part of my remarks-I think the hon. member for Frontenac was not paying attention-that, under the conditions we had last year when potatoes were a necessity in the United States, when the crop there was exceedingly small as compared with the crop in Canada, when they had to get potatoes almost at any price, they paid the duty; but under present conditions, when they are under no necessity whatever of importing our potatoes and when we are under the necessity of sending our potatoes into the United States if we are to sell them at all, I believe we take the price less the duty; that is, we pay the duty.


John Wesley Edwards: That is, when they have more potatoes of their own than they want


James Joseph Hughes: More than they want, but not more than they can use.


John Wesley Edwards: That is what your argument comes to.


James Joseph Hughes: That is a matter that my hon. friends can convert into an academic question if they want to do so, but at the present time we are up against a condition arid not a theory. The United States is the only country in the world in which we can dispose of our surplus product this year. My hon. friend from Frontenac stated a few moments ago that w'e should not expect a market in the United States for potatoes for the reason that the nineteen northern
States constitute a large potato growing area which is very similar in climatic and soil conditions to the Maritime Provinces-I think that was his argument. Straitway however, he claimed that we could get a market in Ontario whose climatic and other conditions are surely more like those of the Maritime Provinces than are those of the United States. There is a good deal of similarity between the northern States and Canada in regard to soil and climatic conditions, but the rorthern States of the United States find a market for their surplus product in those southern States that do not produce sufficient potatoes for their own use. The need thus created by the sending of potatoes from the northern States to the South leaves a market for our potatoes in the northern States.
Reference was made by the hon. member for Carleton to the embargo placed by the United States upon our potatoes in 1913 when the Government of that country thought our potatoes were diseased.


John Wesley Edwards: Does the hon. member really think they thought that?


James Joseph Hughes: I do.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not. I know personally the men who put up the whole game.


James Joseph Hughes: I hold the Americans w_re justified in so thinking because our Government so informed them. That was more than a mistake on the part of our Government-it was a crime.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend is making rather strong statements which I am afraid he cannot substantiate.


James Joseph Hughes: But I can substantiate
them. In the autumn of 1913, when this matter was being considered at Washington, an officer of the Department of Agriculture attended the conference there and stated that our potatoes had the disease known as powdery scab. The inference, therefore, was that those potatoes should be excluded from the American market, and the Americans took us at our word. The Department of Agriculture sent men called professors to Prince Edward Island. I do not know whether they went to the other Maritime Provinces.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They did go-right into
the cellars.


James Joseph Hughes: Those professors claimed they found a disease there. Events, how-



ev r, have proved that there was no disease. When .those gentlemen who knew the Latin names of plants-and that I am afraid is all they did know-came amongst ns and told uis that our potatoes were greatly infected with powdery scab, we, in our innocence, thought they were telling us facts.


John Wesley Edwards: My horn, friend has
stated that in the fall of 1913, the Department of Agriculture of the Dominion of Canada sent >a man down to Washington, and that at a conference there he told the authorities that our potatoes had the disease known as powdery scab. Will Ihe give us the name of the official .so that we can trace the matter up? I doubt the accuracy of his -statement very much.


James Joseph Hughes: I am not responsible for the fact that my hon. friend doubts the .accuracy of my statement. I am prepared to hear him make such a remark, but I will give him the name of the official, and then, perhaps, he will not be such a doubting Thomas.


John Wesley Edwards: That is the best way to get at it.


James Joseph Hughes: If my hon. friend had asked me for the name without expressing a, doubt as to the accuracy of my statement, it would have been more gentlemanly. The name of that official is Dr. Gussow.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A gentleman who will not have a vote at the next election.


James Joseph Hughes: I was making a few remarks about those gentlemen who came to our province to tell us that we had diseased potatoes. During the last year or two, and particularly during last year, we have not seen one of those professors in that province, and at the same time we have not seen, or heard of powdery scab. The professors took their departure and the powdery scab went at the same time. To illustrate what those gentlemen knew about the business, I think it was in the fall of 1912, fairly late in the season, that two of them visited a farm in Brudenell in which potatoes are largely grown, and they inspected the cellar of Robert Stewart. I am just mentioning the names so that there will be no mistake about the matter. They told him his potatoes were badly diseased with powdery scab; that under no circumstances should he use them for seed, and that if he did so, he would not only ruin his own farm but greatly injure all the farms in the neighbourhood; The next year two

other potato professors came along and this time they came in the month of September. When they visited us in the previous year the potatoes were all dug and in the root houses*or in the cellars. On this occasion, they inspected the fields. Mr. Stewart had paid no attention to the two professors who visited him in 1912. He knew there was no disease in his potatoes more than there had been for forty years. He planted the same seed. The next year when these other two gentlemen, came there, they gave him a clean Bill of health. They said that his was the only farm in the neighbourhood that had no disease.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Were those two professors the same men that visited the place the year before?


James Joseph Hughes: No-two other professors. I think it was in the fall of 1913 two gentlemen came to the province and I remember their names. They were Prof. Adams and Prof. Holmes or Holmden. Professor Adams came from Ireland, and knew all about powdery scab and diseased potatoes generally. He led off by telling the farmers what caused the disease, and among other things mentioned that a moist climate and lime in the soil were both favourable to the disease. He said that the disease would likely be prevalent in Prince Edward Island owing to our damp climate, but the fact of there being no lime in our soil was in our favour. The next professor who came to the platform told the assembled farmers how to eradicate the .disease if they were unfortunate enough to have it. It was a difficult thing to eradicate, he said. If a farmer crossed a field of potatoes that were infected with powdery scab, and did not scrape the soil off his boots when he left the field, he would likely carry the disease to another field. He must not use in any other field a plough or a harrow or any other implement that had been used in a field where there was powdery scab. He must stop growing potatoes on that land for five, or six, or seven years. One way of preventing the disease was to spray the root houses, or the places where the potatoes were stored, with a solution of formaldehyde. If that could not be obtained, the next best thing was to sprinkle the cellars and the outhouses with a lime whitewash, washing the ceilings with lime and water. I was present at the meeting and asked him how lime in the soil could produce the disease, and lime in the cellar kill it. He said he would answer that question the next evening, but the next evening he was

thirty miles away. I was there, however, and asked him the same question, and he said- that the chairman should not allow questions of that kind to be put, but only nice, easy questions. These and many other incidents that I could mention so disgusted the farmers with the professors who came to enlighten them that they absolutely refused to listen to them. Fortunately, hone of those gentlemen have visited us for the last year or two. I do not know whether these professors are still in the department or what they are doing, but if the minister has no use for them, I would suggest that he send them to the war. He has not sent them to our province for the last year or two, and the people are very much pleased in consequence.
The point I wish to bring to the minister's attention is this: it is of the very greatest importance that under present conditions every obstacle to the free entry of our surplus potatoes this year to the United States should be removed. The Government can remove all obstacles by an Order in Council taking the duty off American potatoes coming into Canada, and if it is found desirable to revoke that Order in Council next year it could be done, but I do not believe it would be done. It is a most important thing for the people of the Maritime Provinces, and particularly for the farmers of Prince Edward Island, to have free access to the United States market for their surplus potatoes. Prince Edward Island is admirably adapted for growing potatoes. We have a friable, loamy soil, easily drained, no extremes of heat or cold, and an abundance o.f sea manure in the bays and rivers obtainable without money cost by fifty per cent of our farmers. It is the most profitable crop our farmers have, and the farmer himself is the best judge of that. There is no industry to which he will so readily give his labour as the growing of potatoes, provided he is reasonably certain of a fair price every year, and that, I maintain, can only be assured by having free access, or as nearly as possible, to the American market. I sincerely trust the Government will carefully consider this matter in the light of present conditions. If they will only treat the farmers of the Maritime Province in the same 11 p.m. way that they have treated the farmers in the prairie provinces, if they will only give us the same chance, we shall be satisfied.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE (St. James, Montreal) (Translation):: 

A COMEDY WHICH IS BECOMING DIGUSTING.

[Stage Direction]
The general clamour against the food dictator is still increasing; that outcry rises from the suffering masses who have not, unconsciously or unwillingly, been protected against the odious speculations of which they are the victims, as much if not more than ever before. And the Government who has appointed Mr. Hanna is, naturally held responsible for the inertness of its own creature. It is no longer a feeling of ordinary discontent, it is one of wrath, of that popular wrath provoked by badly kept or discarded promises, by deluded expectations, by indefinitely tolerated extortions, by an unbridled debauchery of forestalling, by , the impudent arrogance of the trusts directly ' or indirectly encouraged, by the deplorable manner of proceeding on the part of the food dictatorship, that seems solely, engrossed in preserving for speculation the most needed alimentary articles, without any concern whether, tomorrow, the working man, at home, will not starve, or whether the small-salaried people will not die of starvation, on account of not being able to get the food they need.
Threatens to resign.
Mr. Hanna is being censured even by members of his advisory staff. Thus it is that Alderman Weldon, who represents the city of Montreal upon the consultative board of the food dictator, is not afraid to publicly declare that his office is more honorary than honourable, and that he will promptly offer his resignation, if he is not very soon given an opportunity to help along his fellow-citizens and his country. He does not consider that the food control, such as it is now operating, is actually helpful nor efficient. It acts far too slowly, without any appreciable result for the consumer.
The workingmen are deceived.
On his part, Commissioner Ainey declares that Mr. Hanna's inertness is to be regretted. When the Montreal Trades and Labour Council asked for the appointment of a dictator, it was in order that the latter, not only regulate the export conditions and the food distribution, but also that he should fix prices in such a way as to put a check on the unbridled speculation of
[Stage Direction]
the profiteers. The workingmen have teen deceived in their legitimate expectations.
A deadly trick.
Commissioner Cot6 qualifies the food dictator's appointment as a "deadly trick," whilst in public meetings, in Montreal, the Government is charged with becoming the accomplice of the speculators and of the profiteers, letting. Mr. Hanna starve the people, while prices are on the rise and foodstuffs are being hoarded in the cold storage warehouses.
An odious accumulation.
The public are justified in demanding that the foodstuff prices be regulated, especially so when they are imposing upon them restrictions from which they are already suffering enough on account of the excessive prices exacted from them for articles of prime necessity. What occult power is there to prevent Mr. Hanna from doing his duty, or what are the influences that cause him to hesitate between the protection the consumers are entitled to and the speculators' interests? The Order in Council which has appointed him dictator, gives him full power to investigate the prices of provisions and also to regulate them; what use is there for him to preach us the great principle of demand and supply, when he knows that this economic. equilibrium has ceased to exist, ever since the beginning of the war, that it has been destroyed by the very people who are making a greater show of it in order to impose upon us more odiously. Is it reasonable, for instance, to pay bacon fifty cents a pound, in cider that Mr. Flavelle may realize, in 1917, the enormous gain of $1,397,903, when such profits had seemed satisfactory, in 1913, when they were $16,326? Why does Mr. Hanna allow the hoarding of foodstuffs in the profiteers' cold storage plants, when the prices are always going up? On the 1st of September, indeed, 130 cold storage plants, throughout the country, contained 14,948,540 dozen of eggs; 20,480,809 lbs of butter; 19,693,704 lbs of cheese; 14,2i5,-677 lbs of beef; 29,989,515 lbs of pork; 14,019,243 lbs of lard; leaving out mutton, lamb, fish and poultry, of which large quantities will be lost through the fact of not marketing them in time.
I have already stated, when I began these remarks, the quantities of pork hoarded in these establishments.
During the same time, the food dictator puts on the salaried lists specialists in domestic economy to prepare bills of fare for our housewives, when the greater part of the foods set down on these menus are inaccessible to ordinary purses, and are no longer, on account of their exorbitant cost, to be seen on the table of a large number of workingmen and of petty employees. Wheat porridge, with milk and sugar, has become a luxury; milk is hardly sufficient for infants' food, when some can be had, and sugar is only used to sweeten the bitter taste of light tea. The ham and eggs which figures on the bill of fare of a "war breakfast" prepared by the domestic economy specialists of the food dictator, is a sort of heart-rending irony, with eggs at 60 cents a dozen and ham at about the same price a pound; it is a pasha's dish. And what about roast beef, roast veal, pork chops, poached eggs, butter for gravies, marmalades which have doubled in price in less than a year; green peas, the canning of which is forbidden ; onions which are only sold by the
fMr. L. A. Lapointe.]
pound; fruits which cost much dearer than their nutritive value; syrups, which we must give up because it takes sugar to make them, and molasses which has become a luxury.
All these articles, however, are to be found on 'the economic menus of the food dictator, prepared for the benefit of our Canadian housewives, without even attempting to give them a chance to buy at a reasonable price what is needed to make up those bills of fare.
Is such a comedy not becoming most outrageous?
, I have taken much time, Mr. Speaker, but I was anxious to lay such a state of affairs before the eyes of the public, and I shall continue to do so until the end of the session. On that point, I have the support of all those who suffer and Who pay, not . only of the Montreal population, but of the whole of Canada. I contend that this Parliament has not gone far enough to relieve the people on that stand. I say Parliament, for we also, on the Opposition side, have had some faults, but the blame is especially upon the Government side. We have spoken too often, Mr. Speaker, but liave done very little.
We have often heard, for instance, the hon. Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell), the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) and the hon. Minister of Labour .(Mr. Crothers), making fine speeches of economic trend upon this question of high cost of living; all have made nice promises, the whole matter was to be settled. Everything has been settled, that is true, but in the manner described by Mr. Contant, that is to say, every thing has been settled to crosis the ocean. Whether it be the fault of the trusts or of these hoarding cold storage owners, in order to foresee a coming increase in prices, it matters little; for my part, I charge the Government with being the main cause of the evil. They are invested with full authority and they should have done their duty in the difficult circumstances we are going through. They should have done more than appoint a man who does nothing but go to and from Quebec to Toronto, from Toronto to Victoria and from Winnipeg to Vancouver, just to look over reports made by certain people whom he has called upon to check and control certain facts; he does not, however, take the trouble to fix the price of such or such article of foodstuff necessary to mere living. In a word, he is satisfied in doing nothing.
As I have just stated I shall not lose a simple opportunity, from now until the end of the session, even to-morrow perhaps, to draw the Government's attention upon this subject and to communicate to the House

newspaper extracts, in order to open the eyes of the Government upon this question.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Excise-Salaries of officers and inspectors of excise, and to provide for increase depending on the result of excise examinations-further amount required, $25,000.
['I think the minister is very doubtful about it. I admire the optimism of the hon. member for East Lambton, but here we have a peculiar situation. If the Government, who control the majority in the Senate want the General Railway Act to go through, all they have to do is to crack the whip, as they did in the case of the Canadian Northern, the Franchise Bill and sundry other Acts, and the Bill would go through automatically. My hon. friend the leader of the House is an artist about these things, and he knows how to do it, if he would simply exert himself, but he is not exerting himself. He is not applying the same strategy in dealing with the matter as he did in the Canadian Northern Bill. My hon. friend from East Lambton does not realize the resourcefulness of the hon. minister. If he would put the proposition up to the Minister of Finance, and the other ministers, that this Railway Bill should go through the Senate, there would be no necessity for the passage of the Bill now before us. I really think he has not exerted that powerful influence which I am sure he could exert in relation to that important measure.\nBill reported as amended.\nAmendments read the first and second time and concurred in.\nOn motion of Hon. Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.\nWednesday, September 19, 1917.']
Mr. PROULX:: Is there any provision in that for the appointfhent of new officers?


Mr. SEVIGNY:: No, this is for increases only.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 103, an Act concerning the payment of salaries or wages of employees of railway companies. Mr. D. Stewart in the Chair.
Mr. REID. I have a number of amendments to the Railway Act which I wish to insert in this Bill. The object is to have them in the Bill in case the Railway Bill should not pass the Senate. The first amendment is:
Paragraph (e) of clause 34 of section 2 of the said Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
"including any such compensation payable under the provisions of any Act of the Parliament of Canada or of any provincial legislature providing for compensation to workmen for injuries or in respect of an industrial disease."
Mr. GRAHAM:: As I understand it, the sections the minister is asking us to put in this Bill have already passed both Houses.


Mr. REID:: Yes.


George Perry Graham: And would be in the new Railway Act?


John Dowsley Reid: Lf it passes. The intention is just to get this up to third reading, and if we find the Railway Act will not pass the Senate, then we will ask the House to give this the third reading and send it over to the Senate. On the other hand, if the Railway Bill passes the Senate we will not ask* for the third reading of this Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As we are providing in the general Railway Act that any of the provincial laws regarding compensation for workmen's injuries shall apply here, I wish to point out that I had a rather peculiar case in my own practice within the last
week or ten days. A man was killed on the Transcontinental railway under conditions which in my judgment would be negligence on the part of the Government railways. I filed a notice of the accident with the Railway Department, as provided by our statute, and I received a very courteous letter from the department claiming that they were not subject to any laws of the province of New Brunswick regarding compensation, and therefore they returned my notice to me. It seems to me if the ordinary railways of the country are subject to the laws of the province for the protection of workmen, especially in such a serious matter as where a man is killed, such as was the case here, the Government railways should either be liable or should treat the matter as if they were liable.


John Dowsley Reid: In the Railway Act that has passed both Houses that was included was it not?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Government railways were net included in that. The understandr ing was that they were to be included, and then the officials' of the department claimed it would require a separate Bill, .and that Bill has not .been introduced. The Government railways are still under the Government Railways Act. As we are providing for this very case in the Railway Act, it seems, a hardship that the Government railways should not come under the same provision.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree. It is a matter that may have to be taken up next session.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Dowsley Reid: I wish to move, the following
amendments:
Section 50 of the said Act is amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
"But where such regulation, order or decision requires any act, matter or thing to be done for the safety of the public or the employees of the railway no extension shall he granted without hearing on notice."
Subsection 1 of section 246 of the said Act is amended by inserting immediately after the word "maintained," in the third line thereof, the words "along or."
Section 269 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following paragraphs:
"(d) With respect to the length of sections required to be kept in repair by employees of the company, and with respect to the number of employees required for each section, so as to ensure safety to the public and to employees;
"(e) Limiting or regulating the hours of duty of any employees or class or classes of employees, with a view to the safety of the public and of employees; and
"(f) Providing that a specified kind of fuel or a specified kind of power or method or

means of propulsion shall be used on any or all locomotives and trains in any district."
Subsection 2 of section 274 of the said Act is repealed and the following: is substituted therefor:
"(2) Where a municipal bylaw of a city or town prohibits such sounding of the whistle or such ringing of the bell in respect of any such crossing or crossings within the limits of such city or town, such bylaw shall, if approved by an order of the Board to the extent of such prohibition, relieve the company and its employees from the duty imposed by this section."
Subsection 1 of section 276 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
"276. Whenever in any city, town or village, any train not headed by an engine is passing over or along a highway at rail level which is not adequately protected by gates or otherwise, the company shall station on that part of the train, which is then foremost, a person who shall warn persons standing on, or crossing, or about to cross the track of such railway."
Subsection 1 of section 292 of the said Act is amended by adding at the end thereof:
"Any conductors or other employees making a. report to the company of the occurrence of any such accident shall as soon as possible after such accident notify the Board of the same by telegraph."
Section 300 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted1 therefor:
"300. (1) A superior or county court judge, two justices of the peace, or a stipendiary or police magistrate, in any part of Canada, a clerk of the peace, clerk of the Crown or judge of the sessions of the peace In the province of Quebec, within whose jurisdiction the railway runs, may, on the application of the company or any clerk or agent of the company, appoint any persons who are British subjects to act as constables on and along such railway.
"(2) Every person so appointed shall take an oath or make a solemn declaration, which may be administered by any judge or other official authorized to make the appointment or to administer oaths, in the form or to the effect following, that is to say:
'"I, A.B., having been appointed a constable to act upon and along (here name the railway), under the provisions of the Railway Act, do swear that I am a British subject; that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lord the King in the said office of constable, without favour or affection, malice or ill-will; that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept, and prevent all offences against the peace; and that, while I continue to hold the said office, I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge the duties thereof faithfully according to law. So help me God.'
"(3) Such appointment shall be made in writing signed by the official making the appointment, and the fact that the person appointed thereby has taken such oath or declaration shall be endorsed on such written appointment by the person administering such oath or declaration."
Subsection 1 of section 306 of the said Act is amended by striking out the word "one" in the fifth line thereof, and substituting therefor the word "two."
Section 308 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
IMr. J. D. Reid.]
"308. The company may for the better enforcement of the observance of any such bylaw, rule or regulation, prescribe a penalty not exceeding forty dollars for any violation thereof, and such penalty shall be enforceable on summary conviction."
Subsection 3 of section 310 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
"(3) No such bylaw, rule or regulation shall have any force or effect without such sanction or after such sanction has been rescinded."
Paragraph (d) of section 393 is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
"(d) Whenever in any city, town or village, any train of the company not headed by an engine is allowed to pass over or along a highway at rail level which is not Adequately protected by gates or otherwise, the company does not station on that part of the train, which is then foremost, a person who shall warn persons standing on or crossing or about to cross the track of such railway."
Section 394 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(2) No employee shall be liable to such penalty if he proves that the carrying out or observing of the rules of the company was the cause of such obstruction, and in such case the company and its superintendent or other officer in charge of the operation of the railway, or of the division thereof upon which such obstruction occurs, shall each be guilty of the offence mentioned in this section and liable to a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars."


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How does my hon.
friend from East Lambton (Mr. J. E. Arms-slrong) feel about tills? Is be satisfied?


John Dowsley Reid: He feels all right.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister who is talking just now has five portfolios around him, but he cannot speak for the member for East Lambton. He ought to let the member speak for himself.	,


George Perry Graham: The minister is sure
these amendments are all right in order?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have checked them up, and they are all right.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Gisborne assured me he had made an exact copy of the Bill as passed in the Senate, and he pinned the amendments in order .as I have placed them before the committee. My understanding is that they are an exact copy. I should like to let the Bill stand for third reading, until we see what may happen in the Senate.


George Perry Graham: It would have to go
back to the Senate.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Do you think it will have to go back to the Senate?


John Dowsley Reid: I am not thinking anything.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You ought to think. Do you think the other Bill is coming down, or do you think it is not?


John Dowsley Reid: I hope so, but I want to be prepared.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not think the
bon. gentleman hopes so; I think he does not want it to go through.


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact they are divided over there. Part of the Senate want the Bill to go through, and another part is standing it off. There is a division of interest. One interest is very anxious it should go through, and the other interest is anxious it should not be passed. This is a kind of a compromise, to halfplease both parties, and to get rid of a very vexatious clause referring to the Toronto and Niagara Power Company.


John Dowsley Reid: I think every member in
tills House would like to see the Bill go through.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Minus the two clauses.


John Dowsley Reid: There is a fight over there,
and these amendments before us are very important to the railway employees, and for that reason we would like to be sure they are passed.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: I think I
should answer the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). I am quite as anxious as he is that the Consolidated Railway Bill should become law, and while it is true the Bill has been brought in in the manner in which it has, I still have every confidence -that the Senate will see their way clear to passing the Consolidated Railway Bill during this session. I cannot help but believe that they will see that the Bill is in the public interest, and should become law, and I am merely voicing the sentiments of every member in this House when I say we are all most anxious to see the Bill passed this session. I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee on both sides for the non-partisan manner in which they conducted the proceedings of that committee. They worked very strenuously in connection with the legislation, and I would sincerely regret to see the Consolidated Railway Act defeated.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think the minister is very doubtful about it. I admire the optimism of the hon. member for East Lambton, but here we have a peculiar situation. If the Government, who control the majority in the Senate want the General Railway Act to go through, all they have to do is to crack the whip, as they did in the case of the Canadian Northern, the Franchise Bill and sundry other Acts, and the Bill would go through automatically. My hon. friend the leader of the House is an artist about these things, and he knows how to do it, if he would simply exert himself, but he is not exerting himself. He is not applying the same strategy in dealing with the matter as he did in the Canadian Northern Bill. My hon. friend from East Lambton does not realize the resourcefulness of the hon. minister. If he would put the proposition up to the Minister of Finance, and the other ministers, that this Railway Bill should go through the Senate, there would be no necessity for the passage of the Bill now before us. I really think he has not exerted that powerful influence which I am sure he could exert in relation to that important measure.
Bill reported as amended.
Amendments read the first and second time and concurred in.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
Wednesday, September 19, 1917.