1917-05-07

[Stage Direction]
Vol. I-Pages . .	1-1124 Vol. IV-Pages . . 3187-4242
II "	.	.	1125-2138	V "	.	. 4243-5270III "	.	. 2139-3186	VI "	.	.	5271-6094


[Stage Direction]
J. de LABROQUERIE TACHfi PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Debates
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 7, 1917.

[Stage Direction]
Canal statistics for the season of navigation, 1916.-Hon. J. D. Reid.

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

Mr. PARDEE:: 1.	How many men have gone overseas to the United Kingdom and been returned to Canada
[DOT] without going to France?
2.	What was the cost to the Dominion of Canada in connection with these men?
3.	How many British Columbia men have gone to Eastern points and been returned to British Columbia without going overseas?
4.	What was the cost to the Dominion of Canada in connection with these men?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	There is no record in the department as to whether men who have gone overseas from Canada, and have been returned to Canada, have or have not gone to France.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3 and 4. Owing to the numerous transfers and discharges that are continually taking place, it is not possible to give a definite answer without searching the record of every man who has applied for enlistment, has been accepted, rejected on reexamination, and finally accepted, etc. If the hon. member will give individual names, immediate action will be taken to supply him with the desired information.


FRANCES HENRY CUNNINGHAM.
Mr. NESBITT:: 1.	What amount was paid Frances Henry Cunningham for military services since August, 1914?
2.	What amount of money was paid said Frances Henry Cunningham for expenses in connection with his military services during same period?
3.	Was any amount paid him for inspection and purchase of horses during same period?
4.	Was any amount paid him as Inspector of Fisheries during same period?
7*2
5.	Was any amount paid him on account of expenses as Inspector of Fisheries?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	$93.75-1st to 25th September, 1914.
2.	Expense travel, 70c.; express charges, $7.79.
3.	Yes; $808 pay and expenses.
4.	Yes; regular salary has been paid and ordinary travelling expenses incurred on official duties have been refunded.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Is the Economic and Development O unmission still in existence?
2.	For what purpose was this Commission appointed?
3.	Has it made any report or reports to the Government?
4.	It so, what is the nature of such report or reports?
5.	Is any action being taken by the Government on these reports?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	For the purposes as set out in Order in Council, P.C. 1517.
3.	No report has been made, but the duties of the commission, being largely advisory, their views on certain subjects have been discussed informally with the .Government for the purpose of advising or assisting the Government touching many subjects upon which it has been necessary to take action either by way of legislation or otherwise.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Answered by No. 3.


IMPORTATION OF RIFLES.
Mr. CURRIE:: 1.	How many rifles of military pattern except British were imported into Canada during each of the fiscal years since 1905?
2.	Has the Government prohibited the importation of such rifles?
3.	If so, when?
4.	Has the Government considered the advisability of ordering holders of these arms to hand the same over to the authorities during the duration of the war?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	As far as can be ascertained from the records in the Militia Department, no rifles



of military pattern, except British, have been imported into Canada since 1905, with the exception of a few samples.
2.	Yes, from foreign countries.
3.	Notice was given 20th January, 1909, requiring license for the importation of military rifles except from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
4.	No.


PURCHASE OP SURPLUS WHEAT.
Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	When the Government discussed with the British Government the question of securing the surplus wheat of Canada for the Empire, did they inform them of their intention to place wheat on the free list in order to open the United States markets to Canadian wheat?
2.	When Sir George Poster asked1 the Canadian Western farmers to agree to accept $1.30 per bushel for their wheat based on number one northern grade at Port William, did he know that the Government was going to place wheat on the free list?	_


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The Imperial
Wheat Commission discussed with the Minister of Trade and Commerce the desire of the British Government to secure the surplus wheat production of Canada. The proposal to purchase -at $1.30 per bushel was made, not by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but by the Imperial Wheat Commission and was communicated to representatives of the Canadian Council of Agriculture by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The subject of duties on wheat products between the United States and Canada was not at that time made a subject of discussion.


FRASER RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	How much money was voted in 1912 for improvements in the Fraser river channel, British Columbia?
2.	Was any portion of this amount spent in 1912-13 on the Fraser river? If so, how much?
3.	Was any contract awarded to a company for performing this work?
4.	What quantities of material were removed, and what prices- were paid?
5.	Were any tenders called for performance of the work?
6.	If so, who were the tenderers, and what was the amount of each tender?


Mr. REID:: 1.	$258,000, as follows:	(a)Training pier
(Steveston), $200,000; (b) improvements at Nieomen Slough, $5,000; (c) Lower river improvements, $40,000; (d) Fraser & Thompson river wharfs (allotment), $13,000.
2.	Yes. (a) Training pier (Steveston), $76,197.03; (b) improvements at Nieomen Slough, $4,293.11; (o) maintenance of snag boats, lopairs to wharfs, driving piles, etc.,'
1 Mr. Fatenaude.]
$32,978.11; (d) Fraser river wharfs:	Cordon Road $1,530.75, Green's Landing $2,385.70, Ladner's Landing $2,503.42, Mc-Ivor's Landing $1,863.45, Murphy's Landing $2,264; $11,652.15; generally, $1,304.83. Total, $125,120.40.
3.	A contract was awarded to the Sinclair Construction Company for the construction of a training pier at Steveston.
4,	5 and 6. No dredging by contract was
done on -the Fraser river during the fiscal year 1912-13.	$78,228.02 wa.- expended from
the general vote for dredging, British Columbia, for the operation of departmental dredges on the Fraser river in the year mentioned.


Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Was any work done in cleaning the river channel at Helsgate in the Fraser river canyon during the past five years, of rock blasted into the channel by the Canadian Northern! Railway construction?
2.	If so, who performed this work?
3.	Were tenders called for the contract?
4.	If so, who were the tenderers, and what were the prices?
5.	Were there any tenders called for the jetty at the mouth of the Fraser river?
6.	By whom was this work performed?
7.	How much money was paid for the performance of this work?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Pacific Dredging Company.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Tenders were called to build the first section of the jetty at the mouth of the Fraser river and contract was awarded to the Sinclair Construction 'Co.; they gave up the contract and new tenders were called and contract for completion was awarded to Messrs. Broley & Martin. The second section was advertised for tenders and contract awarded to Messrs. Marsh, Hutton & Powers. This contract was subsequently extended by Order in Council dated 15th August, 1916, for an additional 1,800 feet.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	$719,815.04 to 31st March, 1917.


PACIFIC DREDGING COMPANY.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Is the Pacific Dredging Company, who have received $796,090.57 for dredging in False Creek, Vancouver, B.C., a Canadian company?
2.	If so, where was it incorporated?
3.	If not, where was it incorporated, and when?


Mr. REID:: The Secretary of State Department supplies the following information : "Pacific- Dredging Company, Limited, on record in British Columbia, incorpor-

ated 24th February, 1912, gazetted 29th February, page 1752. Capital stock, $50,-
000.	Head office, Vancouver, B.C."


CANADIAN DELEGATION TO WASHINGTON CONFERENCE.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: What are the names of the ministers composing the Canadian delegation to the Washington Conference?


George Eulas Foster: The ministers
composing the Canadian delegauon to the Washington conference were Sir Thomas White and myself.


EMPLOYMENT OF RETURNED SOLDIERS.
Rodolphe Lemieux: How many returned soldiers have been given employment in the various departments of the Government ?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: I think that this question was passed as an Order for return last week. If I am correct, I would ask that the question be dropped.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The question will go
as an Order for a return.


PALMERSTON POST OFFICE BUILDING.
Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	Is any amount being expended as extras on the new post office building being erected in Palmerston, Ont. ?
2.	If so, what is the amount?
3.	Has it been decided to make the tower ten feet higher than the original specification?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$4,850.
.3. Yes. .


JUDGE SPOTTEN.
Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	Is Judge Spotten, of Harriston, Ont., still actively connected with manufacturing interests?
2.	Is the Government aware, as alleged, he still takes an active part in Conservative affairs in Wellington county?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Not to the knowledge of this department.
2.	No.


LT.-OOL. C. D. SPITTAL.
*Mr. DEVLIN:: 1.	Is Lieutenant-Colonel C. D. Spittal in the employ of the Government?
2.	If not, .was he in the employ of the Government?
3.	Did he resign or was he dismissed from office?
4.	Is the said C. D. Spittal under the control of the Canadian authorities or of the Imperial authorities?
5.	Why was the said C. D. Spittal recalled from England?
72J
6.	Is it the intention of the Government to employ the said C. D. Spittal in any military capacity ?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes, until January 19, 1917.
3.	Militia and Defence-He was struck off the strength of the Canadian Expeditionary Force as no further employment existed for him in Canada or overseas, and his services were, therefore, not required.
Customs-His services were dispensed with for failing to resume his customs duties at the port of Ottawa.
4.	Lt.-Colonel Spittal is under the control of the Canadian authorities.
5.	Lt.-Colonel Spittal was found guilty by a general court martial held in England on December 9, 1915, on a charge of having disobeyed a lawful command given by his superior officer, and sentenced to be reprimanded. As a result of this, he was returned to Canada on March 25, 1916.
G. No.


DEFALCATION OF BURGESS.
Mr. DEVLIN:: 1.	Is there an agent named Burgess in the employ of the Government at Fort William, in connection with the grain elevator work?
2.	If not. was there such a man in the Government's employ in any capacity?
3.	If Burgess was in the employ of the Government, did he make returns for all moneys received by him to be paid over to the Government?
4.	Is it a fact, as alleged, that the said Burgess has at the present moment, a sum of $125,000 or thereabouts of Government money in his possession, which the Government has been unable to obtain from him?
5.	If so, what steps have the Government taken to bring the said Burgess to justice?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Burgess forged the endorsement on cheques payable to the Dominion Government elevator and obtained the cash therefor from certain banks.
5.	Every effort has been made to apprehend. Burgess without success thus far. Legal actions have been instituted against the banks for the recovery of the money.
. AVIATION CAMP.


*Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to establish an Aviation Camp at Isle of Orleans, near Quebec?
2.	Has any land been offered to the Government for such purpose?
3.	If so, by whom?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


ST. MALO TRANSCONTINENTAL SHOPS.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to start a munition plant at the Transcontinental Shops at St. Malo, near Quebec?
2.	Has any request been made to that effect by the municipal authorities of Quebec?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	Not so far as the Militia Department is concerned.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CAMPBELLTON-GASPE STEAMSHIP SERVICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has a contract been entered into by the Department of Trade and Commerce for a steamship service between Campbellton, N.B., and Gaspe, Quebec?
2.	If so, what is the nature of said contract?
3.	What service wak given on this route last year, by whom was it given, and what did it cost?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The contract calls for a service every two weeks between Quebec and Gaspe Basin, calling at way ports.
3.	Last year on this route the service was every week, calling at way ports. The service was performed by the Gaspe and Baie des Chaleurs Steamship Co., Ltd., of Quebec. The subsidy was $8,500 per annum.


MIGTIASHA WHARF.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Have any repairs been made to the wharf at Miguasha, Quebec, within the last three years?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the work, what did it cost, and was it done by contract or by day work?
3.	(a) Who supplied the material used, (b) what price was paid, and (c) was it purchased by tender?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	In 1914-15, repairs amounting to $599.24 were executed by day labour.
3.	(a) Chaleur Bay Mills Co.; (b) 10,177 feet of lumber at $18.50 and 4,556 feet at $19 a thousand, $274.86; (c) No. BONAVENTURE COUNTY MAIL SERVICE,


Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who has the contract for carrying of the mails at Carleton, Carleton Centre, Pointe Bourque and Carleton West, Quebec?
2.	What is the figure of each contract, and when was it awarded?
3.	Were tenders called for this work?
4.	If so, who are the tenderers, and what was the figure of each tender?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: -
1	and 2. The mails for Carleton, Carleton Centre and Point Bourque are carried under one arrangement by Heliodore Landry at a cost of $317.50 per annum, under a temporary agreement dating from the 12th May, 1914. The mails for Carleton West are carried by Edmond Allard at a cost of $75 per annum under a contract dating from the 1st July, 1916.
3 and 4. Tenders were not invited as the offers received on the establishment of the service were considered reasonable.


CARLETON BEACH PROTECTION.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	How much has been expended on the beach protection work at Carleton, Quebec, since 1912?
2.	Is the work complete?
3.	If not, will it be completed this year?


Mr. REID:: 1.	$1,203.74.
2	and 3. Yes, work is completed. PASPEBIAC-HOPETOWN MAIL SERVICE.


Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who is the contractor for the mail service between Paspebiac and Hopetown, Quebec?
2.	Were tenders called for when the contract was awarded?
3.	If so, what were the names of the tenderers and the figures submitted by them?
4.	Has any request been received lately for a better service?
5.	If so, what answer was given said request?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	Auguste Loisel is contractor for the mail service between Hopetown and Paspebiac Railway Station, via Paspebiac Post Office.
2.	Yes.
3.	Auguste Loisel, Paspebiac, $260; Gilbert McWhirter, Hopetown, $275; Julien De Cain, Paspebiac, $295; Madame A. Levesque, Paspebiac, $300; Howard Ross, Hopetown, $325; A. B. McGee, Hopetown, $355; J. Edmund Levesque, Paspebiac, $375; David Belisie, Hopetown, $400; John F. Scott, Paspebiac, $400.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


SEED GRAIN AND RELIEF WORK.
Mr. McCRANEY:: 1.	What amount of money was paid to Mr. Wm. Badger of Outlook, Saskatchewan, for relief work and seed grain in the years 1914 and 1915?
2.	What amount of money was paid to Mr. F. H. Forgie of Elrose, Saskatchewan, for relief work and seed grain in the years 1914 and 1915?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Wm. Badger, $215.30.
2.	P. H. Forgie, $112.


KITSILANO INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	What were the total amounts paid for legal expenses to each of the counsel employed on the arbitration in connection with the Kitsilano Indian Reserve, Vancouver, B.C.?
2.	What are the names of the persons to whom said payments were made?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	The total amount paid for legal expenses to counsel employed on the arbitration in connection with the Kitsilano Indian Reserve, Vancouver, B.C., was $3,406.50.
2.	The name of the person to whom the said payment was made is Stuart Livingston, of Vancouver.


MR. GRAHAM BELL.
Mr. PACAUD:: 1.	Has Mr. Graham Bell of the Railway Department drawn his departmental salary while at the same time receiving his pay as a member of the Canadian army?
2.	Does Mr. Graham Bell draw pay from any other department of the Government?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Mr. Graham Bell, while performing duties in connection with Canadian Expeditionary Force, also devoted part of his time to work of the Railway Department. Later the Minister of Railways recalled him to his full duties in the Railway Department. He only received his civil pay- part paid by Railway Department and part paid by Militia Department.
2.	No.


LEVIS RAILWAY STATION.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Does the Government propose to build a railway station In the City of Levis?
2.	If so, at what point does it propose to build this station, and when?
3.	If not, does it propose to repair the present station at Ldvis and put it in a 'good and proper condition for travellers and those awaiting the trains?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	At most suitable place when war conditions will justify proceeding with this work.
3.	Yes, repairs now in progress.


ST. ROMUALD PUBLIC WORKS.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Does the Government propose to build a post office on the land which has been bought for that purpose in St. Romuald?
2.	If so, when?


John Dowsley Reid: 1 and 2. Not under present conditions.


BROMPTONVILLE POSTMASTER.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Who is the postmaster at Bromptonville, Richmond County, Quebec?
2.	Have any complaints been received concerning his administration?
3.	If so, who are the complainants, and what is the nature of the complaints?
4.	Have said complaints been investigated?
5.	If so, what was the result?
6.	Has any petition been received ashing for the dismissal of the present postmaster?
7.	If so, who forwarded the said petition?
8.	Was any recommendation made concerning his successor?
9.	If so, by whom, and who was recommended for the position?
10.	Will such recommendation be acted upon by the Government?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	Mr. Matthew McDonell.
2.	No.
3.	4, and 5. See answer to No. 2.
6.	No.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
8.	Suggestions as to a successor were made in one or two instances but were only made on condition that the department contemplated a change, in the postmastership.
9.	In view of the fact that no petition was received for the dismissal of the postmaster and as no definite action has been taken the department does not consider it in the public interest to mention names of persons recommended or of those who made the provisional recommendation.
10.	The question of the change in the postmastership has not been considered by the department.


WAR SUPPLIES-HORSES.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is the Government aware that a buyer named S. L. Clough, purchased about thirty horses at Richmond, Quebec, on July 4, 1916, for delivery, subject to inspection, on July 12, 1916?
2.	If so, was he authorized by the Government to purchase said horses?
3.	Is the Government aware that the said horses were not inspected and taken over on the said 12th July, 1916, nor at any later date?
4.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to reimburse the farmers, from whom the said horses were purchased, for the time lost and expenses incurred in bringing the said horses to Richmond on the above mentioned dates?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4 answered by No. 1.


EXPORTATION OP WOOL.
Mr. TOBIN:: Is it the intention of the Government to place an embargo on the exportation of worn from Canada?


John Dowsley Reid: Canadian wool is permitted to be exported from Canada to foreign destinations only under license issued from time to time and the issue of licenses may be suspended at any time when conditions so require.


MR. PERKINS BULL.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Is Mr. Perkins Bull, who is running a convalescent home in England, the same Mr. Perkins Bull, lawyer and real estate dealer in Toronto?
2.	Where is this home or hospital situated?
3.	How many patients have been treated there?
4.	What is paid him per day for each patient?
5.	How much has been paid him to date?
6.	Are the patients in the said hospital treated by Volunteer Aid detachment members or by regular nurses?
Mr. KEMP.
1.	Mr. Perkins Bull now lives in London. It is understood that he formerly lived in Toronto.
2.	Putney.
3.	4, 5 and 6. This information is being obtained from Overseas. As soon as it is received, it will be laid on the table of the House.


JUDGE L. R. ROT.
Mr. BOULAY:: What sums have been paid each year to Judge L. R. Roy of the Supreme Court of Quebec, for travelling expenses, since the date of his appointment to the 31st of March, 1917?


Mr. DOHERTY:: The Honourable Mr. Justice Roy was appointed to the Superior Court of Quebec on 17th November, 1909, since which date he has been paid the following sums for travelling allowance: In 1909-10, $42; 1910-11, $535; 1911-12, $196.40; 1912-13, $429.30; 1913-14, $1,145.05; 1914-15, $1,318.70; 1915-16, $1,576.30; 1916-17, $656.75.


GOVERNMENT LAND IN OTTAWA.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Did the Government obtain free of cost from the Corporation of the City of Ottawa, all the street ends within the area north of Wellington St. and west of Bank St.?
2.	Does the Government pay any taxes upon its property within the said area?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to re-pave Wellington St., or any part thereof, in front of its property in Ottawa?
4.	If so, (a) how much re-paving will be done, and (b) when Will the work be commenced?


Mr. REID:: 1. Yes.

2.	Only on property for whicn a revenue is derived.
3.	Under consideration and will be decided when the supplementary estimates are laid on the Table.
4.	(a) Resurfacing portions of the street which are defective; (b) after Parliament has made the necessary grant.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: For a copy of the replies which the Government or the Department of Public Works sent to the- Resident Engineer or other parties in answer to letters, telegrams, or reports in connection with the breakwater at Souris, P.E.I. during the years 1915 and 1916?


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: For a return showing the different rural mail routes established in the Constituency of Qu'Appelle since the 1st day of January, 1916, showing their location and date of establishment. Also, a list of all rural mail routes now being established or under consideration at the present time in the same constituency.


Mr. MACDONALD:: For a return showing the amount paid or spent by the Department of Militia in advertising for recruits in Canada, showing the persons, firms and corporations to whom the payments were made, up to April 1, 1917.
Hon. CHAS. MARCIL:
For a copy of all documents, correspondence, reports, accounts, pay-lists, etc., in connection with the work done on the Government wharves at Cross Point, Miguasha, St. Omar and New Carlisle, Quebec, since 1912.


Mr. LANCTOT:: For a copy of all accounts, letters, claims, correspondence and other documents relating to the following amounts mentioned in the Report of the Auditor General, 1916, Vol. II, page L-11:-
Mr.. Justice L. P. Pelletier, travelling expenses, $877 ; Mr. Justice J. N. Belleau, travelling expenses, $1,984.44; ;Mr. Justice T. H.( Chauvin, travelling expenses, $1,421.25; Mr. Justice B. LeTellier, travelling expenses, $1,923.80.


VESSELS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
On tbe motion:
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: For a return showing the names, owners, tonnage, and rate of charter of all ships or steamers in the service of the Government of Canada in the Province of Nova Scotia, used for war purposes.


John Dowsley Reid: I would ask the hon. member to drop this motion for the reason that the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service advises me that under present conditions it is not considered advisable to bring down the information asked for in the proposed motion for a return giving a list of vessels in the 'service of the Government under the terms of the Canadian Naval Act. That is the only objection.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The only ships or steamers in the service of the Government concerning which I desire information are small tug boats.


John Dowsley Reid: There are a great many in the list and the Naval Department has informed me that it is not advisable to bring down the information.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I presume I can get the information privately.
M. REID: There is no objection to giving it to you privately.
Motion dropped.


THE SENATE.
Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland) moved:: That an humble Address be presented to His Most Excellent Majesty the Kina', in the following words :-
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the	- Commons of
Canada, in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty praying that you may graciously be pleased to give your consent to submit a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, to amend the British North America Act, 1867, in the manner following, or to the following effect:
"An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867."
Be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follow:- Sections 21 to 36 inclusive of the British North America Act, 1867, and of the British North America Act, 1915, are hereby repealed and the following enacted in lieu thereof:
1.	The Senate shall subject to the provisions of this Act consist of ninety-six members who shall be styled "Senators."
2.	Each of the Provinces of Canada shall be represented in the Senate by the following number of Senators:
Quebec by twenty-four,
Ontario by twenty-four,
New Brunswick by ten,
Nova Scotia by ten,
Prince Edward Island by four,
Manitoba by six,
Saskatchewan by six,
Alberta by six; and
British Columbia and the Yukon Territory by six.
3.	For the purposes of such representation, each of the provinces of Canada shall be forthwith, after the passing of this Act, divided into as many Senatorial Districts as there are Senators for such provinces and so divided as that all the Districts shall have as far as practicable an equal number of population, and for the purposes of this Act British Columbia and the Yukon Territory shall be taken as one province.
4.	Immediately after such division of the Provinces, the Senators who have at that time
been appointed, shall be allotted to and among the various districts so that each District shall be represented by one Senator, and all of such Senators shall hold their positions as though this Act had not been passed.
5.	From and after the division of the Provinces into Senatorial Districts, and the allotment of Senatorial representation thereto, as a vacancy occurs in the representation of any District the vacancy shall be filled by election, and all Senators shall thereafter be elected by the qualified electors of each Senatorial District in the same manner as members of the House of Commons are elected.
6.	Each Senator shall be elected for a period of seven years and their seats shall not become vacant by a dissolution of Parliament.
7.	A speaker of the Senate shall be elected by the Senators from among themselves in such manner as they may determine and shall hold office for a term not exceeding seven years.
8.	The presence of at least fifteen Senators including the Speaker shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Senate for the exercise of its powers.
9.	Questions arising in the Senate shall be decided by a majority of voices and the Speaker shall in all cases have a vote and when the voices are equal the decision shall be deemed to be in the negative.
10.	Section 3 of Chapter 12 of the Revised Statutes of Canada is amended by striking out-the words "or another speaker is appointed by the Governor General" in the last two lines and inserting in lieu thereof "or another speaker is elected."
11.	Section 128 of the British North America Act, 1867, is amended by striking out the words "and every member of the Senate of Canada" in the eighth and ninth lines thereof and, the Declaration of Qualification in the fifth Schedule to said Act, is amended by striking out the words "Senate of Canada" in the second line thereof, and inserting the words "Legislative Council of Quebec."
12.	Section 147 of the British North America Act, 1867, is repealed and the following enacted in lieu thereof:-
"In the case of the admission of Newfoundland the number of Senators shall be one hundred of which Newfoundland shall have four to be elected as provided by this Act."
13.	All the provisions of The Dominion Elec tions Act, The Dominion Controverted Elections Act, The Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act, The Senate and House of Commons Act, and The House of Commons Act, wherein not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall apply to the Senators, their election, qualification and disqualification in the same manner and with the same effect as to members of the House of Commons.
14.	If at any time the Senate rejects a Bill passed by the House of Commons or so amends the same as to make it objectionable to the House of Commons and the matters in difference cannot be on a conference adjusted so as to make the same acceptable to the two branches of Parliament, the Government may advise a dissolution of Parliament and if such dissolution takes place with an election thereon and the Bill in the same terms immediately such election again is passed by the House of Commons, it shall become law on the approval of the Governor General and without being again submitted to the Senate.
15.	This Act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1917, and the British North Ame-

rica Acts 1&67 to 1915, and this Act may be cited together as the British North America Acts 1867 to 1917.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise, for many reasons with a great degree of diffidence, in an endeavour to explain to the House some reasons why this resolution should be adopted. One reason for my diffidence is that there may be a fair ground for many hon. gentlemen to doubt the sincerity of one who moves a resolution to change the system of constituting the Senate of Canada. I have noticed that on practically every occasion since Confederation when any one dissented from the present system of constituting the Senate as constituted, it was always some person or some party that was in Opposition. I cannot recall any instance of a government or any member supporting a government moving a resolution to alter the system of constituting the Senate.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: MacIntyre, in
1907.


William Manley German: I had forgotten him for
the moment. He certainly was a supporter of the Government at that time, but evidently his resolution did not receive much support or was not pressed energetically, because it came to nothing. Notwithstanding the fact that one of the planks of the Liberal platform in 1893 was the reform of the Senate, during the whole fifteen years the Liberal party were in power, there was no reform of the Senate other than through the efforts of Divine Providence. No action along that line was taken by the Government or by any member supporting the Government, with the exception ,of Mr. MacIntyre. Consequently, rising now as I do on>
the Opposition side of the House, after having for fifteen years supported a Government and a party that was in a measure pledged to reform the Senate, but which had said nothing about it when they were in power, some one may say: I doubt bis sincerity in moving this resolution. But, Mr. Speaker, whatever may have been done or left undone in the past, whether the Liberal party or. the Conservative party should have changed the system of constituting the Senate, one thing is certain, and that is, that there has been no change, and further, if such a change is necessary, that change should be made now notwithstanding any derelicti.on in either side in the past. I think myself that a change should be made; not a reform of the Senate-the resolution I am moving does not propose to reform the Senate as at
fMr. German.]
present constituted-but a reform of the system .of constituting the Senate in the future.
At the time of Confederation it was decided that the members of the Senate should ;be appointed by the Government. Outside of that, a democratic form of government was established, but in that one respect there was engrafted on the democratic tree a sprig of aristocracy which was d.oomed from the beginning, in my opinion, to be barren of any useful fruit, as has been proved. I have no fault to find with the senators. To my mind, Hon. George Brown was the Father of Confederation more than any other man living in Canada at that time. Great credit has been given to Sir John A. Macdonald for establishing the Confederation of the British North American colonies, and great credit is undoubtedly due him, but to my mind the man to whom more ihan any other credit is due is George Brown, for without him Confederation could not and would not have been established. He was the man who moved for the appointment of the committee of members of the legislature of Canada who composed the Quebec conference. ' He was the man who from first to last began the agitation and carried it through to a successful conclusion, and as a humble follower of that great Canadian I have pleasure in giving to him what I believe to *be the meed of praise to which he is entitled, namely, of being above all others the Father of the confederation! of the British North American colonies which form at the present time the great Dominion of Canada. Speaking of the Upper Chamber, George Brown said:
The desire was to render the Upper House a thoroughly Independent body, one that could be in the best position to canvass dispassionately the measures of this House, and- stand up for the public interest in opposition to hasty or partisan legislation.
The object was to have an independent body of judicially-minded men who would be free of all political influences. I am free to say that from Confederation down to the present hour the gentlemen who have been appointed to the Senate have been of the highest class of Canadians. In legislative ability, in business acumen, and in every other quality that goes to make up an excellent citizen, the senators not only compare favourably with the members of this Chamber, but, in some cases, in ability and financial position, they are our superiors, and would, if they were members of this Chamber, be an ornament to the Do-

minion. Then why, as a body, has not the Senate the confidence of the people of Canada? I challenge any hon. member of this House to assert that the Senate has the confidence of the people of this country as a legislative body to-day, although individually they have. Now, why is this? The answer .is easily found. The senators represent a party, and not the people. They owe allegiance, or think they do, to the Government and party that appoints them, and not allegiance and responsibility to the people who should elect .them. Look at our history since Confederation, and see what the Senate has done in notable instances, and the influence its acts have had on the public mind. The first notable instance of the Senate running counter to the action of the House of Commons, so far as I recollect, was when the Government led by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier passed the Yukon Railway Act, for the building of a railway into the Yukon district.
At that time the Senate of Canada was strongly Conservative. They threw out that Bill. Was there a man belonging to the Liberal Party throughout the length and breadth of Canada v ho believed, or at any rate expressed himself as believing, that the Senate threw out that Bill on public grounds? On the contrary, every one of them believed that it was because the Bill was introduced and carried by a Liberal Government and that the Conservative party did not want the Liberal Government to have the credit of passing a Bill of that kind. That is, every Liberal believed that the Senate acted as it did .solely and wholly for partisan reasons. I am not saying that the Senate was governed in this matter by partisan considerations, but that all Liberals, and also many Conservatives, believed that it was so governed. It was stated by many, even before the Bill reached the Senate, that it would be defeated in that House.
Coming down to a later date, we find that this Government, I think it was in 1912, passed a Bill through this House called the Naval Aid Bill. That was a measure dear to the hearts of the members of the Government. No doubt they thought it in the interests of the people and believed that it would receive public support if the people had an opportunity to vote upon it. I have no doubt of their sincerity in presenting this Bill to the House and urging its adoption. Had the Senate been Conservative, the Bill would have gone through that House; but the Senate was Liberal,
and the Bill was rejected, or at least it was so amended as to be absolutely unacceptable to the Government. I am not saying, and no man can fairly say, that the Bill was defeated in the Senate for any other reason than the patriotic regard for the public interest that should inspire the members of the Senate in their public conduct. But, did the people generally believe that? No. The people generally believed, and said, that that Bill was rejected by the Senate fo.r partisan purposes. That is what the Conservatives said, and that is what many Liberals said. Whether that is true or not it is not necessary to the consideration of the point I am now discussing to take into account.
Another Bill passed by the present Government in the same session, was a Bill in aid of the construction of good roads. I voted against that Bill, or at least against the sixth and last clause of it, and I did so because I thought it should not become law. I voted against the Naval Aid Bill for the same reason, and voted conscientiously as I thought to be my duty as a public man and representative of the people. I have no doubt that the people had the same view of the matter as I had. But you cannot convince the people that when the Senate defeated that Bill it did so on public grounds. They simply say that, when the Senate is Liberal, it will support Liberal legislation and reject Conservative legislation, and when the Senate is Conservative it will support Conservative legislation and reject Liberal legislation. Now, I ask you in all sincerity and in all candor, is that a condition of affairs which makes for the best government of Canada? It is not a question whether or not the Senate on these different occasions has been right or whether it has been wrong, the question is as to the feeling of confidence that the people ought to have in our system of government. I say that the people of Canada have not to-day, and have not had for many years, confidence in the Senate as a body to regulate our legislation. If that be so then, I submit, it is time we had a change in the system of selecting Senators, so that the Senate might be more in harmony with public sentiment.
We have precedents regarding the select ing of members of an Upper House. When Upper and Lower Canada were united in 1841, two Chambers were provided, a Legislative Assembly and a Legislative Council. This was shortly after the Mackenzie Rebellion in Upper Canada and the Papineau

Rebellion in Lower Canada, rebellions arising out of the afflictions of the people under what was known as the Family Compact, ruling through Downing Street. The Legislative Council was to be composed of not less than twenty members, to be appointed by the Crown. That lasted until 1854-for thirteen years. By that time the agitation for a change had grown so strong that it was found necessary to have a Legislative Council elective instead of appointive. The Bill to bring this change into effect was carried through the Legislature by a Government led by one of the bluest of all the blue-blooded Tories whom Canada has ever known, Sir Allan McNab, who was supported by John A. Macdonald, then Attorney General for Canada West, and by George E. Cartier, then Attorney General for Canada East. That Conservative Government-and I think the last really Conservative Government that ever existed in Canada, because after that they called themselves Liberal-Conservatives,-passed this law providing for the election of a Legislative Council for the united Canadas to be composed of forty-eight men, twenty-four from Lower Canada and twenty-four from Upper Canada, to be elected in districts formed by the Government in power. We have that precedent to guide us in any arrangement we may make in the future. It may be asked: Why, after having an elective upper chamber from 1856 to 1867, was a change made in 1867? In 1856 George Brown, representing the county of Lambton, in the Legislature of Canada, was in favour of an appointed legislative council, and expressed himself so very strongly. John A. Macdonald was in favour of an elective legislative council, and that was the system which was adopted. But when Confederation came about a change had come over the feeling of the people, apparently. Confederation was brought about mainly by reason of the determination on the part of the people of Upper Canada to have representation by population. That was a scheme most dear to the heart of George Brown. He felt that Upper Canada at that time, having a large population over and above Lower Canada, and Upper Canada being very much wealthier than Lower Canada, it was not fair to the people of Upper Canada that they should be represented in the legislative council by only the same number of representatives as Lower Canada. Consequently, he made an effort to secure representation by population. That was the basis of the Confedera-TMr. German.]
tion scheme. Mr. Brown, at that time, in speaking of an elective upper chamber, said:
Our Lower Canada friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower House on the express condition that they shall have equality in the Upper House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step and for my part I am quite willing that they should have it.
That appeared to be the crux of the whole situation at that time. Mr. Brown and his followers were endeavouring to get representation by population in the Lower House, the elective chamber. In the Upper House the statesmen of Lower Canada thought that they s.hould have an equal voice with Upper Canada, and that in order to have that equal voice the senators, as they were to be called thereafter, should be appointed and not elected. Consequently, it was decided at that time to appoint the senators, and we have appointed them since then. I feel confident the whole sentiment of the country is behind the proposition that the Senate as constituted at that time has not worked out to the advantage of the country or as the founders of Confederation expected it would. In every otheT respect the Confederation of the British North American colonies has been a magnificent success. From the four small colonies which were federated at that time there has grown up a Dominion which extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. Population is increasing, wealth is increasing, the differences in language and in religion are being adjusted amicably and to-day we find this great Dominion of Canada, sprung from the Confederation which -was brought about toy these men, standing behind the British Empire in the greatest war the world has ever seen. We have seen our Canadian hoys going from here and fighting the battles of the Empire and I am proud to say that the record of the Canadians in carrying Vimy compares well with the record of the glorious deeds on the historic battlefields of the world. We have a great and glorious country. It was only a few years ago that Canadians, going abroad, and being asked where they were from generally stated that they were from America. Canada was not known, tout from now on it will be the pride and glory of every one going abroad from Canada to be known as a Canadian and as a fellow-citizen of men who have carried Britain's flag to victory on these hard fought battlefields.
Now, as I say, we have a precedent for an elective Senate. We have the Liberals, in 1893, deciding in favour, not of an elec-

tive Senate, but of the reform of the Senate. When they came into power the Senate was reformed and reformed speedily, but not by any act of the Government other than the appointment of new senators to fill the vacancies which had been created by Divine Providence. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come when we should actually make a change in the system of selecting senators. Government under a democracy requires that the people should govern. The people can only govern through their representatives elected by them to the legislative halls of the country. It was stated at Confederation that the legislative councils were really elected, that they represented the people, and why?- because they were appointed by the Government and the Government was responsible to the people. But that is beating about the bush to my mind in regard to so serious a matter. We have the precedent, in so far as the Conservative party is concerned, of an elective chamber by the Act passed in 1856 by the Tory Government of that time. We have the Liberal party of 1893 declaring in favour of a change in the Senate. If it was not so expressed in words, at any rate what it meant was that there should be a change in the system of constituting the Senate. So, if we are to follow the 'leaders of the past, this House must do exactly what I am suggesting should be done.
I am not so sure, Mr. Speaker, that it might not be a measure of retributive justice on the Liberal party if this change were made at .the present time. They could have made the change when they were in power and had the advantage of their control of the situation to arrange the constituencies to suit themselves, as, it is said, has been done sometimes. Now, if it is done under the aegis of the Conservative Government, with a Conservative Senate in control, the Conservative party will have a very great advantage, because, when this resolution was enacted into law and came into force, the Conservatives would be in a very large majority in the Upper Chamber; they would have the right to arrange the constituencies in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and they would, therefore, have a very considerable advantage.
I should be quite willing that they should have that advantage if they would only accept this proposition and place it on the statute book as the law of the country. As I have said, we have a precedent for an elective Upper Chamber. We see why it was that an elective Upper Chamber was not established at the time of Confederation. It was not established then because it was impossible to do so. If it had been insisted on at that time Confederation could not have been consummated. We had to take what we could get, and we could not have got that without accepting all that it involved. We have the record of the Liberal party in favour of an elective Upper Chamber and consequently it seems to me that it ought to be easy sailing for this House to pass a resolution such as 1 have suggested. I do not pretend to say that this resolution is in all its details exactly what it should be, that there should not be amendments; but, in the main I submit that it embodies the principles that should be carried out. To my mind there are three distinct principles which should actuate this House in the establishment of an elective second Chamber: One is that the second Chamber should be elected by the people, and should represent the people. The second is, that its members should be, as far as possible, independent of politics and political feeling and political organization. And the third is that the senators should have an appointment for a term of office long enough to make the Senate a permanent organization, and not one to be affected by a dissolution of Parliament. There should be an election; there should be independence; there should be permanence. I never thought it was the part of wisdom or of good judgment to suggest that something which had been in existence should be torn down and destroyed without having the courage to suggest an alternative proposition. I could have confined my resolution to a suggestion that the change should be made in the constitution and the mode of appointment, and left it at that. But I felt that if I wanted to convince this House of my sincerity in this matter and to convince them that action should be taken, I should at least be in a position to suggest some sort of alternative proposition, and I have taken the liberty to suggest an alternative proposition. I submit that that proposition embodies the three principles which I have suggested and which, if embodied in legislation, would result not perhaps in a more intelligent or higher class of men than the senators we have at present, but in the creation of a Senate responsible to the people of the country and having their confidence. What the senators will do under euch a constitution they will do as representatives of the people and not as representatives of

a party, or as men who owe allegiance to a party.
I have suggested that the present senators should hold their positions during their lives. I submit that for two reasons: One is that I think senators really have a fair preemptive right to the positions to which they have been appointed, and that it is only fair to them that they should continue to hold their positions during the period for which they have 'been appointed, that is during life and good behaviour. Another reason is-and this is a very potent one- that I doubt very much if such a Bill would pass the Senate, as it would have to do, unless it did provide for the retention of their positions by the present senators. That is not an original suggestion of my own, because that same thing was eaid in 1856, when it was proposed to change the legislative council, at that time appointed, to an elective legislative council. The legislative council had rejected a Bill in 1854 for reforming t'heir constitution, simply 'because it provided to wipe them out. Consequently in 1855, when the measure came up again, it provided that they should retain their places under their appointments and that new councillors should foe elected twelve at a time, that ie, twelve the first year, twelve two years later, another twelve two years after that, and a fourth twelve two years after that. The constituencies for which legislative councillors were to be elected were choeen by lot, the names of the different constituencies were put in a box and the first twelve that came out of the box were the first in which elections were to be held, and so on until the' whole forty eight were elected. They were to be elected in that way and to hold their positions for eight years, twelve legislative councillors being elected each two years. That, you might say, was a very good solution of the problem. There would necessar-
4 p.m. ily be a party organization because with a legislative council of forty-eight twelve men might be sufficient to change the complexion of the council, and you would have politics entering into the matter. What I have taken the liberty to suggest is that the Dominion of Canada should be divided into as many senatorial districts as there are senators to be appointed; that each province should have the same number of senators as it now has under the provisions of the British North America Act; that the present senators should hold their positions during their
[Mr. German.!
lives according to the conditions under which they were appointed, but as vacancies occur from time to time elections should be held in the senatorial district concerned. What would be the result and the effect of that? There would perhaps be a vacancy in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia or British Columbia. Under the provisions of the Act an election would be held within the required time for the election of a successor. There would be no party organization throughout the country; there would be probably some political local feeling in regard to the matter, but generally there would be no party organization, and that senator when elected would not be under the control or in any way under obligation to any party organization. He would be elected by reason of his ability as a man capable of representing the people of the country. He would be a man known in the locality. He would be free and independent in politics and, whether he had previously been a Liberal or a Conservative, he would go to the Senate of Canada as a representative of the people, free and independent of political affiliation. That is the principle upon which the members of the Senate should be elected, and I should be glad to see that principle more prevalent in the House of Commons than it is at present. I have suggested that they should be elected for a term of seven years. In the old legislative council of Canada the members were elected for eight years, there being an election of twelve men every two years. The suggestion that the term be seven years is only an arbitrary one, but I think that seven years would be a term of reasonable length. Members of the House of Commons are elected for a term of five years; I think that senators should be elected for a longer term. In that event a senator would hold his position for seven years, and no dissolution of Parliament could affect his senatorship during that period. At the end of the term he would go back to his constituents, give an account of his stewardship, and ask them whether they would again trust him with their interests in revising or supervising the legislation of the House of Commons. By the adoption of this suggestion you would have an independent body of capable men, free from political influences, filling the highest position in the land as a revising body of the legislation of the lower House. Sir John Macdonald, in moving the adoption of the resolution for an elective legislative council in 1856, expressed himself as being strongly in favour of a

revising chamber. He said that if there were no second chamber, half of the legislative assembly should sit on one side and half on the other, one to act as a revising body of the legislation passed by the other -not necessarily to throw out legislation, but to revise it. In common with other gentlemen interested in the public affairs of the country at that time, he felt that a second chamber was a necessary part of our legislative system. I submit that a second chamber is as necessary a part of our legislative system to-day as it was then. That being the case, we should have a legislative system as free as possible from political iinfiiuene.e, repr'esenltaitiirve of the people, a permanent organization having no fear of Government or Government control.
I have suggested that no qualification should be required of the person seeking election to the Senate. I do not see why qualification should be necessary in the Senate any more than it is in the House of Commons. No qualification is required of men seeking election to the House of Commons other than capability and honesty; nor should any qualifications otheT than these be required of eemiaitons. If a man is capable, honest, and trusted by the people, he is fit to represent the people, whether he is wealthy or poor.
It was said years ago that it would be difficult to get men to offer themselves as senators in large constituencies. But times have changed very much since that argument was advanced. At that time great difficulties were experienced in canvassing large constituencies, but in these days of good roads-with better roads coming-of railroads in every section of the country, of newspapers in every town, village and hamlet, of motor cars, what greater difficulty is experienced by the candidate in a large constituency than by the candidate in a small constituency? Moreover, a senatorial constituency composed of several counties would be so large that no man, whatever his wealth, would attempt to bribe the electors. The constituency would be so large that he could not go from house to house and conduct a personal canvass. His qualifications for the position would be the qualification that he could demonstrate to the electors on public platforms throughout the constituency; he would be known by his utterances rather than by his personal canvass.
I have suggested that theTe should be a remedy for any deadlock taking place as between the Senate and the House of Commons. I submit that that single reform should be made even if nothing else be done, and in that I feel that I have the support of hon. gentlemen opposite. We heard, in 1912, and have heard since then, that tl^e Senate should be put out of business because they practically rejected the Naval Aid Bill of the Government. If the Conservative Government had been invested with such power as is suggested in my resolution, there being a difference of view between the Upper and the Lower Chamber, the Government would have had the right to appeal to the people, and if the people had approved the proposed legislation and the Act had been again passed by the House in the same terms, it would have become law without going to the Senate. I wonder if this Government would have appealed to the people. I am free to say that, irrespective of political feelings one way or the other, I would like to have had an expression of opinion of the people with regard to the naval aid policy of this Government as against the naval service policy of the former Government. If such a proposal as I have suggested had been in operation at that time the Government would have had an opportunity of obtaining that expression of opinion had they seen fit to accept the responsibility of dissolving Parliament and going to the country. It is just possible that under an elective system the political complexion of the Upper Chamber, if there was any, would not be as speedily changed as it is at present; under existing conditions a change is brought about rather quickly. At any rate, I would have no fear of the political situation with an elective Senate, for the senators would not be tied down by party affiliations, party prejudices, or party alliances.
This resolution may require modification. If the Government or the House see fit to accept it the matter can easily be referred to a committee who could put it in shape to go before the Imperial Parliament. Some such resolution should be adopted; such a change as is suggested should be made in the system of constituting the Senate of Canada. When that change shall have been made it is my opinion, Sir, that we shall have reached the highest position which can be obtained in any democracy: that of a government of the people, for the people and by the people. I beg leave, therefore, to move the resolution which stands in my name.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, there was one part of the remarks

of my hon. friend (Mr. German) that J agreed with very heartily, and that was when he pointed out to the House that the election of a senator in a large district comprising three or four of our present districts would not be any more difficult nor any more expensive than the election cf a senator in one of our present countie-, and therefore I take it fer granted that he is thoroughly in accord with the principles of proportional representation, as the question of expense is one of the great objections to the present system. Since I have been a member of this House, I have on many occasions heard this question, being brought up usually although not always by some one sitting in Opposition, and on most of those occasions hon. gentlemen who have brought the matter up have been thoroughly in earnest and honest about it, just as my hon. friend from Welland is to-day. But so far as I have been able to see, no scheme that has yet been recommended seems to appeal either to the House or to the country as being much better than the present system. I am not one of those who have favoured doing away with the Senate simply because on occasions it has gone diametrically opposite to the views expressed in this House. My hon. friend to-day suggests an elected Senate instead of an appointed one. In my opinion we would not be likely to get, by election, a Senate that would be less partisan than it is at present. You can not elect senators without having political organizations, and those organizations would be Liberal or Conservative and you would have your Senate composed of Liberals and Conservatives. In fact, I think the Senate would tend to be more partisan than it is at present, because under the prevailing system, when a man is appointed to the Senate, he is somewhat in the same position as a judge if he chooses to assume that position; he is not dependent on any organization, nor is he dependent on any party.
I quite agree with my hon. friend from Welland that the senators, even with their handicap of age, because they average considerably older than the members of this House, show up man for man to good advantage against the members of this House. I have frequently observed the manner in which they deal with legislation that comes before them. While all of the senators may not be skilled in legislative work, many of them are, having obtained their training in the local legislatures and in

this House, and taking them all around, they are, with, of course, some exceptions, able and good men and they do their work expeditiously and well.
Another objection that I would have to an elective Senate is the matter of cost. Although a senatorial election would not cost quite as much as an election to the House of Commons (because my hon. friend proposes a longer term for senators), the cost would be great and, in my judgment, the class of senators that would be secured by election would not be worth the extra expense. There is also a general feeling that in elections to municipal councils, local legislatures, and the House of Commons, the people have a sufficiency of elections.
I wish, however, to mention a couple of changes that I would like to see made in connection with the Senate. These are views that I have held for a good many years. A year or sq prior to the election of 1911, when we on this side of the House had no thought whatever of being in Opposition so soon, I discussed this matter with the present leader of the Opposition. I have never brought the matter up since, simply .because my hon. friends on the Government benches have been in the minority in the Senate. It is to the credit of the Fathers of Confederation that they arranged for a Senate in such a manner that so far we, their successors, have never been able to find any satisfactory method of changing it, but I think it was never their intention that the Senate should be so absolutely one-sided as it usually is. When the Liberals came into power in 1896, there were, if I remember aright, only between twelve and eighteen Liberal senators-a very . small number-out of 84. Within five or six years the Liberals had a majority in the Senate, and when we went out of power in 1911, the Senate was practically as onesided as when we came into power in 1896. That is not a satisfactory condition for the Senate to be in, and I do not think it was ever expected at the time of Confederation that the Senate would become so one-sided as I have described. Should the Government remain in power for another term or two, the Senate would again be absolutely one-sided. In 1910, in discussing the matter with my right hon. leader, I took up the question of whether it would not be advisable, when we came to form the western provinces into a senatorial district, as was done later on by my hon. friends opposite, to make a change and provide that thereafter the leader of the Op-

position should nominate to the Prime Minister, whoever he might be, every third senator of that particular senatorial division. For instance, when a vacancy occurred in the West, the Government would fill it; when a second vacancy occurred, the Government would fill that also, but when a third vacancy occurred, the leader of the Opposition would give the name of the appointee to the leader of the Government, who would appoint every third man from the Opposition. The same thing would take place in Ontario, Quebec and the lower provinces. In this way, neither party would lose any of its patronage- the patronage would simply be carried over for a little. To my mind this would have two advantages. During the earlier years that I sat in this House when we were in power, there were in Opposition several men-one of them is in the House still, my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), the present senator George Taylor, and others, men who had spent twenty-five or thirty years of their lives working for the public, and who were going up in years, and I thought it would have been a splendid thing if the leader of the Opposition in those years had the power of every now and then nominating one of these men to the Senate. We would have lost a little of our patronage at the time, but we would have made it up to us now if that method of nomination were in force. We went out of power in 1911, and up to now I have never felt like giving voice to these views simply because hon. gentlemen opposite were in a minority in the Senate, and I would be the last man on earth to suggest that a party in a minority in the Senate should be asked to appoint any one but their own supporters in filling vacancies. But when the present vacancies are filled hon. gentlemen opposite will have a majority in the Senate, and I therefore throw out my suggestion for what it may be worth. If my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition were in power I would speak very strongly upon this subject, and insist as far as I could on the Liberal party making a change as soon as we obtained a majority in the Senate. If every third man were appointed on the recommendation of the leader of the Opposition, it would certainly prevent the Senate from being so one-sided. I say 1 out of 3 just to illustrate my argument; that might not be the right proportion, but it shows the object I have in view. I think such a change would be in the interests of the
Senate itself, in the interests of the Government and in the interests of the country.
There is one other change I would like to see made in the Senate. I would provide that when a senator reaches a certain age, seventy-five say or any other age fixed upon, he should be superannuated and another man appointed in his place. In my opinion the Senate could be made a much more useful branch of the Government than it is at present. We all know that for weeks after this House assembles there is very little for the Senate to do until legislation goes up to them from this House.


Mr. MARCIL:: They can initiate legislation.


John Gillanders Turriff: I was just coming to that. When a man attains the age of seventy-five or any other age that may be decided upon, and younger senators are appointed, I would give the Senate more work to do. Certain classes of legislation should be introduced in the Senate, and should come to this House thoroughly thrashed out and licked into shape. We kn,ow from experience that when legislation comes to this House from the Senate there is mighty little for us to do; it is a big help. If this suggestion were adopted I do not think there would he more than ten or fifteen senators that would have to be superannuated, and the cost would be trifling compared with the amount we would save in thus shortening the life of the session. I would provide by law that all legislation of a certain character, railway Bills, or all private Bills if you like, sh.ould be introduced in the Senate and thrashed out there before coming to us. I am satisfied that if something along this line was done, it would shorten the session by three or four weeks, and we would thereby save ten times as much as it would cpst to superannuate the few senators who had reached the age limit. Even without superannuating any senators, I think more legislation should be initiated in the Senate with a view to shortening the length of the session.
Those are the two suggestions I have to make. As I said 'before, I did not want to make them until hon. gentlemen opposite had a majority in the 'Senate. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) has brought the subject up, and while I do not quite agree with his views, I would like to see something done along these lines, as I am sure it would be a step in the right direction, and would give good results. I trust that my hon. friend who is leading

the House will take this matter into his consideration.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did
not intend addressing the House on this resolution, but since hearing the hon. member for Welland I have a little more interest in the matter than I had thought I would have. I can well appreciate the befitting modesty of my hon. friend for Welland and his diffidence in moving this resolution by reason of the fact that resolutions of this character are largely academic and usually are made by members of the Opposition. Resolutions of this character as a rule receive but scant sympathy from the Government of the day. I remember in 1907 when a resolution for the reform of the Senate was moved by the late Mr. MacIntyre, the present Prime Minister, then leader of the Opposition, expressed the opinion that some reform was desirable, but that it was entirely in the hands of the Government. If that was true then, I suppose we upon this side of the House might to-day well urge that reform of the Senate is to some degree at least desirable, and that the power to reform that body is within the hands of the Government, and therefore they should take some action. However, that form of discussion does not carry one very far, and is not very likely to bring about reform.
I do not know whether I can fully endorse the resolution of the hon. member for Welland, but I am strongly of the opinion that there is great urgency for some reform in the constitution of the Senate. No doubt that body was patterned after the British House of Lords. Of course, we could not very well adopt the hereditary principle here, and it is very fortunate that we did not, but in my opinion appointments to the Senate for life are but little better than the hereditary principle which prevails in respect to the British House of Lords, I hope that one of the great reforms that will take place in England in consequence of this war will be the abolition of the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, which, after all, is but a relic of medievalism, and does not tend to keep the British democracy in the position it should occupy.
I quite agree with the mover and seconder of the resolution in refraining from any attack on the personnel of the Senate, a course which has been very often departed from in this House in debating similar resolutions. It is quite true that the Senate has not accomplished that measure of use-

fulness which the founders of Canada expected of it; nevertheless, the members of the Senate have been eminently respectable and able men, always desirous of performing their public duties. The mover of the resolution has referred to three or four measures which have been defeated by the Senate.
I cannot at the moment say, nor would I care to speculate upon, what were- the motives of the members of that body in defeating any of the measures to which the hon. member has referred. But I believe that in each case the Senate probably reflected public opinion. Looking backward upon the defeat of the Yukon Railway Bill-I was not in the House at that time- I am inclined to believe that it was probably in the interest of Canada. Perhaps it is easier to see that to-day than at the time the Bill was defeated. And it is quite possible that the motive impelling the Senate in its action was political. I think also that the defeat of the Naval Bill would have been endorsed by the public if the matter had been properly presented to them and time had been afforded for reflection. The Senate did not defeat the Highways Bill, but merely insisted upon an amendment which the Government did not accept. I have never had any doubt as to the propriety of the Senate defeating that Bill absolutely, for every measure involving the expeiuidiituii'e of public money .should have behind it some policy, and this was a Bill without any public policy behind it. Only recently we had the defeat of a Bill for the relief of the shareholders of a defunct bank, the Farmers' Bank, a Bill in which I think you, Mr. Speaker (Mr. Blain in the Chair) were actively interested. That Bill was defeated by vote of the Senate, the majority including many of those affiliated with the Conservative party. I think this was one instance in which the majority of the Senate defeated a Bill which they believed to be wrong in principle, and in defeating it were not influenced by political considerations.
There is one feature in the constitution of the Senate which I do not hesitate to condemn, and that is the life tenure of office by senators. I do not believe there is in this Chamber to-day a single member, who, expressing his honest conviction, would say that he approves of that feature of the constitution of the Senate. The abolition of the life tenure would be in itself a very considerable reform, and would bring about so many advantages that there would be less necessity for radical changes in the

constitution of the Senate. The suggestion of election of senators doubtless has features to recommend it. The idea is not a new one. It has been tried in the United States, perhaps in some instances with success, but in many to the grievous disappointment of the best citizens of that country. It may matter little what is the form of constitution of a parliament, you may get good results from a parliament which, in theory, is improperly constituted, and vice versa. " What's best administered is best." I am rather inclined to the view of the hon. member for Assini'boia (Mr. Turriff) iat the moment, but am not inflexible in that view and would be quite willing to change it if reasons were given to prove thaJt an elective Senate is the best. When a resolution on this subject was before this House in 1906 the present leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) quoted from Sir John Macdonald upon the subject of lan elective Senate. I read what was then quoted, because it embodies a substantial objection that can be raised against the suggestion contained in the resolution. Sir John Macdonald said:-
The arguments for an elective council are numerous and strong; and I ought to say so), as one of the Administration responsible for introducing the elective principle into Canada. I hold that this principle has not been a failure in Canada, but there were causes-which we did not take into consideration at the time- why it did not so fully succeed in Canada as we had expected. One great cause was the enormous extent of constituencies and the immense labour which consequently devolved on those who sought the suffrages of the people for election to the council, for the same reason the expense, the legitimate expense, was so enormous that men of standing in the country, eminently fitted for such a position, were prevented from coming forward.
The latter part of the quotation I think, gives a fairly substantial objection to the principle of the resolution submitted by the hon: member for Welland. A senatorial election on the basis outlined in the resolution may incur a vast amount of legitimate expense and would consume a great deal of time, and I fear that the result would be that the proper class of men would not seek election to a Senate so constituted.
It will be unfortunate if this debate should end without further action taken, as occurred in the case of other similar resolutions. I think the opinion that there is room for reform in the constitution of the Senate is as strong upon one side of this House as upon the other. This is a question on which, I think, we might well
forget for the moment our political feelings, the Government might forget that they are in power, and that members might join together candidly and regardless of political feelings, with the hope of working our some solution of this problem. I would suggest that a committee of the House be appointed to consider the resolution, and I would give power to that committee to send for witnesses and for any documents which may be available and helpful. The matter being taken up by this committee, I should hope that the interest in it would be continued after the conclusion of this debate. A number of members of the House, and a number of senators also, might he summoned before the committee, and probably their opinions would be given to the committee with greater alacrity than they would be given in the House. I am not sure that the committee should not be composed of members of the senate as well as of members of this House. I submit my amendment. It embodies the view I hold, and if not absolutely correct in form, it can be amended later:
That a select committee of seven members of the. House of Commons he appointed to take into consideration notice of motion No. 16 on the notice paper, standing in the name of Mr. German and relating to the constitution of the Senate, with power to send for persons, papers and documents and to report from time to time.


Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, when I came to the House this afternoon, I was not aware that this resolution was to be debated and, therefore, I have not got my thoughts in such order as I might desire. But, Sir, the question of the constitution of the Canadian Senate is one that has for many years more or less had my attention. I realize that in drawing constitutions one may plan ever so carefully and that in the actual working out of the scheme what was desired is not always attained. One of the most glaring examples, I suppose, in history, is the effort of the founders of the American Constitution in determining the methods that were to be adopted in the election of the president. They established it as a principle that the Electoral College should be chosen. They, no doubt, expected that it would be composed of the ablest and most far-sighted men of the time, that they would gather together at stated periods and that their combined wisdom would result in the most suitable man in the United States being chosen as president. But, if that was what they expected they signally failed in attain-



mg that result because, as is well known, the election of the president of the United States is fought out to-day on party lines of the most well-defined and clean-cut edge.
I am quite ready to admit, speaking from this side of the House, that I do not believe that the constitution of the Senate, as it is now established, is altogether satisfactory. But, in saying that, perhaps, I only in a general way criticise the Senate as democracy has been criticised as being "oif all fonmis of go-verramenit the least objectionable." Perhaps our selective Senate is of all forms of choosing the least objectionable. But, as the hon. membeT for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) said, that is best which is best administered. If it were possible to impress upon the governments of the day -I speak having regard to the appointments that the Liberals have made and I speak also taking into consideration the appointments that the Conservatives have made-that if less attention were paid to purely party lines, if we were not so keen to give recognition to men of our own political faith, but if we took a wider point of view and endeavoured to secure for the Senate men of outstanding capacity in the various walks of Canadian life, educational, industrial, agricultural, financial and political, the Senate of Canada would toe a stronger body.
Now, the hon. member for Halifax has said that in the main he believed the Senate had expressed what the people were from time to time thinking, and he has directed attention to the Yukon Bill of some years ago, to the Naval Bill and the Highways Bill of a few years ago. As to the Yukon Bill, I cannot speak, because I am not acquainted with its peculiar terms, but I think the attitude of the Senate on the Navial Bill came as a tremendous shook to the people of Canada, because we know that there were Liberals who believed that the Conservative party were right and voted against the Bill and the Conservative party, and I do not think it would be amiss to eay that there were Conservative senators who thought that the Liberals were right and "till voted for the policy of the Conservative party. I believe that the senators should act more or less as political judges, that they should be publicists of the widest point of view, and that in the discharge of their duties their decision should toe reached with regard only to the interest of Canada at large and without regard to the particular view of this measure or that measure as it appears to affect the fortunes of one party or the other for the time being.

But would my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) attain this ideal condition if this measure should be adopted toy thi6 House and if it should have legal effect? It does not seem to me that he would. He says:	Let us have an elective Senate, elected for a definite term, and if we have that we will get an independent Senate. If one is to judge of w'hat is going to be the effect of the resolution, or of the legal enactment of the proposition, there is no better school than the school of experience to enable us to determine the result. Let us see what has been the effect of an elective Senate. The great outstanding example is the Senate of the United States. I do not think the hon. member for Welland would contend that there party politics are not the predominant force that determines the election, and although- party politics in the main do determine the election, there is one other characteristic that is a very important factor and that is the wealth of the men who stand for election to the American Senate. Wealth and party prestige are essential in the main to election to the American Senate. If you want to take a more recent example you have the example of the Senate of the Australian Commonwealth. There was a body of men speaking the same language as our own, taking the British Constitution and the ideals and examples well known to them and to us, and endeavouring to elaborate an ideal constitution. They decided that they would have an elective Senate, and how has it worked out? Party lines are drawn just as tightly in Australia as in other countries and in the case of an election to t'he Senate the same organization prevails for the election of senators as for election of members to the House of Representatives and party lines are to a great extent the determining factors. If we.should adopt this method of election in Canada, I am afraid we would find ourselves in this predicament, that men standing for election to the Senate would necessarily have to declare their party affiliation and attitude to public questions of the day. Under our system of elections, many questions come before the people at the same time and a man might vote for his represanifcatrve for this reason or that but I greatly fear that the election to- the Senate being for a wider area, and an appeal being made to very many more men than would be made in an election of a representative to this House, we would find that wealth and party prestige would be the controlling factors.

I believe in manhood suffrage, I think that every man who lives in the country and is a citizen is entitled to a vote, but while I believe in manhood suffrage, I doubt very much if manhood suffrage has attained all that those who fought for it desired. The issues upon which elections have been fought in this country are rarely so clear-cut and well-defined as to make the popularity and influence of the candidate a negligible factor. If you are going to elect your senators not from a population of 30,000 or 40,000 but from a couple of hundred thousand and if manhood suffrage is to prevail, as it should prevail, then it seems to me that there is nbt going to be any chance for the man of moderate means because influences will be brought to bear that should not be brought to bear and the Senate that the hon. member for Welland desires to be constituted will be a Senate that would represent the wealthy men of the party in each district in which that party's votes predominated.
I think there is a good deal to be said for the amendment of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) that a committee of this House should be constituted to look into the whole question and see if some way can not be devised by which the personnel of the Senate will 'be strengthened and in order that it may not be managed merely as patronage to be distributed by the Government that may from time to time happen to be dan power.


Mr. O. TURGEON (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say only a few words on the resolution of my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German). I think it is well known in this House and in the country that I am one of the most sincere admirers of the constitution of Canada and of the Fathers of Confederation, who gave us that constitution. The reform of the Senate is a question upon which I have already expressed my mind, and no member of this House who has introduced suggestions for its reform has ever been lable to convince me to change my opinion. I believe in the wisdom of the Fathers of Confederation, and I say that in the establishment of the two chambers the Fathers of Confederation proved their practical wisdom for the distant future, and more particularly for the near future, as we may describe the present day in relation to their time.
We must not conclude that the Senate does not fulfil its mission because it does not meet with the approval of everyone in
73i
the country. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) has made that point explicitly, as he does every point upon which he treats, especially on questions legal or constitutional. I agree with him in the admiration he has expressed for the members of our Senate. It is, perhaps, only one more evidence of idle wisdom of the appointive as opposed to the elective Senate. The appointment remains upon the responsibility of the Government of the day, who have every possible interest in appointing to the Senate outstanding men of the day, who have proven their quality by their past records and their careers.
Hon. members speak of securing better conditions in the Senate by means of elections. As the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Nickle) said, I believe that wa have now enough elections dn this country to interest the electors, between municipal, provincial and federal, and that with that consideration in view the Fathers of Confederation decided to make the Senate appointive instead of elective. The result will be practically the same. For instance, in my province, in which we have ten senators, and after the next election will have only eleven members of the House of Commons, the divisions will be practically the same. My constituency, being a large one, will be the same for the Senate as for the House of Commons, and I believe that I would have more chance at the hands of my electors than at the hands of the present Government. However, I am against the elective system as applied to the Senate.
One of the main reasons why the Fathers of Confederation, in framing the constitution, made the Senate appointive, was to secure the protection of minorities. The Senate has been created more for the protection of minorities than from any other consideration, political, industrial or financial. I well remember, some years ago, one of our regretted friends, Sir
5 p.m. Richard Cartwright, in discussr ing this question in the Senate saying that he favoured an appointive Senate just because in his province of Ontario, where the large majority are Protestant and the minority Catholic, even with the best will of the different organizations of both parties in Ontario and every effort to give due representation in the House of Commons to the minority in the province, it had always been found impossible in practice to secure such representation for them, and that by the placing of the onus of such responsibility on the Government, the Governments of Canada, both Liberal and Con-

servative, had been able to give just representation to the minority in Ontario through the power of -appointment to the Senate. The same thing might be said of Quebec where under an elective system of appointment to the Senate, erven without any feeling, it would be impossible in many districts to have a sufficient number of English representatives from that province in the House of Commons. Similar conditions might arise in any other province where we have the Irish Roman Catholics, the French Roman Catholics and the English element, each anxious to have fair representation in this House, but in some cases unable to do so owing to the way in which the population is distributed. In such a case fair .representation cannot be obtained at the hands of the electorate, but can be obtained through this power of appointment. Take New Brunswick for instance. I remember a few years ago, when my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was at the head of the Government, and there was a Senate vacancy belonging, as we thought, to the French minority, he convinced me that I should let the vacancy be filled by an Irish Catholic because in the province of New Brunswick the Acadian people, the French population, had their fair share of representation in the House of Commons while the Irish Catholics could not send one of their own to this House; and therefore it was in the interest of justice that the Irish Catholic element should have a larger representation in the Senate and they had the right, so far as the Senate alone was concerned, to such representation. In that way both minorities in the Maritime Provinces did obtain just representation, just proportional representation, in the Senate. As I say, it is one of the reasons why the Fathers of Confederation decided to adopt the appointive system instead of the elective system.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), has said that the elective system would be a very expensive one. No doubt it would, and that is another consideration against it.
It is said that the Senate has on many occasions shown partisanship. I agree with the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) that when the members of the Senate in 1897 or 1898 rejected the Yukon Bill which provided for the construction of a railway in that country, we as Liberals perhaps thought at the time that the Senate might have been actuated by partisanship. It may be that the experience of today has convinced the population of Can-

ada that, from a practical standpoint, the Senate were right in their decision. It has been said that the Senate showed partisanship in rejecting the Naval Bill of 1912. May I remind the House that the Senate at the time acted most wisely. They did not reject the Naval Bill, I cannot allow that statement to remain uncontradicted The Senate at the time did what the constitution, in the pure spirit of democracy, permits them to do, force an appeal to the country; and if the country had supported the Bill the Senate was prepared at the next session to stand by it.
There is another point which I wish to raise. My hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) has mentioned an age limit of seventy-five or about that age. Let me say that since I have been in this House and have had an opportunity to observe the Senate, I have found that in the Senate, without mentioning any names, it is those past seventy-five who have been most active in the Senate, and have given the most efficient service.


John Gillanders Turriff: Make the limit one
hundred years.


Onésiphore Turgeon: It shows the wisdom of the Fathers of Confederation that with all our attempts to amend the constitution and reform the Senate, we cannot reach any solution. That simply means that they acted so wisely that we cannot amend their work. They foresaw that point also, and made the reservation that when a senator vacates his seat for two years he forfeits it, and therefore when he becomes incapable of attending the Senate and has stayed at home for two years the Government must appoint another man.
>1 am not opposed to the amendment which has been brought forward by my hon. Mend: I believe, it would ibe a good thing for us to show the country that we take an interest in this suggestion. I believe, however, that very little reform could be made, except, perhaps the reform suggested by the member for Assiniboia-that more legislation should originate in the Senate, thus keeping the members of the Senate busier and doing away with their complaint that they have to wait for legislation coming from this House.


Mr. EDMOND PROULX (Prescott):: I
have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the fathers of Confederation adopted what they considered to be the best possible plan, having regard to their experience. As the hon. member for Welland (Mr. WT. M. Ger-

man) said, the elective plan in 1855 did not prove successful. At the time of its adoption they did not have a free hand, because the then members of the legislative counoil held office under the old system. The same difficulty would be experienced if the plan suggested by the hon. member for Welland were adopted; we would have to commence as they did in 1856, with a practically complete chamber, and deal with the vacancies according to the new plan.
I sympathize with my hon. friend's idea so far as the reforming ,of the Senate is concerned, but I doubt very much whether his plan would prove as successful as he imagines. As the member for Assini'boia (Mr. J. G. Turriff) said we have many elective bodies in this country-school boards, municipal councils, legislative assemblies, and the House of 'Commons-and perhaps it is just as well that we should have, as the highest legislative body in the land, a chamber appointed under the selective system. I am strongly in favour of the suggestion of the hon. member for Assini-boia, however, that a change should be made in the manner ,of making appointments. T think his plan is one that should commend itself to this House, because all the appointments should not be in the gift of only one party. The Conservative party remained in power for eighteen years previous to 1896, and the Liberal party was in power for sixteen years after that date. During the time that each party was in power, each party made all the appointments to the Senate. Members of a Government are human, and their preference always goes to members of their own party. If appointments are made by both parties, it is only just that the party in power should have the majority of the appointments. The mode suggested by the member for Assiniboia is, I think, a very good one; it is better to have the Senate more divided and more in touch, perhaps, with public opinion.
Another reform which ought to be adopted is one affecting the age limit of members of the Senate. The member for Gloucester (Mr. O. Turgeon) seems to think that the older senators are very efficient. No doubt there are exceptions, but I would point out that the age limit of county court judges, which formerly was eighty, a few years ago was set at seventy-five. If, therefore, there is an age limit for those who have to administer the laws, I do not see why there should not be an age limit in respect to those who make or revise the laws. When
a man passes the age of eighty years, his mental powers are somewhat impaired. In this House there are very few men above the age of seventy-five years-I think there are not more than three or four-although I believe that these men are just as good as, if not superior to, those who are younger.
Another reform which I would like to see adopted is that of the appointing of senators for a term of years-say, ten years. They could be reappointed at the end of that term, but upon reaching the age limit they would have to vacate the seat. By appointing senators for a term of years, I think that more changes would result, more new blood would come into the Senate, and the Senate would be more in touch with public opinion. We do not want to see in Canada an Upper House, such as they have in the Old Country, which is a refuge for the aristocracy. We have no aristocracy in Canada, but if the creation of lords and the practice of conferring titles generally is continued, we may have an aristocracy before many years. This country is a democracy, and I think it is the wish of the people that it should remain democratic; that Canada should not have an aristocracy. The second chamber, which is a revising body, should keep in touch with the views and the wishes of the people. Although I want to see reforms adopted, I doubt very much whether the making of the Senate elective instead of selective would bring about the desired results.
<Mr. BOULAY (Rimouski) (Translation): Mr. SpeakeT, I regret to say I am not learned in the law, and I have not the slightest intention to discuss the motion introduced by my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) ; I beg, however, to be allowed a few remarks on the question now before the House.
It is to be deplored that the hon, member for Welland did not see fit to bring up this resolution when his party was in power; its chance of becoming law would then have been better. I feel, however, that I owe him my congratulations: Personally I am in (favour of an elective senate such as he suggests. The scheme is fully in line with democratic principles and would be of great advantage in many cases. The system would allow every section of the population to elect its own representative to the Upper House, while at present senators are appointed from Quebec or Montreal to represent rural districts, such as the division of the Gulf, foT instance. Such dealings are detrimental to the electors of the sections

concerned; it often happens that senators are (unknown to the people they are -supposed to represent and are themselves unacquainted with the residents of their senatorial division. How then can -they properly look after the interests of their constituency?
Even -should the present system of appointment be continued, it seems to me that -the government of the day should always pay heed to such requirements; tout with an elective senate such as advocated [DOT]by -the hon. member for Welland and with senators elected for -a period' of ten years or more, as suggested by the hon. membeT for Prescott (Mr. Proulx), there would be *no opportunity for such unfair treatment; the voters would always see that they elect to the Senate the ;mani that is most agreeable to them.
I also think that age should be taken into account; old age affects ia senator's efficiency and power just as it affects efficiency and power of a man in any station of life. An elective Upper House would also obviate that drawback.
Another point; 1 believe that the -senatorial representation ought to be proportionate to- the population of every province iais is that of the House of Commons. Accepting 24 as the number of Quebec senators, I think it might be taken as a basis to determine the number of senators to which the other provinces are entitled'; the system would then be the same as that whereby the number of representatives in this House is computed. It -seems to- me that in this way the whole of Canada would be moTe fairly represented. Of course, certain provinces -would lose some of their senators, but it is only fair that their representation in the Upper House be in proportion to their population-. At present the province of Quebec counts only one senator for every 83,000 people, while Prince Edward Island with a population of 90,000 or 92,000 is represented by four. In this way the province of Quebec is not accorded1 fair treatment.
I do think that the appointment of a committee, from both sides of the House, as suggested by the hon. -member for -Halifax (Mr. iM-aclean) and the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) to seriously investigate the question would ibe the moist expedient method of arriving at a solution and satisfy all parties concerned. I hope the suggestion will be favourably considered by the members of the two political parties of the country.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have been interested in the discussion which has taken place on this subject, and, of course, I would have been all the more interested had a greater number of hon. members spoken. I do not think it at all follows that because nearly fifty years ago a certain method was adopted, under then existing conditions, to frame a political constitution, the time may not come when that constitution ought to be revised so as to conform with the social and political changes which have occurred in the interim. Of course, discussion and thoughtful consideration are necessary preliminaries to any such change. On such a subject as -this, I always hail with pleasure a really earnest conversation in this House, and one bereft of any party animus. My hon. friend, the proposer of this resolution (Mr. German) has, in .his remarks, offered a delightful opportunity for a little criticism, were I disposed to indulge in it, in that he accused himself of seeming inconsistency. We have all, however, been in that position, more or less, and it is hardly fair to animadvert in that respect. My hon. friend (Mr. German) seemed to be striving after an upper chamber, the members of which should have neither party bias nor political principles, but I think most people will agree that it is not necessary to delete political principles from a legislative body which has to deal with governmental and administrative measures. I am partly in sympathy with my hon. friend in that I would prefer a Senate that was less strongly partisan than a House of Commons. But to my mind the hon. gentleman is steering -straight towards methods which would inevitably result in the election of senators who could not help but have party bias. How are you going to bring about such a change in the habits and opinions of men that, when they are elected to the Senate, they will at once forget the party principles and party affiliations in which they believe and with which they have been surrounded from their earliest years? How are you going to conduct a campaign in a large constituency unless yon have a political organization? Will you have a "German" organization or a "Lemieux" organization or a "Copp" organization? Will your organization be personal or will it be political? To my mind it is bound to be a political organization, and being such, it will be a party organization. If you have only two great dominant parties, you will, of

a certainty, have two candidates, one of whom will have drawn his support from one party, the other of whom will have drawn his support from the other party, and they will each look for further support to the political party organization with which they have been associated. As a result of a system based on this resolution you must get in the Senate party men.
I do not think there is any escape from that conclusion. If you want to get a Senate with the least partyism in it, keep the appointive power. I do not say you will get a stronger Senate in that way, but by reason of the diminution of party strife and party principles due to freedom from future elections, the senators being in that House for the remainder of their life, and not having to cultivate party affiliations in order ito make ready for ithe day when (they shall have to account to the people and ask for another term of power, you will get a set of circumstances which will tend to eliminate strong partyism and tend to throw a man upon his own independence. There have been examples o:/er and over again of men of both parties who have very largely lost their partyism in the Senate, and have acted in a way which would seem to commend itself to my hon. friend. If you are going to seek a method by which you will have the least partyism, it will be the appointive method, something such as we have now. I think, however, that by the appointive method, with our political training and methods, we get probably not so strong a set of men as we would get by the elective system. I bear testimony to what my hon. friend has said as to the general character of the Senate, and of the men who have formed our Senate from earliest times to the present. I think they have averaged well with the members of the House of Commons, and that on the whole we have had a Senate of which we need not in any way be ashamed. But I think it is also a fact that the elective method tends to make a stronger Senate, as you then have a Senate which lives closer to the people and studies more closely the trends of business and political thought. I think that has been proven by the system in the United States. I think it goes without saying that the most influential and most important part of the Congress is their Senate; and that body is the stronger and more important, because its members come from the people. They owe their election to the
mass of voters they gather to their side, and they gather them to theiT side because of their own public spirited qualities and character. In the United States the elective senators have on the whole the most representative men.	.
But are you going to get rid of partyism by having an elective Senate? Australians and Canadians are not so different from each other and my hon. friend for Kingston very properly pointed to the lesson which is taught us by the slightest survey of the working out of the constitution in Australia.
I am not saying it to the discredit of the Australians, but I am saying it because I think it is true, that there is not a more strongly partisan body as a Senate anywhere in the world than you find in the Commonwealth o-f Australia. Yet they are all elected. They were elected on the basis and with the thought-and that part of their constitution was framed on the basis and with the thought-^that th^y would be non-partisan .to the largest possible extent, and coming from all the different states would hold the balance equally and justly as between parties. But instead of that they are partisan to a degree; their elections are run on the partisan basis. They have the strength, in the opinion of my hon. friend, that their term i3 not co-terminus with the term of the members of the Lower House as we would call it. Theirs is a longer term, but they go back to the people periodically. So that, tested by these examples, it does not seem to me that my hon. friend (Mr. German) is by this method going to get the non-partisan body he desires in the Senate. I am not certain that a non-partisan body in the Senate, an entirely neutral body as regards party politics, would be a very workable branch of the governmental machine. In our governmental machine we work through the Government, which commands a majority so long as it does what is about right and holds to the principles of its parity; and by the force and power of its organization it is able to get its measures ithroiugh. But if you have im the Senate an absolutely neutral body politically you are transferring measures from a body which is strongly organized, where the Government and the party that supports it has the power to put through its measures and leaping into the midst of a body which has no organization of that kind, arud over which the Government has no power other than the innate value of the legislation which it is seeking to carry through. You may say that that is an excellent test, that if a Gov-

eminent with a strong party behind it throws its strength into a measure and then sends that measure to th'e other House, if it is proper legislation you may depend upon its getting a fair show. But that may not be the case. I just throw out the suggestion that, looking at it from some points of view, it is not a demerit, but rather a merit that both sides of the House shall owe their fealty and loyalty, in a high and good sense, to the principles which unite and dominate their pairlty. When, .a party oiutQdves its principles, then some other principles have to be put in their place. That is the line of development in parliamentary and legislative institutions. Speaking as an individual, and not as leading in the House for the time being the party to which I belong, I would like to see some changes instituted so that the constitution of the Senate would in some respects be different from what it is in its general line of representation. It may be idealistic, but I would like to see in the Senate some special representation of great interests in this country other than political interests; for example, the great educational and scientific and moral interests, of the country which tend just as much and perhaps even more towards making a country prosperous and great as do iron and copper and lead, and fish, and lumber.
To these intellectual, moral and spiritual forces, I should like to see representation given in the senatorial hody; I should like to have those representatives mingle with the representatives of the more material, and in some respects more practical, interests. Could -this be brought about, I think it would tend toward better legislation and improved tone in our political life.
These are just a few thoughts which have come to me as this discussion has gone on. What shall we do with the matter, now that it is here? The suggestion is made to send it to -a committee of the House, to gather testimony upon the subject. Well,
I have seen an infinite number of these committees appointed to gather testimony, and I ask myself what could such a committee gather on this subject that would be of great moment or would .greatly help in the solution of .this question? Is the country alive to the necessity of .a change in the constitution ,of Senate? It certainly is not showing much interest in the matter. I am not sure but that the country has settled down to the idea that perhaps the system that we have is quite as good as any other. There is not a very wide in-
LSir George Foster 1
terest in the subject in this House, so far as I have been able to judge by this debate and similar debates in previous sessions. So, I d.o not know of any particular good which will come from the appointment of a committee armed with power to send for persons -and papers and instructed to collect information -as to an ideal constitution for our Senate. The faots can easily be learned. There are the different senatorial bodies of the world with their several constitutions, and any man can within a short time get together the information as to these. This is a question which does not depend so much pn information, it seems to me, as upon the careful consideration of the historic development of government in the world in general, and especially in our own country and countries similar to ours. Judgment formed in this way is what will weigh in future changes to he made in the constitution of out Senate. I do not wish to dictate to the House, but as we are few in number this afternoon, and as the subject is an important one and members may desire to consider it for a little time, I would suggest that when we have ended our present discussion, the debate might be adjourned to be taken up later, when we may come to the conclusion to appoint a committee, or to deal with the question in some other way, as we think best.


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The
tone of the remarks we have jusit heard from the leader of the House, Sir George Foster, as most commendable, and will be approved, I am sure, by every member of the House. As he has very properly said, the question is being treated academically, yet it is a very practical question, and I am more pleased than I can say that he has not closed the door to the suggestion of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) to refer this matter to a committee. A committee composed of the hon. member for Welland, the hon. member for Halifax, the hon. member for Kingston, and the other hon. gentlemen who have addressed the House on this subject, would be able to collect, I am sure, valuable information on the subject, and to make very useful suggestions. I do not know that there is very much to be collected in the way of definite information, but a committee composed as I have suggested would be able to make a report to the House which would assist us in strengthening one of the weak places in our constitution. For, I have no doubt, if there is a weak point in the constitution of

Canada it is in the way our Senate is formed.
The hon. member for Welland has gone back to the origin of Confederation. It is within the knowledge of everybody that from the very day our constitution was adopted, the form of the Senate has been the subject of criticism. If I may be permitted to make a personal confession, I might refer to the fact that the Liberal Convention which met in this city in 1893, suggested the reform of the Senate as one of the reforms to be carried out. When the Liberal party came into office this subject was prominently before it. The Convention, however, had not gone further than to suggest a reform of the Senate-it had not said what that reform should be; and when we came into office it was difficult to get Parliament to agree to this or that reform. The Committee, if appointed would have to decide whether to recommend the continuance of the present system of appointment by the Crown-with any modifications that they might think best-or whether we should adopt the method of electing members to the Senate. When Confederation was under consideration, the legislature of the two Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada had a second chamber which was elective. The Convention which was held in 1864, had to consider whether there should be a second chamber or only one. The unanimous opinion was that, especially as a federal system was to be adopted, a second chamber was indispensable. The question then was whether it should be an elective chamber or one nominated by the Crown. As the hon. member for Welland has said, when Upper and Lower Canada were joined in 1841, the second chamber was made up of members nominated by the Crown, but this had not been satisfactory, and was changed in 1854, and then followed elections in 1856, 1858, and so on, as the hon. member has stated. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Welland, for I think that the elective system adopted in 1854, brought to the House a very high class of intellect indeed. Among those who were elected to this Legislative Council from the Province of Upper Canada were Mr. Vankoughnet, Mr. Christie, Mr. Mac-pherson, and I think Mr. Aikins, father of the present Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba. Among those brought to the Chamber from Lower Canada were Sir Etienne Paschal TachS, Mr. Dessaulles, and Mr. La-coste, with quite a number of other of similar high standing in the community.
In 1864, however, when the convention sat in Quebec to prepare for Confederation, we must remember that we were in the throes of the American Civil War, and there was an impression rather prevalent that democracy might not succeed, and that it might be just as well not to have an absolutely democratic Parliament, but to retain something of the more Conservative system of Europe and of Great Britain. The system adopted, whether it was wise or not, did not give full satisfaction. When the Liberal party came into office in 1896 we had that question before us and the difficulty that we had was to determine whether the elective or the nominative system was the better. I personally would have been in favour of the American system, which provided for the election of the Senate, not by the people, but by the legislatures. Under that system, extending over a period of seventy or eighty years, the American Senate was probably one of the most potent and able legislative bodies in the world. They had in it such men as Webster, Clay, Calhoun, Douglas and Chase, the very elite of all that was intellectual, dignified and able in the United States. But, whether right or wrong, the accusation was made afterwards that the Senate had deteriorated and had become an assembly of plutocrats. As a consequence the system has been abolished and now the senators are elected directly by the people. These views created their impression upon us and we did not do anything.
I am glad that this discussion has taken place and that it has been free from all party allusions. But I think we might say that the present system of appointment, has given us a Canadian Senate of which we have no cause to be ashamed, whether on one side of the other. The appointments, on the whole, have been very creditable to both sides. The Government of Sir John Macdonald made some very good appointments, the late Government made some very good appointments, and the present Government have made some good appointments. They are not all equal; they cannot be all equal. As to the object which my hon. friend from Welland seeks to obtain- a non-partisan body-I quite agree with my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce that it is impossible to have a nonpartisan body. It is not in accordance with our system of Government. Our Government is founded, and carried on, upon the party system and so long as we retain that system, and so long as we have a first and second chamber they must reflect the

opinion of the community. It will be on one side or the other side of politics. Whether we are to have an elective system or not-and I would favour it very much- it is not free from the difficulties and the objections which have been mentioned by my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) but it is a question which is worthy of very serious consideration. I believe that if a committee were appointed, whether they decide in favour of an elective system or another system, or whether they decide a favour of the present system of appointment by the Crown, they would perhaps find it proper to recommend that the appointment should not be for life but for a stated period, say seven years, or perhaps ten or eleven years. There is a certain amount of work in a man and it is better that the members of a body of this kind should be replaced from time to time. What to do with the present members of the Senate is another question but I think we have a very wise precedent in that which was adopted by the Canadian Legislature in 1854. On the whole, I wish to express my satisfaction again to my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he has not closed the debate but that he has agreed that it should be adjourned and that it may be resumed. I favour having the matter referred to a select body to give us the benefit of their thought and consideration. I do not believe there is much to be gained by calling witnesses, but if you have men who can give us the benefit of their thought, experience, study and reading appointed to a committee of this kind, I believe that they would certainly be able to furnish us with, a very valuable report upon the subject.
On motion of Sir George Foster the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT-WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Biekerdike, That in the opinion of this House, the best interests of this young nation would be conserved by amending the Criminal Code so as to abolish the death penalty in Canada in so far at least as it applies to women and. children.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I find that I shall have to rule that this motion is out of order. Bourinot, at page 328, says:

It is an ancient rule of Parliament that no question or motion can regularly he offered if it is substantially the same with one on which a judgment of the House has already been, expressed during the current session.
This subject in all its phases was fully discussed on the second reading of Bill No. 83, to amend the Criminal Code, introduced by the hon. member for the St. Lawrence division of Montreal (Mr. Biekerdike). The abolition of capital punishment as i't applies to women and children was included in the objects of that Bill. The resolution of the hon. member is therefore out of order.


SEED GRAIN-EASTERN CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouta):: I would like to ask if there is any foundation for a statement which I find in L'Evene-ment, of Quebec, of Thursday last, as follows:
Owing to the foresight of the Federal Government, 400,000 bushels of seed grain has been purchased in the West for distribution throughout the eastern provinces. This grain has been inspected and selected by the Government inspectors from Ottawa, having at their head Mr. J. A. Simard, of Quebec. One million bushels of grain has been so inspected and nearly half of it will he allotted to the eastern provinces. Fifteen carloads have already been shipped into the Lake St. John district.
I should like to know if there is any foundation for the statement in L'Evene-ment.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Solicitor General):: This matter properly comes under the Department of. Agriculture, and I sih'all therefore make no reply beyond saying that I am aware that last summer a commission was appointed to take in hand [DOT]the seed grain situation in the West. That commission had certain purchasing powers with regard to seed grain, the intention being to prevent the draining of the country of seedable wheat in particular, and also other grains. I Shall bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, who will further answer the hon. member tomorrow.


Wilfrid Laurier: Did I understand that that commission was empowered to deal with the seed grain question in the West, not in the East?


Arthur Meighen: The commission was composed of Mr. Wilson of Indian Head, Mr. Govan of the same place, and Mr. Morrison of Winnipeg. Thus its personnel was western. I do not think the terms of t'hte Order

in Council confined their duties to the West. However, it wa6 the seedable wheat of the West that was particularly in mind, as t'be reports of our seed grain officers were to the effect that there was danger that such portion of western wheat as was fit for seed would likely be purchased particularly by American seed commission merchants, and that we might find ourselves without sufficient seed. I should say that the intention was that the municipalities should do the purchasing, and in the main they did so, the efforts of the commission being directed to calling the attention of the municipal officers to the requirements of the time and urging them to take all possible means to see that there was sufficient seed for the municipality. I rather think the scope of the commission was later extended, but I shall leave that for the minister himself to define.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT-DIVORCED PERSONS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Criminal Code, Mr. Pugsley.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. member f St. John asked me to move the .second reading of this Bill. The purpose of it is to relieve from the charge of bigamy persons who have contracted marriage in a foreign country after a divorce procured in such foreign country, under certain conditions which are set forth in clause 4 (a). I was instructed by the hon. member for St. John that it was arranged with the Minister of Justice that the Bill should be referred to a select committee, and, that being the case, it is unnecessary that I should say ainyitbong further about ilt.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time.


ACT RESPECTING COMPANIES.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. A. K. Maclean for the second reading of Bill No. 43, respecting Companies.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I desire to move the
second reading of this Bill. As I stated on the introduction of the Bill, it was prepared by a committee of the Canadian Bar Association and I think all the members of that committee are members of the Bar in the western provinces; at any rate the Bill was submitted to me in the form in which it is now before the House, and I undertook, on behalf of the President of the Canadian Bar Association,
Sir James Aikins, to introduce it and to ask the House to refer it to a select committee for consideration. Hon. gentlemen will see, upon looking at the Bill, that it is largely a compilation made from the Companies Acts of the western provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, some sections being taken from the Ontario Act. I do not approve of a great many features of the Bill as it stands. Being a compilation, it naturally has the weaknesses which Bills prepared in that manner usually have. However, I am authorized to say that those who are responsible for the preparation of the Bill are not wedded to its exact provisions.
It is the desire of the Canadian Bar Asso-ciaiton that we endeavour to secure uniformity in company legislation throughout all Canada, and its provinces. There is also a desire on the part of the legal profession in Canada-and many others outside the profession as well-for uniformity in company legislation throughout the Empire. Such uniformity is desirable in the interest of trade and commerce. It would mean a great deal for Canada if our company legislation were, as far as possible, in conformity with the English Companies Act. It would facilitate business transactions and encourage investment of capital in Canada if British investors knew that our law respecting corporations was substantially the same as that which obtained in England. The matter of uniformity of company legislation has been considered by the Imperial conferences on more than one occasion. I have before me a memorandum that was prepared for the Imperial Conference of 1911 by direction of the British Board of Trade. At that conference the following resolution was adopted with regard to the uniformity of formation, management and winding-up of joint stock com-1 ,*nies:
That it is desirable so far as circumstances hermit to secure greater uniformity of the company laws of the Empire, and that the memorandum and analysis prepared on this subject by the Imperial Government be noted for the consideration of the various governments represented at the Conference.
In the same memorandum I observe a resolution which had been passed by the Chamber of Commerce of Victoria, Australia. I should like to read this resolution, because it expresses what I wish to say concerning the desirability of adhering as closely as possible to the English Act. It is as follows:-


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that when incorporation under letters patent is asked for, at least in the province of Quebec, notices are published in the Official Gazette and in the press giving the purport and object of the company to be incorporated, and although the granting of letters patent is an old privilege of a king, as a matter of fact, letters patent are granted by the Secretary of State after the proposed incorporation has been considered by the Minister in Council, so that the public gets all the protection necessary, and it is not only according to the fiat of the King or the Lieutenant Governor for the King that letters patent are issued. The people are amply protected, it seems to me.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If a company is incorporated by letters patent, the directors may exceed the powers granted by the patent and they may commit the shareholders to projects not contemplated in the charter
and projects which the shareholders did not wish to embark upon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When the Companies case went before the Privy Council, I think it Was decided on a much broader basis than that. It seems to me that the Privy Council decided that certain companies incorporated by the provinces could have the whole Dominion as a domain.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Privy Council held that this company created under letters patent, issued by the Governor in Council of Ontario was a common law corporation and had all the rights of a natural person. That is, if the company had been created for the purpose of carrying on a mining business, they might, by virtue of the fact that their charter emanated from the representative of the Sovereign, go beyond their defined powers and commence, say an insurance business or any other business, that a natural person might engage in. That, perhaps, is rather an extreme interpretation of the decision but even in that case, we lack the legal machinery to prevent such a course, even if it was ultra vires of the company. It" is true, as my hon. friend states, that in Quebec we see numerous lengthy advertisements in the newspapers, and in the Koyal Canada Gazette, to the effect that certain individuals have been incorporated as a company, these advertisements setting forth as well the powers and objects of the companies. It is a most objectionable practise and means a great waste of money and of paper. It is something that we should have long ago been rid of. I understand that under the present Companies' Act of the province of Quebec, companies are permitted to publish an abridged advertisement. In respect of companies incorporated under the Canada Companies Act we solemnly go through the farce of compelling companies to publish in newspapers and in the Koyal Gazette lengthy advertisements respecting their incorporation which accomplishes no useful purpose whatever.
This Bill provides for the adoption of the registration system and the abolition of the letters patent system. In that respect the Bill, the second reading of which I am now moving, is a departure from the present Companies' Act. I can hardly undertake to explain its further provisions, because it is a very lengthy Bill, and I am sure a detailed explanation on my part would not interest many members of the House.

It might be of some interest to members of the legal profession, but I am sure they do not now desire any lengthy explanation of the whole Bill. It is very important, I think, that we should have a new Dominion Companies Act. Our present Act was ill-conceived .originally, aind it has never been improved. It is hardly worthy of the name of a Companies Act. Structurally it is weak and incomplete, and it has not kept pace with the development of company law in this country. Company law, I think I may say with accuracy, is now one of the most important branches pf our law. The greater volume of our business is done through the avenue of corporations, and without them we never could have reached our present stage of development. It would be impossible to mobilize money from all parts of the w.orld for our purposes by means of unlimited corporations or partnerships, and it is inevitable that in the future the great proportion of our business will be conducted by and through corporations. In fact, it is the only proper method to conduct a business of any magnitude whatever. It is important therefore that we have a substantial body of statute law in respect to companies for the guidance of corporations and in order to safeguard the public. I have already stated that it should be the inherent right of men to 'become incorporated; for private purposes. There should be np such thing as solemnly presenting a petition praying the Governor in Council or any other body or person that certain persons may be incorporated as a company.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is no protection to the public.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: None whatever, but the public should be protected in many other ways. The chief characteristic of a corporation is its limited liability, and for that reason we should take great care to safeguard the public against any fraud or abuse of the privilege of limited liability by corporations. Now, the present Canada Companies Act affords little protection to the public. I do not propose detaining the House to enumerate the many things which are lacking in this Act and which one would naturally expect to find there. For instance, there is nothing in the Act, I think, requiring the directors to call annually a meeting of shareholders. Nor is there anything corresponding to the clauses in the English Act relating to directors' liability, although most of the provinces have that provision.

The directors' liability clauses make directors liable for untrue statements in the prospectus. There are also provisions in the English Companies Act, and in most of the provincial Acts, relating to allotment of shares which we do not find in this Act. I do not think there is much that can be said in favour of the present Canada Companies Act, and it is very desirable it should be substituted by some other enactment which would be more in the interest of shareholders, the investing public and corporations themselves.
There is a feature which I should like to see introduced into our Act, and the only hope of getting it is from the Government. A great deal of doubt exists as to the capacity of a company provincially incorporated to carry on its business outside of the province in which it is incorporated. True there have been judicial decisions upon that point, but the public mind is very unsettled, with the result that most companies prefer a federal charter so as to escape the liability of an attack upon their powers to do extra-provincial business. I should like to see in the Canada Companies Act a provision making each province a separate district for federal purposes, and making the registrar of joint stock companies under the provincial Acts, a federal officer for the incorporation of companies under the federal Act. This would enable persons in the province of Nova Scotia or British Columbia say, to obtain a federal charter through the registrar of joint stock companies in their o wn province very quickly, The only diificulty would be as to the division of the fee for the incorporation between the province and the Dominion Government. There should be very little difficulty about that. I think in such matters the Government might treat the provinces generously, as doubtless the revenue derived from the incorporation of companies is an important matter to the provinces. I should like the Minister of Justice to take this matter into consideration and endeavour to make some arrangement with the several provinces by which companies can be incorporated at the capitals of the several provinces, the officer administering the provincial Companies' Act acting for the time being as a Federal officer. I think the provincial authorities would be disposed to assist in carrying out such an arrangement.
I do not think I shall occupy the time of the House further. I would ask, in conclusion, that the Bill be referred to a select committee limited to, say, seven or nine members, and I trust that this sug-

gestion will meet with the approval of the Government.


Mr. COPP:: Has this Bill reference to the incorporation of companies under provincial charters?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, it is purely a Federal Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have glanced through the Bill, but I am not in position to discuss its terms or provisions at this moment. I think it may be freely admitted that there is great room for improvement in our present Dominion companies' legislation. A Bill was prepared in the last session of the last Parliament, if my memory serves me right, and was sent to the Banking and Commerce Committee.
At all events, it did not become law. Since then it has been given: consideration at different times, but this has never resulted in the production of a Bill. The source from which thi6 Bill emanates, not only as coming from the hon. gentleman, but also as being the result of discussion of the Bar Association, would give us assurance that its provisions had been well considered, and so there is good reason to hope that these provisions, if embodied in law, would be in the interests of the country. As I said, I am not prepared to discuss the Bill this evening, nor do I desire to do so. With regard to the suggestion in favour of adopting the system of granting charters that is in use in England, I am not prepared to accept the proposition that it would be a very much better system for us than the present system of issuing charters by letters patent. On the other hand neither am I saying that it would not be an improvement. I would not care to commit myself on that proposition at this moment.
One argument used in support of the change is that everybody ought to be free, without being obliged to make a petition, and without being dependent upon the consent of the Crown or of any minister to become incorporated in accordance with the law. Though, as I understand, the present procedure involves a petition and the issuing of letters patent 'by the Secretary of State, yet any person who makes such a petition and conforms with the provisions' of the statute is, as a matter of right and not as a matter of grace merely, entitled to the grant of his letters patent.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If the Secretary of State refused, he would not be liable to mandamus by the court. But in the province of British Columbia, or in Nova Scotia, if the Registrar
of Joint Stock Companies refused to issue a certificate of incorporation, he could be enjoined by the courts.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Personally, I am inclined to agree with the hon. member that the Secretary of State would not be subject to mandamus. But I do not think that the proposition that he would not be so liable is quite as unquestioned as the hon. member seems to consider it. We had some discussion on that question, connected with the issue of some charters for racing associations. The question was debated in the last Parliament, when some question arose as to the action of the then Government upon the subject. 1 have a clear recollection that the Secretary of State of that day took the position that it was not a matter of discretion, but was a matter of right of the parties petitioning for the letters patent. I would not like to make this further affirmation as positively, but the impression that remained on my mind was that he even took the view that the Secretary of State might be liable to mandamus. I do know that the question arising again after this Government came into power-with regard also to the issuing of letters patent to incorporate racing associations-I, following in the footsteps of my predecessor, took the view that it was not a matter of discretion but was a matter of right. And I may say that for that reason, and that reason alone, I advised that certain petitions which were lying in the Secretary of State's Department, and had been lying there for a long time, should be granted; though simultaneously we introduced legislation to prevent such a thing happening again in regard to racing associations in the future. I am under the impression that decisions were submitted to me, that came from the Secretary of State's Department, going so far as to hold that a mandamus might issue to compel the performance of the duty- treating the duty of the Secretary of State as a purely ministerial function. As to that proposition, I should like to make my own reserve, because I think there is a distinction to be made, perhaps, between even the ministerial duty when performed by a person in the quality of Minister of the Crown and when performed as a ministerial duty by any other public servant. I am not saying that a mandamus could not issue, but I am inclined to agree with the hon. member, Mr. Maclean, that it could not. But, there is a difference of opinion, and, if my memory is correct, I was furnished with authority, though I do

not say that I was prepared to accept it, for the proposition that a mandamus might issue. However, I think we may anticipate that no Secretary of State will fail to perform the duty incumbent upon him in this matter. However, it is a legal question. Other methods could be found if it was thought desirable to make it quite clear that those who issue letters patent under the Companies' Acts enacted by the provinces or enacted by ourselves, would be governed absolutely by the statute and not entitled to fall back upon the, to my mind, not very clearly defined capacity that, in the case to which the hon. gentleman referred, it was held they derived from the fact that our system involves the issuing of letters patent. There was in the case the hon. gentleman referred to a question of provincial letters patent issued by the Lieutenant Governor of the province. It was contended that the Lieutenant Governor, being vested with the Crown's perogative in regard to the province, had powers not derived exclusively from the statute of the province, and not necessarily limited within the territorial boundaries of the province. If I correctly grasped the effect of the judgment when I had occasion to read it some time ago, and if my memory serves me, I did not quite apprehend that the judgment determined that the particular corporation thus authorized-in this case the Bonanza Mining Company-had power other than the power conferred upon it by its charter. I would not have been disposed to think as the hon. gentleman suggests, that the company being incorporated to carry on a mining business, might under the judgment, have carried on an insurance business.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is contended by some; but, of course, the view which the Minister of Justice is putting forward is held by others.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not suggesting
that my view should necessarily prevail, but I am trying to convey what I understood to be the effect of the judgment. I do not understand the effect to be that the corporation created by the province and under the provincial statute, though by letters patent issued by the Lieutenant Governor, would enjoy any power other than the letters patent themselves as authorized by the statute would confer. What I understood to have been held was that, in so far as the charter derived its effectiveness from being granted by the

Lieutenant Governor in the exercise of the prerogative powers referred to, the created corporation became a person with the capacities of a natural person from which the conclusion was drawn, that that capacity as a person was not territorially limited, that the person that was so created under letters patent issued under the prerogative powers of the Crown was a person who might go to the Yukon, and, if, under the laws of the Yukon, or any other country or province that that person went into, those charged with the legislative power in that particular country chose to recognize him as an existing person and allow him to proceed to carry out his powers within their territory, he then could lawfully do so. I did not grasp the judgment as conveying the idea that the created corporation had more powers than its letters patent, or the statute under which they were issued, gave it, but merely as holding that its personal existence was not limited within the territorial boundary of the province in which it was created, and that therefore if it went out into another province, if that other province chose to permit, or not to interfere, it might proceed with the exercise of the powers that had been conferred upon it just as any corporation does that goes into a foreign country. All of our corporations, when they go into a foreign country, derive their existence from no legislative body or no authority which has power to confer upon them either existence or powers to be exercised within the foreign country, but under the ordinary principle of the comity of nations, a corporation, when it goes into a foreign country, is allowed, in the majority of cases, to carry on the business it was incorporated to carry on, but I doubt very much if it would be suggested that it could carry on a business for which it was never incorporated. However, it is perhaps not necessary to go into this discussion for the purpose of what I desire to say. I think we can all readily agree that there is room for improvement in our present company legislation and the source from which this proposition comes gives us reason to believe that it certainly calls for a great deal of consideration on our part. As regards the hon. gentleman's suggestion that this should go to a special committee, I would ask him whether he does not think it might be as advantageously dealt with by being referred to the committee on Banking and Commerce. I would not speak positively, but my impression is that when we dealt with the sub-

ject on a previous occasion, the Bill was referred to the committee on Banking and Commerce. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that it cannot make any great difference because if the Bill went to the Banking and Commerce committee it might constitute another smaller committee to make a special study of the matter. If that were done we would have the advantage of a special study of the matter by a smaller committee and also the advantage of the examination of the whole question by the Banking and Commerce committee before it came back to this House. I do not want to be very insistent upon my suggestion but if it met with the approval of the hon. gentleman I think that would be as good a way as this bill could be dealt with.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I hope the Minister of Justice will not insist upon the Banking and Commerce Committee. I do not know how that committee is constituted at the present time, but I think if this Bill is to be considered by a committee at all it should go before a select committee. It will require the almost constant work 9 pm. of a committee for more than a month, perhaps more than two months, to go over its provisions; in fact, I should not be surprised if the committee appointed were unable to report at this session. I think it would be unwise to place the Bill before a general committee; I think it really should go before a select committee and I hope the minister will *agree to that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps we might allow the Bill to have its second reading with the understanding that, of course, we are not binding ourselves to anything in it and with the further understanding that it will be referred to a committee. Perhaps we can come to some arrangement as to what is the best way to deal with the matter.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time.


INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion for the second reading of Bill No. 45, to amend the Insurance Act.
Mr. W. H. BENNETT (Simcoe):: I would ask that the order be dropped, reserving the right to re-introduce the Bill. The terms of it aTe not in accordance with the wishes of the parties interested. I beg to move, therefore, that the order be discharged.
Motion agreed to and order discharged.


DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion for the second reading of Bill No. 12, to amend the Dominion Lands Act.
Mr. G. E. McCRANEY (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised that as this Bill purports to deal with property belonging to the Crown, it will be necessary to have the approval of the Governor General. I ask your ruling on that point, and if your ruling is to the effect that the assent of the Governor General is necessary I will move for leave to withdraw the Bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think there is no question that the purpose of this Bill is to dispose of the property of the Crown. While if is perfectly competent for an hon. gentleman to introduce a Bill of this kind, and while there would be no objection to the Bill having its second' reading, it cannot receive its third reading without the consent of the Crown. Unless that consent is forthcoming there is no object in proceeding further with the Bill.


George Ewan McCraney: In pursuance of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I move that leave be granted to withdraw the Bill.
Motion agreed to and Bill withdrawn. THE SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD.
On the motion of Hon. W. J. Roche, for the House to go into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to establish a board, to be called "The Soldier Settlement Board," consisting of three commissioners, and to provide for salaries and expenses in connection therewith, and to empower the Minister of the Interior, at the request of the board, to reserve such Dominion lands as may be required, and upon the recommendation of the board, to grant a free entry for not more than one hundred and sixty acres of such reserved lands to any person who has served in the naval or military expeditionary forces of the United Kingdom or of any of the self-governing British dominions or colonies, and who has left the forces with an honourable record or who has been honourably discharged, and the widow of any such person who died on activq service, subject to such conditions as in thd opinion of the Governor in Council are necessary to secure the use of the land for the purpose for which it is granted; and further to provide that the board may loan, upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, to any such settler an amount not exceeding two. thousand dollars for acquiring land for agricultural purposes, payment of encumbrances on lands used for agricultural purposes, improvement of agricultural lands, erection of farm buildings and purchase of stock, machinery and equipment, the money to be ex-



pended under the supervision of the board, and all expenditure made under the terms of this resolution to be paid out of such moneys as Parliament may appropriate for the. purpose.


Hon. W. J. EOCHE (Minister of the Interior):: elaborate explanations, as to the various matters set forth in the Bill.
This legislation is not intended in any manner whatever as a substitute for any other form of recognition which may now or hereafter be extended to the returned soldiers; it is simply and solely designed to assist the soldier in locating upon the land and help him after he has done so. It has a two-fold object-to assist the returned [DOT]soldier and to increase agricultural production. The members of the House are quite [DOT]well aware that in almost every civilized country in the globe the trend of population [DOT]for many years past has been to the large ) -towns and cities, and I am sure we are all desirous of doing our utmost, so far as is [DOT]possible by legislation, to stop that trend city-ward and to direct the flow of our population to the land in order to ensure greater [DOT]production. If this legislation shall have [DOT]the effect of attracting back to the land [DOT]those soldiers, not only of Canada but of [DOT]the rest of the British Empire, who originally came from the land, and of encouraging [DOT]a great many of those others who have never *had any agricultural experience to take the desired instruction and to locate upon the *land, our object will have been attained. This legislation is not meant as an adequate reward to our brave lads who have so bravely acquitted themselves in the trenches at the front.
We realize that nothing this Parliament [DOT]can do, whether by way of land grant or [DOT]by financial assistance, adequately compensates those brave lads )f ours who have gone from our country and who have been *subjected to such terrib'- hardships. They have acquitted themselves in a manner that has won the admiration of the world. They have gone to the front and done their duty like men, and this offer is meant as .some recognition on the part of a grateful country by way of preferential treatment such as has not been held out before to other settlers. If by offering this assistance we can place the soldiers upon the soil and increase our production we shall have accomplished what we have in view. This proposal is not presented as a model of perfection. It is a complicated question, and I have no doubt whatever that sentiment will play a very large part in a discussion of this kind, and very properly so. At the same time, there is a business side to it, and it is our desire to do our utmost to place the soldier in a position where he may help himself. I submit the legislation therefore, in this form to the [Ifr. Roche.]
House with the desire of getting the views of hon. gentlemen when we reach the committee stage, and I am sure the Government will be only too pleased to receive any suggestions, and possibly amendments.
Mr. GERMAN; I see that it is proposed to grant a free entry of not more than 160 acres to the soldiers. Is it proposed to grant this land without settlement duties?


Mr. ROCHE:: 0,h no, not at all.


William Manley German: What more are you offering to the soldiers then, than to an ordinary settler.


William Roche: We are granting them
financial assistance.


William Manley German: That is another thing.
But so far as free entry goes, any person can enter for 160 acres and obtain his patent by doing settlement duties. , I wanted to know if settlement duties would be dispensed with >in the case of a soldier.


William Roche: I forgot to say that it is the intention of the Government to have the administration of this Act placed under a commission, which will recommend a set of regulations to be approved by the Governor in Council. We do not think it would be wise to burden the Act with a lot of details, which experience might show the wisdom of changing from time to time. We think the personnel of this commission a very important consideration in the administration of this Act. The commissioners should be big men of great experience, who will command the confidence of the people of this country. They will draw up a set of regulations to be approved by the Governor in Council, by means of which the Act will be administered. The soldier gets an entry for 160 acres of Government land if he so desires.


William Manley German: But he can get that now.


William Roche: Yes. Does the hon. gentleman mean to say we should charge him for it?


William Manley German: No, no. I wanted to find out what the minister is offering the soldier more than he is offering to any other person.


William Roche: We are advancing him $2,000 at a very low rate of interest to carry on his farming operations.


William Manley German: As regards entry, the soldier has no advantage over any one else.


William Roche: We could not be more generous than giving him the land for nothing.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is very important legislation, and I would suggest, and I suppose my hon. friend will have no objection, that we do not go into the details to-night. Apart from the loan of money which is contemplated, the Government, as my hon. friend for Welland suggests, is offering nothing more to the soldier than to anyone else who wants to become a settler. I certainly do not quarrel with that. I think it should be well understood that no grants should be made to a returned soldier or anyone else except upon the condition that he becomes an actual settler. I would suggest to my hon. friend, if he will allow me, that he have a map prepared of the land now available for settlement. It is very important to know where these lands are situated. As my hon. friend has stated, they can only be in the three prairie provinces, and my impression is that at the present time we have very little left of Government homestead land. There is ' a great deal of land still in the hands of private people, but of the land which belongs to the Government and is fit for settlement, my impression is that the acreage is very, very limited indeed. It will be interesting to know just how much there is of this land available for settlement. When I speak of prairie lands I do not apprehend that at the present stage of development in Canada we can expect any returned soldier to go into the bush and clear land there. We must expect that he will want prairie land. I think it is advisable that we -should also know the distance these lands are from railways. It would not be fair to .offer land beyond a certain radius from the railways to any soldier for settlement. Perhaps it is contemplated that there are some lands which, while not actually prairie lands, might still be made available for agriculture with very little labour. I wish my hon. friend would also have prepared a map pf such lands to be laid on the table of the House, and with this information before us we shall certainly be very happy to give his Bill our best consideration. I understand from what my hon. friend says that he proposes nothing new beyond the loan of money.


William Roche: And agricultural training
for the inexperienced.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not understand exactly what is meant by that.


William Roche: Similar training to what
they are providing in Australia. We will
have some agriculture training farms for the inexperienced soldiers who desire to receive agriculture instruction before locating on their holdings, pr the instruction may be given on a private farm.


Wilfrid Laurier: That would he just as available to the ordinary homesteader, as to the returned soldier, but that is a feature we can very well discuss at a later stage. Do I understand that the loan of money .applies exclusively to the returned soldier?


William Roche: Yes. I may say that I have already prepared a map such as my right hon. friend has asked for, and I meant to place it on the Table at the Committee stage. It shows the lands available for settlement within ten, fifteen and twenty miles of a railroad. .


Mr. BUCHANAN:: I would like to point out that it is very important to know whether it is the intention to locate the soldiers on Dominion land. At the present time we have a serious railway problem to solve, and if we put the soldiers who aTe desirous of availing themselves of this proposition on Dominion lands, we shall be forced to place them on lands at a great distance from railways. Then they will demand railway service, and we will be compelled to build new railway lines to meet their needs. At the present time there are very few, if any, Dominion lands available close to railroads, but there are lands occupied on lease and used as Indian reserves that would suit this particular purpose if these lands could be exchanged for Dominion lands further away from a railway. I know that in the southern part of Alberta some of the most desirable land is held as Indian reserves and on lease. I want to see the Indians treated fairly, but in nearly every case these reserves are far too large for the number of Indians now occupying them. In fact they are using hardly any of this land for agricultural or grazing purposes. In some cases the lands are leased to ranchers and others for grazing purposes. But if we want to attract the soldiers to the land, the farms they are going to occupy should be convenient to the railroad and to market facilities and as well settled as possible, and we cannot offer them what are known at present as Dominion lands. I do not know of very desirable Dominion lands in any part of Alberta, except the extreme northern part. True, railroads are going in there at the present time. But ill the other parts	Alberta-and I assume

that the same is true of Saskatchewan and Manitoba-there are no desirable Dominion lands suited for this purpose and close to a railway. We want to make this proposition beneficial to the soldier. We want to attract to the land the soldier who either has had experience as a farmer or is earnest in his desire to become a farmer. We want to put on the land men who intend to till the soil and remain upon the soil, and in order to do that, we must make the proposition as attractive as possible. I would ask the minister, if he has the information available, what land he has in view for this particular purpose, and what distance it is from a railway. I think the information is very important at this stage.


William Roche: I told the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that when we got into committee I would provide a map showing where the land is located, and this will show also the distance from a railway. Of course, the proposition the hon. gentleman (Mr. Buchanan) makes would involve purchasing Indian lands. I do not suppose he proposes that we should do that. If we did it in the western provinces, the other provinces would have as good a claim that it should be done in their case.


George Ewan McCraney: We have had experience in dealing with soldiers and putting them upon Dominion land. We have issued Scrip to them and have had in view the rewarding of the soldiers rather than the encouragement of agriculture and fitting the returned soldier to be an efficient farmer. The very fact that the minister is able to tell us that of the locations under the provisions for South African scrip, numbering 7,240, only 657 were located by soldiers themselves on the land, and of these some have not completed their term of residence, shows to what a small degree the plan effected the purpose for which it was made. After the South African war we believed that we had unlimited land, and that consequently we could give to each of our returned soldiers script for as much as 320 acres. It has already been pointed out on this side of the House that there is not now any great quantity of land available for such a purpose as this. We cannot have our cake and eat it, too; we cannot have given thousands of acres under South African script and still have great quantities of good land available for those returning from this war. I am glad to have the minister state that in his conception of this legislation it

is not looked upon as a reward to the soldier but as a plan for making soldiers into efficient agriculturists. In addition to giving assistance to those who may go upon ' the land under the provisions of this legislation, the minister will also find, I think, that it will be necessary to give financial assistance to those homesteaders who, in 1914, left the land to join the overseas forces and have since returned to Canada. Perhaps the minister's attention has been drawn to the case of Private Baldwin, of Saskatoon, who, at the outbreak of the war, left his homestead, N.E.J, section 17, township 34, range 14 west of the 3rd meridian. He comes back, and has no means of carrying on agriculture-the year 1914 was a year of no crop in that locality. He will need assistance on the land he has homesteaded just as much as will the men whom the minister puts on the land under the provisions of this measure. It is said that the experience is that war is so unsettling that, instead of returned soldiers wanting to go on the land, they are more likely to desire to congregate in the cities.	And while
it is desirable to make the	most
generous provisions for the settlement of returned soldiers on the land, it is my own view that not much advantage will be taken of this plan. Perhaps the minister has already in his .mind the names of the commissioners whom he will recommend to administer this law. I only want to say to him that in the administration of laws of this kind commissioners are required with the most outstanding .reputation for probity and judgment. The ordinary man will not do, for one of the most important requirements for the administration of this Act is public confidence. I urge this upon the minister, because so often in matters of this sort, the importunate party man who may know something about land will endeavour to secure the appointment; and the minister is going to make trouble for himself and for any Government that may succeed him, unless he has the strongest kind of commissioners to administer the law.


William Manley German: I give this Government every credit for their desire to work out the resolutions now before the House. But the minister has admitted that nothing in the way of a land grant will be made to the soldier under the provisions of the Act to be introduced in pursuance of this resolution other than what any one else can get. The soldier must do his settlement duty. Any individual, tidier or civilian, can go into the Northwest

-and take uip his 160 acres of land and get free entry by doing the settlement duties prescribed by the statute. The soldier gets no advantage in that. The minister says: We are making provision to lend each soldier $2,000. That is the only difference, as I understand it, between the soldier and any other individual. The soldier is to have the advantage of a loan made to him under the provisions of this Act and under the supervision of tire commissioners to bo appointed under it, the sum not to exceed $2,000, and instructions in agriculture, which will be .open to any one, as the leader of the Opposition has already stated. The only advantage that the soldier is to get will be the advance to him of $2,000. The minister says that this provision is being made not as a reward to the soldier but in the interest of settlement.


William Roche: I said it was made for both purposes.


William Manley German: Very well; if it is in the interest of settlement, why is not provision-made for an advance of $2,000 to any other person in addition to free entry to 160 acres of land? Why confine it to the soldier? If you appoint your commissioners and say: We will grant free entry to 160 acres of land to any person who will go and work that 160 acres, you will not be giving the soldier any advantage over any other person. We want to get soldiers and others. Then, why not make th-i-s further provision in order to induce settlement, in order to bring people here, soldiers or others, soldiers preferably if we can get them, but any other good, honest, intelligent working men who want to take up land, that they may have free entry to 160 -acres of land? Say to them: Perform your settlement duties and you will obtain your grant and, further, we will lend you $2,000. Why confine it to soldiers if it is to be an act to increase population and to bring in settlers? It is not granted as a reward if I understand the minister right. It is not being suggested as a reward. It is being suggested

to help the soldier? Very well, we all agree with that. But, it is not being suggested as a reward. It is being suggested as an inducement to settlement. If it is an inducement to settlement, make it world wide. Give the $2,000, under proper restrictions-, under the supervision of the commission you are going to appoint. Appoint men such as the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) has suggested, who are intelligent and proper men to administer such a law, and make
a provision allowing $2,000 to every person in this- country, unless you are going to limit it -simply to soldiers. I would not say that there is an ulterior motive in this.


William Roche: Then the hon. gentleman is not in favour of giving the soldier preferential treatment?


William Manley German: I am absolutely in favour of giving the soldier preferential treatment but the minister is mot proposing to give this preferential treatment. He is saying this is not preferential treatment; he has already stated that. The minister has already stated that this is not preferential treatment but that it is to encourage settlement. If it is to encourage settlement, make it world . wide, make it for settlement and not for soldiers. If it is for soldiers, give the soldier 160 -acres of land without settlement duties. Then you are faced with the question that the minister referred to in connection with the South African -scrip. The land may be sold next day after the beneficiary obtains the -scrip. It must he put upon a business basis if it is to be made effective. I will support the 10 p.m. minister in every effort he can make to bring about, not only greater settlement in the Northwest, but to confer a real advantage on the returned soldier. But let us have it on a business basis and let ns put it in such a way that it will be effective and immediately -available to the -soldier upon his return.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to discuss this resolution at any length. I must, howeveT, congratulate my hon. friend -the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) on -the measure which he intends to introduce, with a view, as he say-s, of -giving the soldier a preference. I much prefer this legislation to the proposed land scheme which was launched in England, and which has been so much advertised in the press of late. Although the names in connection with that scheme were big names, I think there was too much speculation in it, and I am, therefore, very much pleased to see that this legislation is introduced. When my hon. friend gave notice of this legislation some time ago I asked him if it would apply to Canadian soldiers. He answered that it would apply to all of the -soldiers who had served the [DOT]King within the British Empire. So far so good. As my hon. friend h-as stated, this legislation has for its object primarily the settlement of the lands in the West, and as after this war Canada will need a very pro-

gressive policy of settlement in order to get not only the production that we need, but the population and the revenue which that population will bring to the Federal exchequer to pay the immense war debt which will have accumulated meanwhile, why not provide that this legislation shall apply to soldiers of the Allies as well as to soldiers who served under His Majesty the King? I would apply this legislation to soldiers of the Allies who have taken part in the war from the first and who wish to come as settlers to Canada. I know that the Department of the Interior would refuse to admit a certain class of settlers, but there is no objection to applying this legislation to the French, Belgian, or Russian soldier. Already we have a Large number of Russians in the West. It seems to me that a policy for the settlement of the West is the foremost policy for Canada, and as we will require large revenues from that population after the war in order to pay our war debt, to pay for the sinking fund and for the pensions for our soldiers, if we wish to attract a large immigration to our western provinces we should, perhaps, enlarge the provisions of this Bill. I am only throwing this out as a suggestion, and I am sincere in making the suggestion.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Does this legislation permit of a second entry homestead?


William Roche: It will not interfere with
a man's homestead rights at all. If a man has a homestead he can come forward and get another 160 acres under this proposed *legislation.


Mr. ROSS:: A great deal of expense will he entailed by the education of soldiers for agricultural purposes. Could the minister give some details as to how the soldiers will be educated, whether by the Military Hospitals Commission o; the Federal Government?


William Roche: 

SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blain in the Chair.

Industrial Disputes Investigation Act $25,000.
George Ewan McCraney: In December last I
wished to obtain some information with regard to the operation of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act and I sent a wire addressed to Mr. Ackland, the Deputy Minister of Labour, who was at that time in the Old Country. I received a reply signed by Mr. Gerald H. Brown, who was then Acting Deputy Minister of Labour. That reply was as follows:
There have been in all 215 applications received for boards under the Industrial Disputes Act since its enactment in March. 1907. The records show strikes were avoided or ended in all but 21 cases. In many of these last named cases ultimate settlement was on basis of board report. Thirty-two cases in all were settled without boards being established. Total number of employees affected by board applications was approximately 350,000. Nineteen applications were received from employers and 193 from employees, and 3 from both employers and employees.
Having that before me, I heajd some discussions with regard to the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and in meeting labour men I found, what will not surprise the minister, that his department is not a favourite with the labour organizations of Canada. There has been growing for some time a restlessness on the part of labour men ever the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act-. Labour Congresses have passed resolutions in condemnation of it; labour men speak strongly against it, and it is worth our while to devote some attention to examining why this should be.
When the measure was introduced in this House, it was claimed to be one likely to settle labour difficulties in Canada, as it was based on the principles which underlay the Hague Conventions, which it was hoped would ensure the peace of the nations. There are some causes which surely can be remedied, when, after the experience of fen years, we find restlessness instead of satisfaction. I had my friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) ask the minister pn Friday night how the oases in which the award was not accepted were made up, how many cases were refused by employers and how many by employees. I have myself gone through the reports, and while Mr. Brown, in his wire to me speaks of 21, I find 20. I have missed one in some way, and that is why I should like tb have the figures from the department, because in going through a report unquestionably their knowledge of these events would enable them to speak with more certainty than I could.
I have analysed them in this way, that there are seven cases in which there were

strikes and in which the employees refused to accept the report of the board appointed under the Act, but later settlement was made on the basis of the report. Those cases were as follows:	Cumberland Railway and Coal Company, 1907, two strikes; Canadian Pacific railway trades, May, 1908; British Columbia Copper Company, March,
1910,	two strikes; Canadian Northern Railway carmen; Alberta Coal Mining Company. In these seven cases the Act was effective, because, while it did not avert a strike at the time, it outlined a settlement, and the settlement adopted was on the lines of the board's report. There were six cases in which the employees refused to accept the report and in which the report was not followed in the ultimate settlement between the employers and employees. These,cases were:	Dominion Coal Company, strike of 1909; Cumberland Railway and Coal Company, 1909; Winnipeg Electric Railway Company, 1910; Hudson Bay Mining Company, 1911; McEnany Mines, Limited, 1912; Canadian Northern Railway Coal & Ore Dock Company, Limited, 1912. In the following six cases the employers refused to accept the report: Western Coal Operators Association, June, 1909; Grand Trunk Railway Company, June, 1910; Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, October,
1911,	Britannia Mining and Smelting Company, September, 1912; St. John Railway Company, July, 1914; Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission, November, 1915. I ran across one case in which the . report was not accepted by either employer or employees: The Nicola Valley Coal & Coke Company, May, 1909. I have now accounted for twenty cases out of twenty-one referred to in the telegram. I find that of the strikes in which the men refused to accept the report, there were nine prior to 1911, and four subsequent to 1911, and of the cases in which the reports were not accepted by tire employers, there was one before 1911. and five after, including the year 1911. As the men got to understand the Act better, they accepted the reports of the hoards, and as the employers got to understand the Act better, they declined to accept the reports of the boards. In the figures which I have given, the minister will find reason for some of the dissatisfaction with which the men regard the administration of the Act. They see that in the early part of the administration of the Act they did make their mistakes, 'but of late they have been accepting the decisions of the board. The employers, however, have declined
to accept the decisions, and that gives rise to a feeling of dissatisfaction on their part which it is desirable that. Parliament should seek some means of remedying. We can not judge as to the rights and wrongs of these matters. The virtue of the Act is that it is not compulsory, and because it is not compulsory neither party to an award is bound to accept it. But, as that is the virtue of the Act, it devolves upon each party to the disagreement and upon the department which administers the Act to see that in every possible case the award should be accepted, even though at a loss to an accepting party and even though there may not be complete satisfaction with the award. I am not surprised that a number of men who are engaged as coal miners-most of the trades effected are coal mining trades- should not accept the award of the board of investigation. The mining trade has been very largely recruited from the foreign element which comes into the country and takes that form of labour which is among the most difficult and which our own people do not care to perform. If these men appreciate more than they seem to appreciate the value of the legislation, they would hesitate in rejecting the awards. On the other hand, one wonders that the employers, who are the owners of property which has the protection of law and who ought to be more intelligent than the men whom they employ, do not give the Act more support than they do, and that they put its future in jeopardy by making it a matter of uncertainty to submit controversies between employers and employees to the decision of boards of investigation. I am not suggesting any remedy by way of legislation. I think that the Act goes about as far as it can in showing the way of good-will and common sense between employer and employees. Although amendments could, perhaps, be made which would make the Act more workable, I do not think that the underlying principles of the Act could be improved by legislation. I hesitate very much to say that the Act should be repealed. I want to support the Act, as we support the wider efforts that are made to bring about peace among nations. Strikes and lock-outs are methods of war; we want to bring about methods of peace. The men are not satisfied that in every case the department is acting impartially between themselves and their employers. The Thetford case was discussed here on Friday

night, and while perhaps in the interpretation of the strict law the minister may be correct that he need not interfere in that case, we are not interpreting the strict law in working out conditions of industrial peace. The men feel that the minister could give more sympathetic support to their request in such a case as that. I know they say that when the minister has to choose the third member of a board, he chooses a friend who is more likely to be in sympathy with the employer than with the employees.


Mr. CROTHERS:: What class of men have you received this information from- the miners out West?


George Ewan McCraney: No, not miners. My information was very largely obtained at an open meeting of the Trades and Labour Council at Saskatoon where the largest number of those present were railway men. That is the impression I gathered from those who are in touch with all labour matters. I have not discussed this question with miners, because I have not been brought into contact with them, but I have endeavoured to give to the minister the result of my observations in order, if possible, to impress upon him and his department the necessity of throwing the whole moral force of this Government behind an award when it is made.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Behind what?


George Ewan McCraney: Behind the report of the board appointed under the Act. Perhaps that is not possible, but I think a strong minister in a strong government could do a great deal more than has been done, could procure an acceptance of an award, and, especially when we find that the refusals to accept awards have of late been coming rather from the employers than from the employees; I think such a minister could use with the employers a much greater influence than he might be expected to use in dealing with employees with whom he might not get so closely in- touch.
I submit to the minister the views which I have set forth -and the information which I have collected, because I want to see this Act a success. I want to see it have the most sympathetic administration of the department. I believe it can be made much more secure in the public confidence if greater effort is made by the department to ensure action on a report and the acceptance of it.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We generally regard my hon. friend as a fair-minded man, and I
fMr. McCraney.]
think he desires to be fair-minded now, but I am very much surprised at his observations. I was not quite able to follow his logic. He started out by telling us that the workingmen were becoming more and more dissatisfied with the administration of the Industrial Disputes Act, and he wound up by telling us that they were becoming more and more inclined to accept the awards made under it.


George Ewan McCraney: Surely the minister understands me. I will just correct him if he will allow me. The men are becoming dissatisfied with the Act, because they are finding that more and more the awards, of the board are not being accepted by the employers. As they understand the Act themselves, they are accepting the awards.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I understood my hon. friend perfectly, and still the admission comes from him that the men are less and less dissatisfied with the administration of the Act as the years pass by.


George Ewan McCraney: I did not say that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That is what my hon. friend said in substance.


George Ewan McCraney: I was not speaking in
substance.	.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: If the men are accepting the awards more and more, that surely means that they are becoming less dissatisfied and more content with the administration of the Act. In my hon. friend's city, only one board has been appointed since I took charge of my department and since the enactment of the legislation regarding boards of conciliation.


George Ewan McCraney: Yes.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That case was between the civic authorities and their employees, so that the railway men in Saskatoon have had no board appointed, and neither have the coal men. The coal miners of the West have never accepted this Act; they always ignored it. Only one board has been appointed in connection with disputes between operators and miners, and that occurred shortly after the Act was first passed. The original object of the Act was to prevent-labour disturbances in the different coal fields of Canada. While I am and always have been a great friend of the Act, I cannot say that it has worked well so far as the coal mining industry is concerned, because in the West the coal miners have only once attempted to utilize the Act. That was in 1907, if I remember aright, and the award

was not accepted by them. My hon. friend knows very well that strikes occurred amongst the miners in the western coal fields in 1903, 1906, 1907, 1909 and 1911, the last being the most serious one, lasting for eight months. In that region of the coal mining industry there has not been anything like a prolonged strike since 1911, so that my hon. friend has not received, from the coal miners of the West, any information either for or against the Act, because it has not been used at all. It appears that he attended one meeting of the Trades and Labour Council at the city of Saskatoon, and there he heard somebody who knew nothing about the Act-because in Saskatoon there had never been an exercise of it but once, and that between the civic authorities and their employees-make certain observations, and still he comes here and denounces the administration of the Act, and speaks about our making some efforts to secure the observance of the Act by employers. Had he taken a few minutes to come to our office and inquire either from the deputy minister or myself, he would have found out something about the efforts that we do make and make successfully.
My hon. friend referred to a board that was appointed between the Grand Trunk Bailway Company and * their conductors when there was a serious strike, which was finally settled temporarily by an agreement signed by the late manager of the Grand Trunk Railway Company in June, 1910. When I was placed in charge of the Labour Department in the autumn of 1911 that agreement had not been carried out by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Among other things, the agreement provided that all men who had been on strike and had not been guilty of any violation of the law would be reinstated within 90 days, and that all the men should be paid a certain .advance in salary to date from the month of May immediately preceding the July when the agreement was entered into. A county court judge of the province of Ontario was appointed to ascertain how many of these men were entitled to reinstatement under the terms of the agreement who had not already been reinstated and he found there were 138. This judge was chosen by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, if I remember right, the Government approving their choice. But the Grand Trunk refused to reinstate these men. One of the first things I did after taking charge of the .department was to urge Mr. Hays to carry
out the terms of that agreement. But he refused to do it for me, as he had refused to do it for my predecessor. A few months^ afterwards, however, the Grand Trunk came to this House for legislation. I do not know whether my hon. friend was a member of the Railway Committee at that time or not, but if he was and was present he will probably remember that I took the position that the committee should not approve of the legislation they were seeking until the company carried out the terms of that agreement. I had an-opportunity of discussing the matter with the late manager of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, Charles M. Hays, and I told him frankly,
" You will get no legislation, if I can prevent it, until yon have carried out that agreement," and I told him of the findings of Judge Barron, who had been appointed to make the inquiry. I mentioned that there were 138 conductors who had not been guilty of any violation of the law and were entitled to reinstatement. " Why," he said, "I never heard of such a report. I should like to see it." I said, " Come right along to the office and I will show it to you. I have it right in the judge's own handwriting." But he had to catch a train and could not come, so he asked me to send him a copy, and I did. The result was that in five or six months after this Government came into power, these men were reinstated. All were reinstated who wished to be, and not only that, but they received bad? pay representing an increase in wages from the 20th of May. I think it was, up to July. I have sent out bunches of twenty cheques at a time to these men covering their back pay. That is one instance where my hon. friend could have ascertained, if he had *called at the office, that we had used what *influence we had-and some of my friends *thought I was very drastic-to coeice employers into accepting these awards.
There was another case not long since of *a railway company refusing to carry out *a unanimous award.. The man who was chosen by the Tailway company was a railway man of long experience, and he joined with the other two in saying that the men should do so and so, and the company so and so. A high official of ithe company came to see me and pointed out how impossible it would be for them to carry out the award. I said " I won't discuss the matter with you. I do not know anything [DOT]about it and you know all about it. All I know is that the' man you appointed agreed with the other two in the award and that you refused to carry it out. Why

doa't you carry it out?" He said it was impossible for them to do so, and he returned home and issued a circular setting forth very elaborately the reasons of the company for refusing to accept the award. I saw the copy of this circular and wrote him that he would no doubt be coming to Parliament next session with some Bills and said that it would be very difficult for [DOT]me to support them unless the company *carried out the award. Just as soon as the *wires could bring a message from the headquarters of that railway company, I got a wire saying " We have adopted the award."
We had a similar case with the Grand Trunk Pacific. There is no legal means of. enforcing these awards so far as I know, but there has been no case where employers have refused to carry out an award that at the very first opportunity I did not use all the pressure I could bring to bear to induce them to accept the award. 1 do not think there has been a single case of that kind in which our influence has not been effective. I hope now that my hon. friend will think over his logic again, and see how it limps when he says that the wage earners of the country when the Act was new refused to accept the awards made by the board of conciliation while the employers adopted them, not in ev6ry case, of course, and that later under our administration the men had become so satisfied with the administration of the Act and the awards made that they were now accepting them in greater numbers than ever before, and my hon. friend then comes to the conclusion, so limp is his logic, that it is evident the wage earners of this country are becoming dissatisfied with the operation of the Act.
I have a few letters which I will not read to-night, as I may have another opportunity, from the leading labour men of this country, who are absolutely satisfied with the administration of the Act. There were some complaints before I was placed in charge of the Labour Department, about the delay in establishing boards after an application had been made. I gave instructions that there should be no unnecessary delay with the result that during the first year of our administration of the Act the number of days that elapsed between the receipt of an application and the granting of a board was reduced from fifteen to seven on an average. In the first year during which I had the honour to administer this Act there were a million days less of lost time by reason of

strikes than there had been the year before. At $2 a day, that means $2,000,000 saved in wages. But one year might not be considered a very fair basis of judgment. Take the whole time the Act had been in force before I was placed in charge of the department, four years, and compare with that the five years since I was placed in charge. The number of days of lost time since I took charge has been about half a million less every year on the average than during the four years before. This is a saving of $4,000,000. Add to this the $2,000,000 already referred to and you have a total of $6,000,000 saved to the wage earners of this country by the avoidance of strikes and lost days. The hon. gentleman says that the Trades and Labour Congress voted to repeal this Act. That is so. But they started in to do that before we came into power. In Calgary, not very far from where the hon. gentleman lives, the annual convention of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada was held in 1911-before we came into power- and voted in favour of repealing this Act. Does it follow from that that there is anything wrong with the Act itself or with the administration of it? I am not here to criticise my predecessor -we are on the best of terms- and I think it is no evidence at all of any defect in the Act or in its administration by my predecessors that such a vote was passed by the Congress. Now, without going into details or reading the great quantity of letters I have on the subject, let me read just one letter addressed to me by a man who has taken part in the coal difficulties in the western field. He is a member of the International Board, the only member from Canada I believe. His letter is dated 9th April last, and is in part as follows:
I am very optimistic as to the final outcome of the negotiations. I feel that Wednesday night or Thursday at latest should see the sub-committee ready to report to the full/ conference committee, and in conference have an agreement to present to the miners for ratification. Permit me to say in all sincerity how deeply I appreciate the effort for the men X am feebly trying to represent at this time.
I was out there nine days, doing what I could to bring about an amicable adjustment between the operators and the men.
I know of the general unsavory remarks-*
And he had not heard my hon. friend from Saskatoon.
-that are oft-times levelled at any Government, and the respective officials thereof. However, I wish to state very frankly that when an agreement is finally arrived at I

shall feel both obligated and delighted to give every credit to the splendid part you played at Calgary. Your readiness to take up the question of reducing the hours of labour for outside men at my solicitation will ever be remembered by myself, more especially in view of the fact that it produced results, and it is results that count. Again thanking you for your assistance, and fully appreciating the delicacy of your position in appearing before employer and employee.
I have dozens of letter? of that character coming from leading representatives of labour in Canada. And yet my hon. friend from Saskatoon picks up something that he hears the members of a labour council in Saskatoon had said,-men who have never had anything to do with the Industrial Disputes Act,-and talks about the labour people of Canada becoming more and more dissatisfied with this Act and feeling that they have not the sympathy of the Department of Labour. The hon. gentleman does not take the trouble to inquire at the source where he could have got the facts before speaking in this way.
Let me give the hon. gentleman one or two more instances. I had not been long in charge of the department before my attention was called to what purported to be a copy of an agreement which a large employer of labour required his men to sign, one of the provisions of which was that he would have no man working for him who was a member of a labour organization, and if he found one of his employees to be connected with such an organization, he would dismiss him. Without having received complaint from anybody, I wrote to the manager of this concern telling him that I had seen this document. I received a reply which was very amusing. Among other things, the writer said he never had had a member of a labour organization in his employ, and never would have, even though it meant that the wheels of his factory did not turn for forty years. I wu-ote back that a man was not to be discriminated against because he thought it in his own interest or in that of his wife or family, on intellectual, social or other grounds, to belong to a labour organization, so far as I could influence or assist in preventing it. About two and a half years after that I was informed that this same employer of labour had received a contract from the Government for the making of militia supplies. I wrote to him to this effect: When our former correspondence took place you were carrying on a private enterprise, but I am told that you now have a contract with this Government for the making of certain
goods. Had I known at the time you would not have got that contract, if I could have prevented it, and I will take good care that you do not get any more contracts, if I can prevent it, unless you waive that obnoxious agreement which you insist upon your men signing. He came down off the perch as rapidly as the postal trains could bring a letter. He said: I have already advised my men that I will not require them to sign that agreement any more; and I hope you will do what you can to get more contracts for me


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The man changed his view because he had got a Government contract5


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Changed it to the
benefit of his men.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not understand
that to be the case.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Does the hon. gentleman understand that he waived that term of the agreement-


Mr. GRAHAM:: Yes, because he got a Government contract.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not care why it was, the men got the advantage of my action in securing their liberty to join a labour organization if they desired to do so. Let me give another instance which occurred a few weeks ago. I saw it stated in the newspaper that certain coal dealers in Montreal were selling coal in the central part of the city at $15 a ton and in the suburbs at $20 a ton. I did not wait to write a letter even. I wired to the Mayor of Montreal, told him what I had seen in the press, and asked him whether there was any truth in it or not. I did not wait. Yet, the hon. member for Saskatoon thinks that we have no sympathy with the poor working men in this country and that they do not think we have any sympathy with them. All I can say is that any information of that kind which he has got comes from men who know nothing about the Labour Department or about the Industrial Disputes Act. The men who do know appreciate it and appreciate the way it is being administered. They did so before I was placed in charge of the department and they have done so since. I have no doubt, after five years' experience, that the principles of the Industrial Disputes Act are good, and that they are in the interest of industrial peace. They have prevented scores and scores of strikes

"that the public hear nothing about. In the autumn of 1911 we had two fair wage officers, both having their headquarters in Ottawa. If a disturbance arose at Vancouver it had either to take its course or we had to send a man to Vancouver. If a disturbance arose at Sydney or Halifax the same alternative presented itself. It occurred to me that it would be a great advantage if we had a man on the ground in Vancouver. I found in the Labour Department when I came to it two men both experienced and capable. One of them gave me entire satisfaction while he lived. The other is living still. I sent him to Vancouver and I think it is no exaggeration to say that during the past years he has prevented, by reason of his being right on the ground, forty or fifty labour troubles that would have developed into very serious disturbances had he not been there. I appointed another man and located him in my hon. friend's city of Saskatoon because I found that Mr. McNiven, whom I had sent to Vancouver, had too large a territory to cover. He might be in Saskatoon and a disturbance would arise suddenly in Vancouver. As my hon. friend from Rouville, who has had some considerable experience in the Department of Labour, knows, these difficulties arise sometimes in a few hours.
I came to the conclusion that Mr. McNiven had too large a territory and that he might be in Vancouver when he was needed in Saskatoon, Edmonton or Winnipeg. I appointed another man in Saskatoon, another in Winnipeg and another here. I attribute the great saving in time to. the fact that we have a larger number of these fair wage officers whose duty includes the exercise of their best efforts to prevent disturbances of this kind. I attribute to the increase in their number and to their being on the ground and taking hold of the matter earlier than they otherwise could, the prevention of many labour difficulties. I am surprised that the hon. member for Saskatoon should have referred again to the Thetford Mines matter. It Is 'too trifling to think of for a moment. We reached a settlement most satisfactory to everybody and there has been no disturbance for a year. There was another element m the Thetford Mines case that slipped my memory the other night, and it 11 p.m. was that we had in Thetford [DOT] Mines two rival, antagonistic labour organizations. One was a labour organization called the Catholic Aesocia-
tion, a local association, and the priest of the town took a very great interest in the welfare of the men and in getting them into the organization. The members of that organization were perfectly satisfied with the conditions and they passed a resolution to that effect. They had some safe guidance from their spiritual adviser, who had their best interests at heart. The other was the Western Federation of Miners. They had about the same number of members. The priest exerted his influence in One direction. Then hon. member for Megantio (Mr. Pacaud), who addressed a crowd of these miners on Sunday afternoon, unjustly, and without any reasonable cause whatever, denounced the Minister of Labour and the Government for party purposes, and had the pleasure of a strike on his hands a day or two afterwards. I do not think I would be justified in taking up any further time. At almost every annual meeting of the Trades and Labour Congress since 1911, and before I was placed in charge of the Labour Department, we had a resolution denouncing the Lemieux Act. There was a meeting in Vancouver where they were two to one in favour of the Act. I took occasion to tell them about the good qualities of the Lemieux Act, and I said that so long as I wa6 at the head of the Labour Department that Act would not be repealed. I think my hon. friend from Saskatoon, before he again unjustly attempts to criticise the labour or any other department, will take reasonable means to ascertain what the facts are and, if he does, he will save this House and the country a great deal of time. That does not apply to this particular case only; it applies to many other cases. If the committee will pardon me, I will ju6t say that we have hours, days and weeks spent in talking in reference to a matter without any effort being made to get at the facts from the true source, and when the facts are brought down it is found that there is absolutely nothing in it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: How many fair wage officers have been appointed?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think six.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Any in the Maritime Provinces?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The gentleman who
deals with such matters in Quebec takes in the Maritime Provinces.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The fair wage officer in Quebec looks after the Maritime Provinces?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes. Originally fair
wage officers were appointed for the purpose of ascertaining what a fair wage would he to pay to workmen engaged on public work. That is why they are called fair-wage officers. There has not been very much done in the way of public work during the last two or three years. * We have no man now especially for the Maritime Provinces. We appointed one after the death of Mr. Dubreuil, but he resigned. Some one said the other night that he had been dismissed. Mr. Arcand was not dismissed at ail. I had a letter of resignation from him in which he told me why he had resigned. It was on account of some domestic difficulty that it would not be proper for me to detail here.


Arthur Bliss Copp: With reference to the long
lecture which my hon. friend the Minister of Labour has given to my hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) in regard to the manner in which he has received information about labour troubles in different parts of Canada, I may say that I have always got information from sources where the men are themselves, and I have always found it just as credible as could be got from any, other source.
One of the very best sources of information in regard to labour trouble must surely be the labourers themselves: from them it is possible to obtain first-hand information. I understand that the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) got his information first-hand in that manner. The Minister of Labour attempts to say to him that he should not accept information from the labourers themselves, but must go to some official of the Labour Department and find out the facts in regard to the labour organizations or labour troubles in his town.
I can say to the Minister of Labour, and I say it without-offering criticism at all, that I have had many labour men in whom I have had the greatest confidence and whom I see employed in work in various parts of the Maritime Provinces, tell me that they do not get proper treatment or attention when application is made to the Minister of Labour. I do not know any better source *of information than the men themselves in regard to such matters. My hon. friend thinks it is conclusive testimony to read a letter from some official of a labour organization whom he has visited in the West; he advances that as a positive assurance that everything is well in the Labour Department, and suggests that the hon. member for Saskatoon has simply come here 75
and worked up out of his fertile brain some matters of trouble or complaint by the labourers in his portion of Canada.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Would my hon. friend give me a number of cases in his neighbourhood where they complain about delays in the establishment of boards of conciliation?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I could give my hon. friend privately many cases such as I referred to.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Well, give me one.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I will give my hon. friend cases if he will give me an opportunity of doing it privately.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Oh, privately, oh, oh.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend laughs about that. Let me say at the outset that I am not here to criticise the department beyond saying that the labourers themselves in many instances complained to me that they were not able ito get fair treatment, that the Minister of Labour did not seem to take any interest in his department in connection with matters of this kind, and that they had appealed to him and appealed in vain-'they knocked at the door but the door was not opened. I have been informed that resolutions were passed to the effect that the Minister of Labour should not be a professional man but should be a labour'-ing labour man himself, one who understood the labour question, and that a gentleman of the same profession and calling that I have the honour to ibelong to myself was not really able to sympathize fully with the labour element. I think that under those conditions my hon. friend from Saskatoon resorted to' the best source of information when he went to the Trades and Labour Council. I think he is doing only right and justice to the ordinary labour men when he draws the attention of the Minister of Labour to conditions in his constituency, as a representative from that portion of Canada.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have no doubt that the man who was telling my hon. friend the sort ,of man who ought to be at the head of the Labour Department was perfectly satisfied with a labouring man like my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) as Minister of Labour.


Arthur Bliss Copp: No, he was not satisfied with a gentleman like the hon. member from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux).


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I said I had no doubt he would be.


Arthur Bliss Copp: No.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: With a labouring man like the hon. member for Rouville or like my hon. friend.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He was not satisfied with
either of you.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No. I suppose not.
There are men who are not satisfied with anything. I do not think the hon. member for Westmorland has treated me fairly in saying there were so many cases where complaints were made to him that labour mem had applied for boards of conciliation and could not get them; and then when I asked him for one case he would not condescend to be fair enough to me to give one ease so that I would have an opportunity of explaining why it was so if the hoard had been refused or denying the charge if the facts were, not as stated. I do not think that is fair. If my hon. friend was not in a position tp give a case, I do not think he should have referred to the subject at all.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would be the very last one to say anything unfair to the Minister of Labour. I did not say that the gentleman told me of a number of cases where Boards had been refusedi, but he made complaint that the Labour Department did not give proper attention to the labour interests, such as they would expect from the Minister of Labour. I have no desire to throw the slightest reflection on the minister, but this is a question that is coming before the representatives very often. As the hon. members on both sides know; the labour question is becoming a serious one, and the men sure looking to the representatives of the different constituencies to look after their interests as well as they possibly can. The gentleman who spoke to me was not satisfied with either the Minister of Labour or his predecessor.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: He was hard to please when neither of us would satisfy him.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He may be hard to please,
but I can say to the Minister of Labour that if he would pay more attention to the ordinary labouring men and the claims they have upon the people generally throughout Canada, the labouring men would have a great deal more respect for the Minister of Labour. It would be better if he did not pay so much attention to the higher officials who come to him with such letters 
a.i he read to the House giving him a certificate and a reputation as being a great minister and doing his part so nobly an the interests of labour. The labour question throughout Canada, and especially down in the Maritime Provinces, is becoming more acute every day, and I think there is a very great opportunity for the Minister of Labour to go down there and spend some little time looking into matters for himself. He would find a great many complaints. I will give him the names of numbers of men in communities which he could visit with great benefit to himself, to his department, and to the Government, as well as to the labouring men in that portion of the constituency where I live.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: May I give some information to my hon. friend to carry to his friend? It may be of use to him. That is that the present Minister of Labour knows what it is to dig stumps and stones out of the fields, and work in the bottom of a ditch, and that he has worked for $11 a month and his board, Tell that to your friend and he will be perfectly 'satisfied.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not think the people
in my county would be satisfied; if I told them that he worked for $11 a month, they might say he was well paid for the services which he rendered then if he did not do his work any better than he is now discharging his duties for the labouring people.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I understand from the
hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that he had some observations to make in connection with the particular item before the committee. Is it the wish of the minister that the committee should rise now?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think we ought to
pass an item.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I come from a part of the country, Mr. Chairman, where we have great bodies of labouring men, great industrial enterprises and a large amount of capital invested. We have our difficulties and our troubles. Sometimes we find fault with the minister-often justifiably-but I should like to have good and sufficient evidence before I tackle him directly. Just now, having no such evidence, I am not going to make any direct criticism of the minister. The Lemieux Act, as it is called, was a great step in advance of the conditions that existed before the passing of that Act. But, like every other step taken in a new direction, there is, no doubt, room for improvement and for better things in

the future. I have had in mind for years, although I have not expressed it in the House, the idea that we should have better courts for the administration, not necessarily of the Lemieux Act, but of such disputes as arise between capital and labour. Permanent, trained and continuous knowledge is required of those who deal with matters of this kind. To have one court to-day and another to-morrow and another the next day, not necessarily any one of the men who was on the first serving on the others; to have raw recruits at each court who, perhaps, have had no training in dealing with this kind of dispute and no knowledge of the law governing the practice of the court or the ease they have in hand-to have a court of this kind is not the best way of dealing with such vital issues as arise between capital and labour.-It has long been my view that we should have a court trained, capable and continuous, to deal with question of this kind. The minister mentioned to-night a case where his officer was on the ground and prevented an outbreak of trouble. I submit that there should have been in that place a court-not necessarily consisting of many men; one good man might do-available immediately, without the necessity of a large amount of paraphernalia and procedure, with power to hear any person coming before it and to settle the dispute in the most effective and speedy manner. I ha-te in mind the country-wide, effective benefits which are conferred upon us by the Railway Commission. I was never before that Board, but I am told that any man can get before it and tell his story in his own way; it can be approached without any particular procedure or ceremony, and it deals with the questions submitted to it speedily and on the spot. It is some such court that I have in mind to deal with labour disputes, not necessarily as expensive and as big a court as the Board of Railway Commissioners, but a competent body that could be simply and quickly approached and that would be in a position to prevent, as much as possible, the necessity of strikes and lock-outs. Suppose there are in a mine 300 or 400 drivers, one of whom is dissatisfied. This driver, who belongs to a drivers' association, calls out all the drivers and says: the boss put me off this morning improperly, and I am going to call the men out on strike. That is the only way he can remedy his grievance. If that driver could tell his story to a competent court and be compelled by law to make no trouble until 75i
his case had been presented to the court, his difficulties could be settled in a day. As it is now, his only remedy is the extraordinary procedure of calling all his fellow-labourers out on strike. The establishment of a court to deal with such matters would afford ample protection to the driver, prevent the necessity of a strike and secure a more peaceful settlement of the difficulty. The great aim of the country should be to get the confidence of the workingman. The great trouble is that the weaker element is inclined to think that it is imposed upon by the stronger; the workingmen think that in the eyes of the authorities they are not as important as the capitalists. We should go far to disabuse their minds of that idea and to make them understand that it is the first duty of Parliament to protect them at overy point, and one of the best ways of bringing about that condition would be to establish courts of ample jurisdiction, presided over by the very best men obtainable, before which the miners could come readily and conveniently tell their story and get their remedy without the interference of lawyers or any difficult line of procedure. The man who owns a mine has his capital; the man who owns a big lumber concern or a railway enterprise has his money, but the only capital of the workingman is his head and his hands and that is all that his family and thdse depending upon him have to safeguard them. It is certainly as important to the workingmen that their capital should be secure as it is to the wealthy men who are interested in such industrial pursuits as I have mentioned. -It is in the best interests of our country to create the best possible relations between capital and labour, and to have a business understanding between them and courts capable of carrying out that business understanding in the most effective and efficient way, so that any ideas of imposition by the one upon the other, or any lack of interest in the powers that be, as between them, should as much as possible be allayed and removed.
On the motion of Mr. Crothers that progress be reported:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I presume it is understood that any remarks that any hon. member may desire to make in regard to this item may be said on other items that are not yet passed.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I shall have something to say in reply to my hon. friend's speech which he has just finished, although I will

not take the time to-night to do so. If there is any hon. member present who would like to make any remarks in regard to this item he will have an opportunity of doing so when the other items are under discussion.	.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Crothers, the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
Tuesday, May 8, 1917.