1917-09-07

MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.


Right Hon.   S@: I move, seconded by the Hon. Mr. Cochrane:
That the following gentlemen compose the board of selection to appoint members of local tribunals under section 6 of the Military Service Act, 1917:
Ontario: A. E. Fripp, M.P., Ottawa; W. A. Boys, M.P., Barrie ; Sir John Gibson, Hamilton; A. B. Lowe, 41 Glenn Street, Ottawa.
Quebec: Joseph H. Rainville, M.P., St. Lambert ; Romeo Langlois, K.C., Quebec; Hon. S. N. Parent, Montreal; Hon. Sydney Fisher, Knowlton.
Nova Scotia: George S. Campbell, Halifax; D. A. Cameron, Sydney, C.B.
New Brunswick: Mariner G. Teed, St. John ; John McCaffery, Fredericton.
Manitoba: Senator W. H. Sharp, Manitou; Sir Donald MacMillan, Winnipeg.
Saskatchewan: Senator H. W. Laird, Regina; Arthur Hitchcock, Moosejaw.
Alberta:	R. B. Bennett, M.P., Calgary;
Alfred H. Clarke, K.C., Calgary.
British Columbia: R. F. Green, M.P., Victoria; Hon. James Horace King, Victoria.
Yukon: Lieut.-Col. A. Thompson, M.D., M.P., Ottawa; F. C. Wade, Vancouver.
Prince Edward Island: William L. Cotton, Charlottetown; James J. Johnston, K.C., Charlottetown.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: If is of course to be understood from the remarks I made on a previous occasion, that we on this side of the House offer no opposition to this motion. Oil the contrary, I intimated that I would consent to concur in the selection of the men who are to appoint the members of the tribunals which are to administer the Act.
I must say, however, once more that I deeply regret that the Government has thought it advisable to apply this law of conscription before the people have had occasion to pronounce upon it. I think, and my opinion is con-

firmed more and more, as time passes, that it would have been more in the interest of the country at large if at least the people had been consulted before the law was applied. I must say frankly that if I had followed my first inclination I would not have given countenance to any participation in the administration of the Act. But, on the whole, I believe that it is always better to minimize the evil effect of a bad law by the wisest administration of it so that effort may be directed to making the application of it fair to all parties and to getting out of it the largest possible measure of justice compatible with its provisions.
I have therefore given consideration to the selection of the members to compose the board of selection, and in so doing I have endeavoured to recommeend men whose standing in the community will be a guarantee that as far as they are concerned the Act will be applied with fairness, and a determination to do justice to all.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Might I ask my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) how he would explain the further delay to be occasioned by his proposition in enforcing this Military Service Act? I doubt very much if, owing to the delay already occasioned there will be a battalion at the front under this Act before the war is over and peace concluded. If the right hon. gentleman were returned to power, how would he provide for meeting this emergency?


Wilfrid Laurier: If the soldiers are not to get to the front till the war is over, better consult the people at once.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Sir GEORGE FOSTER moved that a message be sent to the Senate to inform their honours that this House has passed the following resolution :
Resolved by the House of Commons of Canada, that the following gentlemen do compose the board of selection to appoint members of local tribunals under section 6 of the Military Service Act 1917 :
Ontario:	A. E. Fripp, M.P., Ottawa; W. A.
Boys, M.P., Barrie, Ont.; Sir John Gibson, Hamilton, Ont.; A. B. Lowe, 41 Glenn St., Ottawa.
Quebec:	Joseph Rainville, M.P., St. Lambert ; Romeo Langlois, K.C., Quebec; Hon. S. N. Parent, Montreal, Que.; Hon. Sidney Fisher, Knowlton, Quebec.
Nova Scotia:	Geo. S. Campbell, Halifax,
N.S.; D. A. Cameron, Barrister, Sydney, C.B.
New Brunswick:	Mariner G. Teed, St. John,
N.B.; John McCaffrey, Fredericton, N.B.
Manitoba :	Senator W. H. Sharp, Manitou ;
Sir Donald MacMillan, Winnipeg, Man.
Saskatchewan: Senator H. W. Laird, Regina; Arthur Hitchcock, Moosejaw, Sask.
Alberta:	R. B. Bennett, M.P., Calgary;
Alfred H. Clarke, K.C., Calgary, Alberta.
British Columbia:	R. F. Green, M.P., Victoria, B.C.; Hon. James Horace King, Victoria, B.C.
Yukon:	Lt.-Col. A. Thompson, M.D., M.P.,
Ottawa; F. C. Wade, Vancouver.
Prince Edward Island:	Wm. L. Cotton,
Charlottetown; James J. Johnston, K.C., Charlottetown, P.E.I.
And requesting that their honours will unite with this House in the said resolution by filling up the blank therein with the words "Senate and."	.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GLASS:: I desire to bring to the attention of the House a misapprehension in reference to a question which I addressed to the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Meighen) when he was presenting the Franchise Bill yesterday. I asked if provision had been made for the taking of the votes of the wives and female relatives of soldiers who themselves were overseas. I did not mean the wives or relatives of soldiers who- were in Canada but I referred to those who were themselves overseas and I desired to ask if provision had been made for their voting The answer given by my hon. friend the Secretary of State was apparently given under a misapprehension as to the meaning of my question. I would like to put the question now in its proper form and as I intended it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Questions such as this
ought properly to go on the Order Paper because, if they did1 no mistake would arise.
Mr. MEI'GHEN:	The question as put
referred to soldier's wives who, themselves, were overseas. It was intended to be a question as to the eligibility to vote of the female relatives who were overseas and in that latter form the answer is " no."



WAR TAX UPON INCOMES.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 117, to authorize the levying of a war tax upon certain incomes.-Sir Thomas White.
Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) :: This order involves the consideration of amendments by the Senate to Bill No. 117, being an Act to authorize the levying of a war tax upon certain incomes. The hon. the Senate has made certain amendments of which I shall now inform the House. In section 3 of the Bill, instead of

the words "annual profit or gain," the Senate has inserted the word "net" before the word "profit," so that, for the purposes of the Act, "income" means the "annual net profit or gain or gratuity." That is the only change made in subsection 1 section .'5 with the exception of striking out the following words:
-with the following exemptions and deductions :
(a)	the value of property acquired by gift, bequest, devise or descent;
(b)	the proceeds of life insurance policies paid upon the death of the person insured, or payments made or credited to the insured on life insurance endowment or annuity contracts upon the maturity of the term mentioned in the contract or upon the surrender of the contract:
Instead of those words, the Senate has substituted the following:
Including the income from but not the value of property acquired by gift, bequest, devise or descent; and including the income from but not the proceeds of life insurance policies paid upon the death of the person insured or payments made or credited to the insured on life insurance endowment or annuity contracts upon the maturity of the term mentioned in the contract or upon the surrender of the contract; with the following exemptions and deductions.
And then follow the exemptions and deductions included in subsections c, d, e, and f of section 3 of the Bill.


Mr. NESBITT:: Would the minister read the first part again?


William Thomas White: Perhaps I had better explain it. As the Bill left the House of Commons, "income" meant the annual profit or gain or gratuity derived as stated in the Act, with among other exemptions, those which I have just read, a and b. The idea was to exempt from the income which a person derived during the year the amount of money or value which he might receive on a devise or bequest, or in respect of a life insurance policy. When we were debating the matter in the House, it seems clear to all here that what we were exempting was the principal, and if, by chance, that principal was invested, then the income derived from it would, Oif course be income under the Act. The Senate has endeavoured to make that clear so that while the principal of life insurance policies and of any devise or bequest is exempted, income derived in respect of that principal becomes income for the purposes of the Act.
Then, further, the Senate has inserted, after subsection 1 of section 3, the following:
Provided, however, that in determining the income the personal and living expenses shall not be taken into consideration.

Then, further, they have made an amendment to section 6. That section as it left this House provided that:
All persons in whacever capacity acting, having the control, receipt, disposal or payment of fixed or determinable annual periodical
gains, profits, or income of any taxpayer	
shall, on behalf of such taxpayer, deduct and withhold an amount equal to the tax payable on the same under this Act.
The Senate has inserted before the word "tax" the word "normal," so that now those having control of the income of others shall deduct and forward to the minister only the normal tax. I think their reason for doing that was because they apprehended there would be difficulty in determining the amount of tax, normal and super-tax. But, of course, the party himself would be liable in respect of the supertax upon his income as the Bill now reads.
Further, the Senate has inserted a rather important provision in section 19. I may say that section 19 is as follows:
No assessment shall be set aside by a Board or by the court upon the ground that there has been any error or omission in connection with any proceedings required to be taken under this Act or any regulation hereunder, but such Board or Court in any case that may come before it may determine the true and proper amount of the tax to be paid hereunder.
The Senate has added this proviso:
a. All the proceedings of the Board and of the Exchequer Court shall he held in camera if requested by the taxpayer.
I am aware that there is a difference of opinion as to the powers of the Senate under our constitutional usages in respect to a taxation measure; but we are near the end o' this session, there is a great deal of business before both Houses, and this is an important enactment providing for the raising of moneys which we shall require in connection with the prosecution of the war, and in the circumstances I propose to move:
That the House do concur in the amendments made by the Senate.
But I should like to make this statement in connection with my motion, in order that it may appear upon Hansard: That as there are differences of opinion respecting the powers of the Senate in amending a taxation measure, our concurrence in these amendments is not to be regarded as a precedent binding upon this House in any future legislation. It seems to me that that leaves the question fairly as regards the privileges ,f this House, and not unfairly as resped.s the action taken by the Senate.

The amendments are not of great consequence, and neither the legislation nor its administration will, I think, be materially affected thereby.


Mr. GRAHAM:: The amendment to subsection (f) is capable of two constructions:
Provided, however, that in determining the income, the personal and living expenses shall not be taken into consideration.
Which construction are we to put on it- that the living expenses will not be deducted before the net income is arrived at, or that they will?


William Thomas White: I am clear that it will be construed that they are not to be deducted. If we' were not so close to the end of the session I would be disposed either to amend this amendment or to move to strike it out; but in the circumstances, by reason of the importance of the Bill, I think it preferable to move to concur. In administering the Act we shall undoubtedly interpret it that the personal and living expenses are not to be deducted, which is, I think, the meaning the Senate had in view.


George Perry Graham: ' The uncertainty still exists.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Do you think that
is a sound proposition?


William Thomas White: Yes, because I think that is the true interpretation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the minister think it is a proper principle that they should not be deducted?


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend has an income of $10,000 I am certainly of the opinion that he should not be allowed to deduct his living and personal expenses from that amount, in order to ascertain the amount of his income which would be assessable under this Act. My hon. friend might have an income of $10,000 a year, and might spend $9,000 of it, perhaps part of it very luxuriously, and another hon. gentleman might have an income of $10,000 and might spend only $2,000 for personal and living expenses. According to my hon. friend's view, the latter gentleman would be taxed on an income of $8,000, whereas my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) would be assessed for only $1,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Bill provides that out of every income $3,000 is to be deducted. I suppose that would be for living expenses. Are. a man's living expenses to be deducted in addition to that?


William Thomas White: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the meaning of the amendment?


William Thomas White: A person's living expenses shall not be taken into consideration. The intention of the Senate is, undoubtedly, that the living expenses are not to be deducted from the income. The $3,000 exemption still stands. The Senate has not touched that.


Wilfrid Laurier: But do you add
to this the living expenses?


William Thomas White: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would not think that, as a matter of constitutional practice, my hon. friend can recognize the right of the Senate to amend taxation legislation passed by this House. As a matter of fact, under our constitution the Senate either has the power to amend .a tax Bill which goes from this House to them, or it has not. If the Senate has not that right to amend then this House cannot waive its constitutional right by concurrence in these amendments as is proposed by the hon. Minister of Finance. My hon. friend is proceeding in a very peculiar manner in regard to a very important principle.


William Thomas White: What would you do about it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend gives as a reason for setting aside the constitution, if he thinks the constitution is being set aside, as I gather he does: that we are getting near the close of the session, and that therefore, we should concede the right of the Senate to amend a tax measure. There are many important measures before the Senate, and if the principle stated by my hon. friend is sound I presume he will follow it in regard to any other Bill that comes before us, no matter what it may be.


William Thomas White: I desire to correct my hon. friend. I did not express any definite view on the question. I stated that there were differences of opinion, and, that being so, I thought that, in view of the importance of the situation, and considering the fact that the session is drawing to a close, we should concur in the amendment, placing, at the same time, upon Hansard the statement which I made that it would not be regarded as a precedent. I may say that in 1874 a similar course was followed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then my hon. friend expresses no opinion as to the eonstitu-

tio-nality of the question, whether taxation measures oan be amended by the Senate. My hon. friend sets 'aside that point by saying: "We are getting near the close of the session, 'and I am going to content myself, so far as the constitutional rights of the other branch of Parliament are concerned, by saying something and placing it on Hansard." There is a number of important measures before the Senate, which may come back to us before prorogation, and I assume the Minister of Finance will follow that same principle whether it be opposed to the contitution or not. If the Senate has not the right to amend this measure, my hon. friend is not justified in the course he has -adopted. I have not been able to gather, in the short statement -made by the Minister of Finance, the whole effect of these amendments, but I say that the importance of this measure requires that full attention should be paid by this House to the amendments the Senate has made. I see no reason why there should be -any proceedings in camera in determining the amount of income on which a man -should be taxed. There is no reason why the whole question	as
to taxation should not be conducted openly and aboveboard. If certain people in this country who are in receipt of large incomes are to be permitted to have a hole-and-corner tribunal to hear their cases, and the public are not going to know anything about the investigation, it will be an unfortunate thing. I say this Bill has not gone far enough in dealing with the contribution to the expense of this war by people who are in position to pay. I think, by comparison with taxation measures in other countries, that, as pointed out by the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Pardee) when the Bill was before the House sometime ago, we have not begun to take the course we should adopt in dealing with this question. When my hon. friend tells us, that this measure has been considered by this Parliament, that the man of very large income is to be protected, the public i-s debarred, from -any knowledge as to whether or not he has been dealt with in a proper way by the tribunal, and this man is permitted to -say: " I desire this investigation to be -a private one," I say that my hon. friend is asserting a principal which is not sound. The public in this country have a right to know whether or not a man of large income has been properly dealt with, and whether, the evidence given in regard to that income justifies the finding of the tribunal. It may be urged that it is not 
a pleasant thing for one's personal -affairs to be investigated by. the public, but that is no answer. The conditions to-day are such that these problems, so far as delicacy is concerned, have to be disregarded, and if we are to permit a stipulation in this Bill, under which a man of large income can escape liability without -the public knowing whether an investigation has been held, I -say it is a pernicious principle. I am opposed to permitting the Senate to introduce such a provision, and I am opposed to this House accepting it. I think the House should debate these questions fully. I only know the purport of two amendments, but we are not in such great haste that we cannot take full time to consider the effects of these amendments, and what our rights and position in Parliament are with reference to- this whole question. What possible motive can there be for amending this Bill by inserting such a provision? Why should it be done?
The minister has given no good reason for the adoption of the course he suggests. This House is not going to -rise to-morrow or on Monday. There are on the Order Paper a large number of important Bills which have occupied the attention of the House for many days; some of them are now engaging the attention of the other branch of Parliament. We should' give this matter that attention which the people expect us to give to measures of such great importance. Moreover, it is understood that if this measure leaves Parliament in the terms proposed by the Minister of Finance the business profits- w-ar tax will he continued another year? We h-ave two conflicting statements on that point. We were told at one time that the business profits war tax -would cease at the end of this year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would remind the hon. member that the motion before the House is that certain amendments made by the Senate to a certain Bill be concurred in. It is not in order for the hon. member to now discuss the general principle of the Bill.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was not discussing the general principle of the Bill. With all due deference to you, Sir, I submit that the attitude of the Government with reference to the problem of taxation is involved in the matter that we are now discussing. I was pointing out that conflicting statements had been made in regard to the -business profits war tax, and I was making inquiry as to the policy of the Government in the matter.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Bill itself has been considered in this House and we are now considering certain amendments made by the Senate. I would point out to the House that we are not now in committee and so hon. members are limited to one speech. I have somewhat relaxed the rule in the case of the Minister of Finance, in order that a proper explanation might be made.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If there is a discussion on the subject, I assume that the minister will reply. If he does not, I hope that some other member of the Government will do so, because I want the Government to tell us what their position is in regard to this matter. The question whether this House should accept certain amendments made by the Senate to this important measure is I submit, relevant to the matter that we are now considering. The principle involved in this amendment, that the personal expenses of the individual are not to be taken into consideration in determining his net income for the purposes of taxation is a matter closely related to the whole policy of the Government as to taxation; therefore an inquiry as to the Government's policy is germane to the discussion. As to the constitutionality of the action of the Senate, I object to the Minister of Finance binding this House by putting anything on Hansard on the subject, one way or the other. That is not the way constitutional assemblies deal with things of-this kind. The last amendment made by the Senate was the only one that I had opportunity of understanding clearly. For myself I object to the proposal that appeals should be heard before these tribunals in camera in order that the amount of taxation to be paid by any wealthy person may be ascertained. As to the amendment regarding net income. I was not able to understand the ministers explanation. I do not think that members of this House are really seized of what the amendments are; it is difficult, therefore, for hon. gentlemen really to understand them.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is a wellknown principle that the Upper Chamber can reject any Bill, even though it deals with financial matters, that has been passed by this House. The Senate can reject the Supply Bill; it can reject a Bill adopted by the Committee of Ways and Means of this House, but it cannot amend such Bills. This principle ihas been affirmed over and over again. I submit that the
motion of the Minister of Finance is out of order. Rule 78 says:
All aids and supplies granted to His Majesty by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all Bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such Bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
This rule covers all Bills passed by the House of Commons dealing with financial matters, including those Bills the purpose of which is the raising of revenue through taxation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I ask the right
ihon. gentleman if he will deal with rule 87, page 44, while he is discussing this point of order?


Wilfrid Laurier: I will come to that. A motion has been made that the House concur in amendments made by the Senate to a Bill the purpose of which is to impose taxation. I submit that, under the terms laid down in Rule 78, such a motion is out if order. I now come to rule 87, which is in these terms:
In order to expedite the business of Parliament, the House will not insist on the privilege claimed and exercised by them, of laying aside Bills sent from the Senate because they impose pecuniary penalties;
That would not apply in this case, because the Bill in question is one which was passed by this House and sent to the Senate, not one which was passed by the Senate and sent to this House. The rule continues:
nor of laying aside amendments made by the Senate because they introduce into or alter pecuniary penalties in Bills sent to them by this House;
This Bill does not impose or introduce any penalties; therefore it does not come within the purview of that part of the rule. (Reading):
provided that all such penalties thereby imposed, are only to punish or prevent crimes and offences, and do not tend to lay a' burden on the subject, either as aid or supply to His Majesty, or for any general or special purposes, by rates, tolls, assessments or otherwise.
Under rule 78 the Senate has no right to amend or to alter in any way a money Bill sent to them from this House. This House alone has the privilege of dealing with money Bills. The only right the Senate has is that of rejecting or assenting to such money Bills. That rule has been confirmed over and over again in England. The cases



to which rule 87 applies have reference to Bills coming from the Senate which deal in -seme way not with charges upon the revenue, hut with penalties imposed upon the subject. I think, therefore, that my point of order is well taken; that the House has no power to assent to any alteration made by the Senate in a money Bill sent from this House to the Senate.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: I was going to suggest that in any event consideration of the Senate amendments to this Bill might be postponed until to-morrow. Personally, I could not follow very well the amendments as they were read by the minister. The first, I think, is rather unimportant; I - doubt whether it changes materially the effect of the section. I refer to the addition of the word "net" in section 3. The second amendment is rather involved, and it was impossible to follow the sense of it from the reading of it by the minister. The last amendment, having reference to the proceedings of the tribunals created under the statute to hear appeals in camera, is a very important one.
I think# therefore, the House should have time to consider the matter before giving or refusing assent. I agree with the view the minister has taken in regard to the Senate amendments. He was inclined to agree to the same, because any other course might delay the proceedings of the House. If we deem it wise "not to assent to the' Senate amendments, the procedure is very simple: We refuse to agree to them. If that does not meet with favour in the Senate, a conference is possible. I rise chiefly to suggest that the consideration of the Senate amendments to this Bill be postponed until to-morrow, so that we may have an opportunity to look into them. It is quite possible the minister himself has not had an opportunity to give due consideration to them, and these amendments may substantially affect other sections.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In respect to the point of order raised by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, it would appear from the opportunity I have had of looking into the matter, that it would be competent for this House to make a reservation such as was proposed by the Minister of Finance, because apparently, in May, 1874, we have a precedent in this Parliament. In the Journals of 1874 this entry is to be found with respect to a Bill entitled "An Act respecting the appropriation of certain Dominion lands in Manitoba," to which the Senate made certain amendments:

On motion of the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie, seconded by the Hon. Mr. Dorion, resolved, that this House doth concur in the said amendments ; while doing so, it does not think it necessary, at this late period of the session, to insist on its privileges in respect thereto, hut that the waiver of the said privileges in this case be not, however, drawn into a precedent.
Ordered, that the Clerk do carry back the Bill to the Senate, and acquaint their honours that this House hath agreed to their amendments.


Wilfrid Laurier: Your Honour is not giving a ruling?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No. Without giving a
ruling upon the main point, I consider it would be competent for this House, if it so desires, by making a reservation, to avoid a precedent being created.


Wilfrid Laurier: It so happens-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Before giving a ruling, I would prefer to give the main question much more consideration than I have had opportunity to give it.


Wilfrid Laurier: It so happens that in 1874, I was a member of this House. I was, of course, a very young member then, but 1 have a vague recollection of the discussion that took place. The Act was not an Appropriation Act; it was a Land Act. There was quite an important and lengthy debate as to whether or not the Act could be assimilated to- the appropriation of money, and it was a dubious point whether or not a land grant came within the sole privilege of this House and it was on account of this uncertainty that the motion was passed reserving the rights of this House. It is forty years ago since that debate took place, but I think my recollection is correct, and if Your Honour will look into the matter, you will find that there was a discussion as to whether the land had been taken by appropriation or not. .


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is a very important matter. I shall take the earliest opportunity of going into the question quite fully, but I still hold the view that this House can preserve all its rights and privileges by a special statement to that effect.


Mr. CURRIE:: I quite agree with the
remarks of the leader of the Opposition. This is one of the ancient privileges of the House of Commons and I do not think it has been violated during the last forty years. It is the undoubted right of this House to originate all money Bills, and the Senate cannot add to, subtract from or vary any money Bill. For that reason, I

think, as the point is a very important one, we ought to adjourn the discussion so as to enable the Speaker to consult the authorities as is the custom in order that the rights of this House may be maintained. This is a very important right and, I do not think this House should agree to any change in its rights and privileges. We are putting up with a great deal 4 p.m. from the Senate, and we shall have to put up with a great deal more if we give way in this case.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: I have before me Bouri-not, who deals with the decision in regard to the Land Act of 1874. It will be found by an examination of Bourinot that in this case there was very grave doubt among the leaders of the House of Commons as to whether or not the Land Bill was really in the nature of a money Bill and whether this was an infringement of the rule. What the Senate did was to increase the land grants to settlers, and there was an uncertainty as to whether or not that was an infringement of the rule. It will never be doubted that if it was a clear infringement of rule 78, as this is, the House would have taken the course which it did. The question is one. of the very gravest importance, because what is determined upon to-day is a precedent for to-morrow. I should think the resolution should riot be passed simply upon the statement of the Minister of Finance that, in his opinion, it should not be a precedent. The House should have something to say with regard to the matter. The House might give notice to suspend rule 78 in order to allow the action of the Senate to be concurred in. That, however, would be a very grave thing to do.


William Thomas White: The considerations put forward here appealed to me, and I consulted the parliamentary counsel respecting them. It was drawn to my attention that in 1874 a Bill was returned from the Senate with an amendment providing for an increase in the quantity of land granted to settlers in the Northwest. That is the case which has been referred to. I quote from Bourinot, page 492:
The Premier and other members doubted the right of the Senate to increase a grant of land-the public lands being, in the opinion of the House, in the same position as the public revenues. The amendment was only adopted with an entry in the Journals that the Commons did not think it "necessary, at that late period of the session, to insist on its privileges in respect thereto but that the waiver of the privileges was not to be drawn into a precedent."
It seemed to me, in view of the extreme importance of this Bill and the lateness of. the session, as was the case in 1874, and as *the amendments were not of vital importance, that we might adopt the same course? that was then adopted, namely, concur hr the amendments and reserve such privileges as the House has. As, however, the point of order has been raised, and as you, Sir, desire to have time to look up the authorities and give your ruling in respect of it, it would be a waste of time to continue the debate.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Sevigny, the debate was adjourned.



WAR CHARITIES ACT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No 130, relating to Wax Charities-Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
On section 3 Prohibition against raising money for war charities unless registered:
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Would this section apply to the ordinary Red Cross Societies throughout the country?


William Thomas White: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the object of the Bill?	.


William Thomas White: The object of the Bill is to prevent frauds upon the public by people making appeals for real or alleged war charities. There has been considerable abuse along these lines, and this Bill is to remedy such abuse. I would point out to my hon. friend that no difficulty can arise in the case of well-established charities, because, by subsection 4 of section 3, the minister may exempt any war charity from registration under the Act. A well-established war charity would experience no difficulty under this measure.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have not had an opportunity of reading the Bill, but it looks to me unnecessary to expose our Red Cross societies, which are in every village and hamlet in the country, to be prosecuted under an Act of Parliament. They are doing a great deal of good, and are generally carried on by the women. I suppose the Secretary of State may exempt Red Cross societies generally without particularizing them.


William Thomas White: Yes.


George Perry Graham: Would this Bill cover the case of tag days? Sometimes we read of the proceeds of tag days being looted, which
i

would indicate that it is possible for people who had an ulterior object in view to institute a tag day under false pretenses, so to speak.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Those tag days must be authorized by* the different muni-*eipalities.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, not in all cases.
There are hospital tag days, for instance-


George Green Foster: But they have
to get the permission of the municipal councils.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No.


George Green Foster: They do in the cities.


William Thomas White: This applies only to	appeals	for	the purpose	ofraising or attempting to raise money for any war charity by promoting any bazaar,	sale, entertainment	or
exhibition, or by any similar means. On the face of it, I should say it would not apply to a tag day, because that is not the raising of money by a bazaar, sale, entertainment, or exhibition.


Mr. OLIVER:: It does not seem to me
that it has been made altogether clear just what object the Government desires to atr tain by this legislation. Clause (a) of subsection 1 of section 3 provides that the war charity is either exempt from registration or is registered under the Act. What are the conditions that exempt a war charity from registration? I have read clause (b) of subsection 1 several times and I am unable to understand what it is there for or what is intended to be accomplished by it. I would like the minister to say definitely what is the object sought to be attained.


William Thomas White: The purpose is
to protect the public against appeals which, although purporting to be for war funds, may not as a matter of fact be for war funds but for the benefit of individuals. The Bill has a further object the placing of the organizations in this country which are appealing to the public for contributions in respect of war charities, within the knowledge of the Government. This, I think, is a very necessary step.
In Great Britain they have an Act similar to this. It has been necessary since the outbreak of the war to cause these war charities to be registered. Otherwise, my hon. friend will, I think, admit that it may be that we will have organizations purporting to be raising money for the war and in reality raising money for themselves.
	. j vj QX
My remarks, of course, would not apply to a great fund such as the Patriotic Fund or the Red Cross Fund to whom the minister will, as a matter of course, grant exemption from registration. But it is thcught advisable by the Government that it should be aware of these organizations making appeals for funds, and, secondly, that the public should be protected, in so far as it is possible to protect them by a legislative enactment such as this, from frauds which may be practised upon them.


William Pugsley: Has it come to the knowledge of the minister that there have been any frauds practised to any extent in Canada since the war broke out?


William Thomas White: Not to my personal knowledge. There have been brought to my attention certain frauds in connection with the administration of a particular fund.


William Pugsley: The objection I see to
this is that it seems to interfere with those spontaneous efforts which are made by people all over the country by means of which large amounts have been raised since the war began. I take it that it would apply to fetes where the people are invited to join together and contribute and where they do contribute. These innocent opportunities of raising money have resulted in very considerable sums being contributed. If it is proposed to prevent affairs of that kind without registering and obtaining the authority of the minister, it is going to interfere to a very considerable extent with those splendid spontaneous efforts which the people have been making since the war began.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I personally agree with
the objects of the Bill because I think it is wise that there should be some regulation of these various charities that are gotten up. I suppose that organizations like the Daughters of the Empire and the Red Cross could be exempted as a whole and action would not be necessary for each particular section to secure exemption. Nearly all the charities are gotten up under the auspices of the Red Cross or the Daughters of the Empire. I suppose it will not interfere with any particular section acting under the association. It would appear to me as if the intent of the Bill is good if it does not interfere with that sort of organization. In reading it over, I do not see that it does.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It must be conceded that 6inee the w.ar began there have been several instances where it would have been desirable if Government supervision or regu-

lation had occurred. At the beginning of the war some very enthusiastic person started to raise a fundi to buy hospital ships. After this movement had gone along for awhile it was discovered that it was all nonsense, that there was no necessity for a hospital ship. The whole thing was the inspiration of some very worthy person who thought it would be a good idea. Then we had the idea propagated all over the country of getting up a subscription for machine guns. The newspapers proceeded on this question, and demands were made upon the public. Everybody who suggested that this was a matter that the Government ought to deal with, just as much as the supply of rifles, was pilloried as disloyal and guilty of all sorts of crimes and misdemeanours. A tremendous amount of money was collected all over the country and sent in to Ottawa and every now and then you hear of some municipality which wants to know what has become of the money. These movements were promoted by a species of hysteria, and that is what actuates similar efforts in a great many cases. It is a step in the right direction if the Bill is intended to prevent things of that bind. But when you say that:
It shall not be lawful to make any appeal to the public for donations or subscriptions in money or in kind for any war charity as hereinbefore defined, or to raise or attempt to raise money for any such war charity by promoting any bazaar, sale, entertainment or exhibition, or by any similar means-
-unless the charity is exempt from registration or registration takes place under the Act, you are going too far. In my own part of the country, where battalions have been formed we have had the wives and relatives of the boys1 holding entertainments and making appeals to provide comforts for them and help them along. There was a Highland battalion raised in our province, the distinctive mark of which was the wearing of a feather in the bonnet, and in com sequence of that the Blue Feather Club was organized. In every hamlet and village from which a few boys had gone they had entertainments and gatherings for the purpose of raising money. That is a sentiment that you could not interfere with, but it will be an absolute prohibitive thing to say to a number of people in a small place who want to get together to do something for the men who have gone to the front that they would be liable to a penalty unless they registered. Are a few people in some distant part of the Dominion, who desire to meet together for that
purpose, to be held up until they apply to Ottawa to be registered or to secure permission to hold their entertainments? I do not know who is responsible for the drafting of them, but a great many of the Bills which have been presented to this House in the last week or two are Bills which require a great deal of changing before they can be deemed to be fit or proper legislation.
' Sir THOMAS WHITE: Might I call my hen. friend's attention to the definition of the word "charity" which I think he has overlooked?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The remarks I made were made in view of the definition of "war charities."


William Thomas White: It means any fund, institution or association.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will give you an illustration of the trouble we will have in Nova Scotia over the Blue Feather Club or the Red Feather Club. Technically, it would seem to be a club organized for the purpose of raising money, and it would come within the meaning of the Act. This measure is not well drafted. We know what the intention is in so far as it concerns the idea of regulating the inauguration of wholesale funds which are the development of some idea not based upon any proper consideration of the whole circumstances. That is one thing. That is what I think is the intent of the Act. But, we do not want every pie social and tea fight in the Dominion to be deemed illegal unless the promoters of those entertainments obtain registration under this Act. Yet, that is the way the Bill is drawn. Take the Bill in regard to the War-Time Elections Act which was introduced yesterday. I do not hesitate to say that that proposed legislation, in the way it is drafted and presented to the House, is a disgrace to the man who wrote it, considered as a piece of parliamentary drafting. It presents an elaboration of all the language which can be applied to create the greatest possible difficulty. The whole Bill ought to redrafted in order to get at the real "intent.


William Thomas White: I do not agree with my hon. friend that this Act applies to every local attempt to raise money, owing to the definition of war charities. The definition is:
Any fund, institution or association, whether established before or after the commencement of this Act, having for its object or among its objects the relief of suffering or distress, or

the supplying of needs or comforts to sufferers from the war, or to soldiers, returned soldiers or their families or dependents, or any other charitable purpose connected with the present European war.
By .section 4, provision is made for local registration so that even in the case he mentions no difficulty would arise. The measure, I think, is in the public interest. I am informed that frauds have been perpetrated upon the public by appeals in aid of war charities, and there would seem to be no objection to the principle of the Bill. The minister is authorized to exempt any war charity from registration under the Act. That will save all the well-known funds and associations. Then a simple method is provided for registration locally so i.'s to avoid difficulty to these asiociu-tions of a minor character which are making local appeals in aid of war charities.
Mr. MARCH,: What does the' minister mean by local registration? Is it registration with the registrar or municipal authorities? In my constituency there are ladies' clubs which hold entertainments and so on and send parcels to the boys at the front. Would an organization of that kind come under this Bill?


William Thomas White: If it is an association having certain definite objects as mentioned in section 2, it would. No difficulty could arise, because the minister could exempt that organization from registration under the Act. By section 4, the minister can appoint a local committee to attend to local registration. I do not apprehend any serious difficulty in connection with these associations which are bona fide carrying on the work of raising money or rendering assistance to war charities. The object of the Bill is to protect the public against associations which are not bona fide appealing to public sympathy. In framing an Act to protect the public in this way it is necessary to deal generally with associations making such appeals.


Mr. PARDEE:: Does the minister not
think that the churches would come under the definition of association?


William Thomas White: A church is not an association.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: It is an institution. In fact I think it comes under both terms. Will it be necessary for each church to register or will the churches be subject to the penalty of $500 fine if they do not register? Supposing a church gives a large social purely for war purposes, under what section would it be exempt?


William Thomas White: Because of the definition of war purposes.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That is it is not formed for that purpose?


William Thomas White: Therefore it is not a charity.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I think that the framer of the Bill had something of this in mind, because on page 2 we have the section:
This section shall not apply to any collection at Divine service in a place of public worship.
Then what about the other collections of the church?


William Thomas White: I do not agree with my hon. friend, because certainly it is not the object of the church "to relieve suffering or distress


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh yes it is.


Mr. McCRANEY:: What church do you go to?
Sir THOMAS WHITE-" or the suffering of needs or comforts to sufferers from the war, or to returned soldiers and so on, or to any other charitable purpose connected with the present European war." That is not the object of the church.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh yes.


William Thomas White: The church does that incidentally, but that is not the object of the church; and if a church which is organized for other objects incidentally assists in connection with the war, I should say that this Act does not apply to it.


Samuel Francis Glass: Nothing can more generally discourage public charity than frauds p:r-petrated upon the public in connection with charity, and experience during this war has shown that there have - been occasions when unscrupulous organizations and people have made collections to defraud the public. I rather agree with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that this Bill, as drafted, does not nearly cover the objects intended. I do not deny tnat the objects in view are desirable and in some senses necessary, but the point raised by the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Pardee) was in my mind before he spoke, that the very fact that, in subsection 2 of section 3, provision is made to exempt collections made at divine service, would seem to indicate that other collections by the church would not be exempted. It speaks of any fund, and it would seem that a fund collected by a church and set aside

especially for the purpose of war charity would be covered by the Act, and that registration would be necessary. My hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) has referred to such organizations as the Daughters of the Empire and others of a [DOT]national character, which are recognized as responsible and whose energy throughout the whole of this war is greatly to be commended. Amendments might be made which would greatly improve the Bill in respect to such matters as have just, been referred to, so that it should not apply to such organizations as the Daughters of the Empire, or to funds raised under the direction of a church organization.
I think it would put the churches to unnecessary trouble, and would, to some extent, retard voluntary efforts in charities, even if registration were necessary, or legal dispensation, or whatever might be provided. I think, generally speaking, organization for charities of this kind, where they are under the direct control of the church or under the direct control of some national organization such as the Daughters of the Empire, might be defined rigidly, and recognized branches of a national order of that kind might be properly defined. Notwithstanding that, I think we must admit that there is a real necessity for putting some curb on the efforts of unscrupulous individuals to collect funds from the public, presumably for purposes of war charities, and yet directly for the purpose of defrauding the public. I think the Bill, with the object it has in view is desirable, but I think it is crudely drawn to cover these objects, and would be a very troublesome Bill to administer. It might be amended in committee to cover the necessities of the case. In its present shape, I do not think it meets the requirements of the country.


George Perry Graham: It may be that, in a
measure, I should assume some responsibility for the introduction of this Bill, because in the discussion I think, of the taxation proposals I made the statement that there ought to be some regulation of the 'various appeals to the people. It appeared that too many people were passing the hat, and that all the good was not accomplished that might be accomplished by constant appeals to the people for a little subscription to this and a little subscription to that, some contributors who might give large amounts being satisfied with giving but very little to minor subscriptions. I agree with a good deal that has been said, and I do not know the legal effect of the Bill, but there should be some measure of
this kind, because 1 think it is, perhaps, more necessary this year than in former years. All the money we can raise should be devoted to the exact purpose for which the people intended it. namely, to carry on our charities, as well as our taxation contribution. There is a class of people- and they flourish very well under present conditions-who make a living by proposing to some of the local organizations to get up an entertainment for some purpose. The promoter of the entertainment will perhaps get 50 per cent and the local people 50 per cent, but the local people will pay the expenses.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Sixty-forty.


George Perry Graham: The whole population
takes part day after day, and night after night, and spend a Cot of money privately getting ready for these things, with the result that when the returns come in the promoter gets $500, the expenses are $300 and the charity receives perhaps $200. These things should be submitted to some authority to say what the terms are to be, and the conditions under which these entertainments are carried on, so that the people who contribute largely from the goodness of their heart, believing the money will go into some public good, will know that, outside of regular ordinary legitimate expenses, the money will go for the purposes to which they contributed it. I am in hearty accord with the purposes of the Bill, and I leave it to the legal gentlemen to get it in propeT shape.


William Thomas White: Subsection (b) oi section 2 provides that any question as to whether a charity is a war charity shall be finally determined by the minister.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I should like to find a precedent for putting in the interpretation clause the words "any question whether a charity is a charity shall be finally determined by the minister."


William Thomas White: I think it is in the Customs Act, and in certain of our taxa-a.tion Acts. Such a question is often left to the minister, who is responsible to the Government, and the Government is responsible to the public, and no impropriety or irregularity is likely to result. It is difficult to specifically define by legislation what a war charity is. In order to prevent any hardship it is provided that the matter is finally left to the discretion of the minister. If a question arises as to whether a church is an association coming within subsection (b) of section 2, it is for the minister to determine. My

own view would be that, so far as the ordinary denominations are concerned, no question can arise. The minister would determine whether or not they were organizations having for their object the matters mentioned in this subsection. It might occur that an association calling itself a church was collecting money improperly, and I think it should be for the minister to determine, in that case, whether it came under' this Act or not. I think the House should assume that it would not be the object of the Government to make this Act an engine of oppression against these associations that are engaged in the laudable and most meritorious work of assisting sufferers in this war. But the Act would be administered in such a way as to prevent fraud, and at the same time not to retard the beneficial work of the Red Cross, Patriotic Fund, and the churches engaged in such charitable work and honestly administering any funds coming into their possession. If the House is to assume the minister will use this in some way oppressively, we could make an amendment to the Bill, but with the decision left in the hands of the minister, I think there would be no difficulty in working it out.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This interpretation
clause, which is the key note of the whole Act, is intended to deal with money which is used for the purpose of giving relief to those in suffering or in distress, or the supplying of needs or comforts to sufferers from the war, or to soldiers, returned soldiers, or their families or dependents, or any other charitable purpose connected with the present European war.
Moreover, the Bill leaves out of consideration the men Who have enlisted in the Naval Service. Does the minister not think that the word "charity" is not a happy word to use in connection with work of this kind done for the soldiers?


Mr. NICKLE:: "Benevolence" would be a better word.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I object to the use of the word "charity" as descriptive of the work of organizations the object of which is to supply comforts to the soldiers. The people who do this work have not in their mind any idea of charity. This interpretation clause does not go far enough. It ought to provide that any fund organized in connection with war purposes should be subject to regulation and control. You do not need to regulate organizations whose members send socks and other comforts to the soldiers; you need to regulate the activities of men and women who decide to get

up new funds for purposes alleged to be m connection with the war.


William Thomas White: I think the word "fund" would cover that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, it would not. The interpretation clause is intended to regulate the activities of people whose 'work does not need any regulation. The persons who need regulation are those who say: We want to get up a fund to build a ship, present a gun-something of that kind, which has nothing to do with supplying needs or comforts to soldiers on service or returned soldiers.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I agree with my hon. friend in so far as his remarks relate to the raising of funds for ships and that kind of thing, but I do not agree that we should not regulate the so-called charitable organizations operated by people who collect subscriptions from individuals. We ought to control their activities in some way; I think that this Bill does cover such cases.


William Pugsley: Subsection 2 of section 3 of this Bill provides:
This section shall not apply to any collection at divine service in a place of public worship.
This shows that all other work done by a church in the way of so-called war charities comes under the provisions of this Bill. The word "institution," therefore, as contained in the definition clause, is intended to include religious denominations.


William Thomas White: Assuming that that is so-though I do not agree with my hon. friend-it does not appear to me that churches should be specially exempted. I stated some time ago that so far as ordinary denominations were concerned, I could not conceive how any question could arise; any fund that they would institute would be honestly and properly administered. But an association connected with some church might not so make its appeal or administer money raised; consequently I see no objection to bringing churches within, the purview of the Act. The minister may exempt any war charity from registration under the Act. He may exempt, for example, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, the Roman Catholic Church, just as he can exempt the Red Cross or the Patriotic Fund.


Mr. McKENZIE:: What does the minister say about that very worthy body, the Salvation Army? Suppose they held a concert

for the relief of returned soldiers; would they come within this definition?


William Thomas White: I have no hesitation in saying that the minister would exempt them if necessary, because they are, as my hon. friend has said, a worthy body.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They should not-nor should any religious body of that kind be left open to prosecution.


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend will look at section 10, subsection 2, he will find the following:
Proceedings for offences against this Act, other than offences against section nine, shall not be instituted except with the consent of the minister.
. Mr. PUGSLEY: Surely you would not want a clergyman to be liable to imprisonment.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is raising many bogeys in connection with this legislation.


William Pugsley: It is so absurd in some respects.


William Thomas White: I do not agree with my hon. friend. Nearly all legislation that is introduced is 'absurd to him, so that he may not be surprised if I do not take his view as to what is absurd or what is not absurd.


Mr PUGSLEY:: An hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, who spoke very clearly on the subject, came pretty near to caUing this Bill as drafted an absurd one.


William Thomas White: The hon. gentleman did not use the word " absurd." He argued the matter very temperately; I think that he had not read the Bill through.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why should this Bill not be entitled: An Act relating to War
Collections?


William Thomas White: The whole Bill would have to be redrafted in that case.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think that the
description " war charities' " is unfortunate. Provision ought to be made in the definition clause for the application of the Act to sailors. The word " charitable " ishould be struck out. The minister would then have power to deal with organizations or individuals collecting money for any purpose connected with the European war. If the word " collection " were used, or some other appropriate word, the Bill would be in much better shape.


Mr. MARCIL:: I support the view of the hon. member for Pictou. I have had an opportunity on certain occasions of ad

 . dressing public meetings in support of the Patriotic Fund, and I have always impressed upon my hearers that anything we were giving to the soldier or his family was not to be considered in the light of charity, but that it was well earned and well deserved on account of the services the soldier was performing for his country. The soldiers themselves would not be pleased to hear that any organization was extending "charity" to them. The word is badly chosen.


William Thomas White: There is an objection to applying the word "charity" to assistance given to our soldiers. This Bill goes much further-it refers to the relief of suffering, of distress, or the supplying of needs or comforts to sufferers from the war. It applies to the raising of money, for sufferers in Belgium, and that is clearly a charity. This Bill applies to appeals of which there are many in this country. The
Red Cross Fund


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is not charity.


William Thomas White: It would apply to the Red Cross Fund whose operations extend to all the countries of the Allies; it would apply, for instance, to appeals for the orphans of Serbia, Poland, or Russia.
Mr-. MARCIL: The Armenians.	[DOT]


William Thomas White: It would apply to appeals on behalf of Armenians. Clearly, there is no better term than the word "charity " in that connection. The assistance we give to our soldiers from the Patriotic Fund, of course, should pot be regarded as charity. The word " charity," however, is a good English word, properly applicable to an organization the object of which is to^ relieve sufferers in distress, let us say, in Belgium, Armenia, Poland, or any other country. It is only playing upon words to object to the term.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Finance took objection to the use of the word "absurd " lay which I characterized a portion of this Bill. The minister will remember that I was dealing with the section which provides for a penalty, and it was intimated that a clergyman or the officer of a church, might be liable. The minister stated there would be no difficulty about that because there could be no prosecution without the consent of the Secretary of

State. I said that it was absurd to say that would be a satisfactory provision. That is what I meant. When one takes the ground that a clergyman or the officers of a church might be liable under this measure because the organization not being registered some money was being solicited tor the Red Cross work or for the Patriotic Fund or for any other work connected with the war, is it not absurd to say that no harm would be done because such persons could not be prosecuted without the consent of the Secretary of State? Under such circumstances a clergyman or the officers of the church might be liable to a fine not exceeding $500 or to imprisonment with or without hard * labour for a term not exceeding three months. In other words, the man would become a criminal under the statute, but he could not be prosecuted without the consent of the Secretary of State. That would be an unenviable position in which to place ci Clergyman or an 'officer of a church who sought to do his part in regard to the collection of contributions for war purposes. I do not hesitate to repeat what I said, namely, that the Bill has not been properly drafted to meet the evil which it has been suggested is the reason for it. The Minister of Finance when he first spoke on the Bill, said that it was not- intended to include churches


William Thomas White: That is my view.


William Pugsley: -because, lie said, a
church was not an institution. Yet when we come to section 3 of the Bill, we find that the work a church may do without being registered is limited to one thing, that is to say, money may be collected at Divine service in a place of public worship and the church would not be liable because it was not registered, but all other war charity work which its members may carry on would be illegal and would render the clergymen and officers of the church liable to a penalty of $500 or imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months. That shows very clearly, no matter what the Minister of Finance may think, that the draughtsman had in mind that a church would be an institution within the meaning of paragraph (b) of section 2. That is absolutely clear by virtue of the limitation contained in section 3.


William Folger Nickle: It was only a day or two ago that I was speaking to one of the leading representatives of the Great War Veterans Association, and he was urging upon me that steps should be taken by this House 
to pass some Bill along the line of the measure now under consideration. He said that certain people throughout this country were taking advantages of the sympathies the people had with returned soldiers to make collections under the guise or allegation that the money was to be spent on behalf of the men who had returned or who had been injured. He urged that steps should be taken immediately to prevent what he thought was a growing grievance. There are none of us who are not aware of the fact that from one end of the country to the other, there has been a great deal of money very unwisely collected, although I must readily admit that the spontaneous response of the people to requests that merit consideration has been most commendable. If I understand the object of this Bill, it does not purport to deal with collections on behalf of what one might call war purposes; it simply deals with collections for charitable purposes. It does not include collections for field kitchens or machine guns for our troops.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why should it not?


William Folger Nickle: The object of this Bill is to deal with war charities or war benevolence; it in no way deals with the collection of money for war purposes. I do not think my hon. friend opposite is sincere in his objection that under this1 Bill any honest person who collects without having the authority stipulated for in this Bill would be considered a criminal. Surely, if some minister, in his zeal, but without knowledge of this Bill assuming that it should become law, were to institute a collection, no one for a moment would think of considering him a criminal.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Suppose a minister started a fund and he has certain members in his congregation who did not approve of it-that has often occurred and more hostility is aroused in churches that way than in anything else-an opportunity might be given to malcontents to have the minister prosecuted.


William Folger Nickle: If my hon. friend were the Secretary of State he would say there should be no prosecution.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: At the same time the church would be torn asunder on the question as to whether the minister were guilty or innocent.


William Pugsley: Should a man's guilt
or innocence depend on the whim of the Secretary of State ?


William Folger Nickle: His guilt or innocence
dees not depend upon the whim of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State decides whether there shall be a prosecution. Whether we oan improve the Act by changing a word here and there is a matter for consideration. No man who has been close to war collections throughout this country can fail to appreciate that the time has come when there should be some regulation and control of those collections, and that the Government being the responsible authority should take cognizance of and give sanction to those collections before they are made.


Frank Oliver: 
William Thomas White: The Bill speaks for itself.


Frank Oliver: But, as I read the Bill, it does not give me any indication of what the Government is going to do in any particular ease. I submit.it is not legislation which is worthy of this House or of the Government. There is no reason why the time of the House should be taken up by the discussion of a Bill of this character. The Government has ample power under the War Measures Act to make regulations covering this point-, and there is no reason why that should not be done. I cannot understand why the Government should come to Parliament with a Bill of this kind.
I want to ask in regard to a specific matter. Some time ago I had the honour of bringing to the attention of the House the operations of a gentleman named Merritt, who is collecting ostensibly for'the supplying of aeroplanes to the Imperial authorities. I would like to know if the Government has any knowledge of this gentleman s operations, and if they are such as would be subject to registration under this Bill, and if the Government would give them registration.


George Green Foster: The question
with reference to Colonel Merritt was asked yesterday. Colonel Merritt has certain views as to the advisability of building aeroplanes- in Canada and presenting them to the Imperial Government. In conjunction with others who hold the same views he is attempting to raise money for the building of those aeroplanes. If be and others, men of wealth and of substance, consider it is a wise thing to do, and are willing to put their money into it, it is perfectly legitimate for them to do so. Colonel Merritt also had the idea that the Government might make a certain contribution towards this purpose, either by giving a number of aeroplanes, or in such other way as they might consider advisable. After discussing the matter with him, the Government -came to the conclusion that their burdens in munitioning and equipping for war were quite as great as they could handle and they did not think if was their part to assist in helping to make this presentation of aeroplanes to the Imperial authorities. That is where the matter rests.


Frank Oliver: That is a very definite
instance in point. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has made a very clear statement in regard to this matter, and I desire to ask the Minister of Finance if this enterprise of Colonel Merritt's is such as would require to be registered under this Bril.


William Thomas White: No, because it is not a war charity.


Frank Oliver: If the securing of aeroplanes for presentation to the Government is not a war charity, I am at a loss to understand the meaning of words.


William Thomas White: A war charity has for its object or- among its objects the relief of suffering or distress or the supplying of needs or comforts to sufferers from the war, or to soldiers, returned soldiers, or their families or dependents, or any other charitable purpose connected with the present European war. The object of Colonel

Merritt does not come under the definition of "charitable" as set forth in the Bill.


Frank Oliver: "Any other charitable
purpose" would surely cover the contribution of aeroplanes.


William Thomas White: No. There is a rule of law that would apply there.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the minister is
legislating on the subject at all, does he not think he should legislate so that the Government would exercise some supervision over an enterprise such as colonel Merritt's which may be a very worthy one indeed. Colonel Merritt's scheme is a necessary and wise one, or forms part of the necessary preparation for the conduct of the war, why should not the Government itself take the initiative in it? The fact that nothing has been done is only an evidence of lack of understanding and neglect on the part of the Government in dealing with this whole war problem. The Government simply says: " If some gentleman outside wants to go ahead and do this thing, we do not propose to interfere with him." It simply stands aside with dilettante indifference, and does not regulate it or express any opinion about it, but if somebody wants to get up a pie social, away in the backwoods, in ordeT to provide socks for the soldiers, the Government will regulate that. I instanced the case of the hospital ship. Every one knows it was a most tremendous farce that this whole country should be appealed to to give money for a hospital ship which was not needed and for which there was no place. The same thing applies to the machine guns. If aeroplanes are needed, why should not the Government undertake the supplying of them? This seems so elementary that I am surprised the Government does not see it.


William Thomas White: This Bill simply covers war charities. It does not go any further than that. Whether another Bill should be brought dn dealing with the question to which my hon. friend refers, or whether that matter if dealt with at all should be dealt with under the War Measures Act, is not now before the committee.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not familiar
with the evils to the country which necessitated the bringing forward of this Bill. In the part of Canada from which I come we have very active associations in connection with matters which this Bill would call, I suppose, war charities. Everything that could be done in the way of Red iCross associations, and for the benefit of our soldiers,
[Sir Thomas White. 1
has engaged our attention from the commencement of the war. I never heard of any abuses in regard to the moneys so collected, and I am more or less at a loss to know why it was necessary to bring forward legislation of this kind.
Perhaps the minister has given some instances of abuse which this Parliament should legislate to curb and, if possible, to prevent. It is with a condition of this kind that we have to deal, I presume, when we enact a criminal law such as this is; if there are any abuses in connection with the moneys that are collected we have the criminal law. We are not confined to the Criminal Code but the criminal common law of England is in force here, we had it in force before the code was enacted and it is still in force where the code does not aPPly- If any person takes money collected for the purposes of the war, or for the soldiers, and applies it to something else, he must have received the money under false pretenses. Suppose he puts on an entertainment which he says is for the purpose of getting money for the soldiers and suppose, after he gets that money, he applies it to some purpose of his own; that is a criminal offence under the provision of our Criminal Code which says that if he receives money under false pretenses he is subject to be dealt with under the code. If he intended at the time he gave the entertainment to apply the money properly and afterwards changed his mind and used it for something else, he is guilty of theft. I make these statements as a lawyer of some age and experience. Any body of individuals engaging in a proceeding of that kind is open to prosecution if any person chooses to lay an information against it. When we have a condition of that kind, and when we have a law well understood, it seems to me that we are putting in an extra wheel here which rather complicates matters and makes it very difficult to deal with such a condition. It is almost impossible to make a safe definition. We have all these definitions in the law which have gone through the mill a thousand times, almost every word of which has received judicial interpretation, and it is rather dangerous to be starting out anew upon sidetracks of this kind. Under section 3, if any person gives an entertainment of any kind, he is liable. I attended a Sunday school entertainment not very long ago where the teachers and pupils got together and had lantern slides. That innocent entertainment of the Sunday school was for the purpose of getting money to buy boxes of stuff

they were sending across to the soldiers. Under this law the Sunday school teachers who gave that innocent entertainment are subject to prosecution, and every person who took a hand in it may be imprisoned for three months in the county jail or may have to pay a fine not exceeding $500. It seems to me that we are putting a ponderous piece of machinery in motion to meet evils that are largely imaginary as far as I know, having regard to the province from which 1 come. I have not heard a murmur anywhere about the misapplication of any funds that were collected. I submit that this is introducing a new element that is capable of abuse. It will retard the holding of these useful entertainments and discourage the very proper efforts that are being put forth. You might frighten people by telling them that after this Act is passed, if they do anything of this kind, they are subject to prosecution. It is useless to say: They may start to prosecute you, hut the Secretary of State can -stop it. I think this is absolutely a work of supererogation, and that it is applying criminal legislation where there is no necessity for it and applying it in a dangerous way, the far-reaching effect of which has not been properly comprehended.


Samuel Francis Glass: I cannot agree with my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) that because the Criminal Code provides for the punishment of individuals who may defraud the public in this way, the Criminal Code can be entirely relied upon to meet the needs of every case that may arise. An organization may be promulgated to collect a certain fund for a purpose which might come under this Act. The collections might spread over considerable time. While the Criminal Code provides that punishment may be meted out to those who are responsible for a fraud, it certainly is a deterrent to voluntary charity to know that the law will permit such fraud to be perpetrated before it can he dealt with. We have discussed this Bill all afternoon, and I take it from the statements which have appeared in the press and otherwise that the general consensus of opinion is that it is desirable. We have had from the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) the opinion that under clause 2, churches may be exempt. I cannot see why it is necessary in so much legislation to adopt the cross-eyed method of not saying what you mean or meaning what you say. If the minister thinks that churches are exempt under this, why not remove the ambiguity and make it clear?


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


Samuel Francis Glass: The minister does not think the Bill perfect. It comes from the Senate and irom the discussion this afternoon it is evident that we are not all of the opinion that it is as it should be. In its present form it will be cumbersome and troublesome to the great church organizations of this country. I respectfully ask the minister why, if churches are not to be included, an exception in their case should not he inserted in subsection (b), perhaps by adding " excepting churches or church organizations." I presume that a church organization would cover the Salvation Army. Would that not meet many of the objections? The churches should not have to apply to the Secretary of State, and the minister should exempt the churches and such comprehensive organizations throughout Canada. Why can we not put that exemption right in the Bill, and so fix it once for all and avoid any ambiguity or doubt?


William Thomas White: There is no objection to doing it. My own view is that the Bill does not apply to churches, for the reason I mentioned, but if there is any doubt the matter could be dealt with by inserting the words " other than churches " after the word " association." But just as soon as you begin to limit you raise difficulties. That is almost a maxim of drafting. I would suggest that section 2 be allowed to stand.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I object to this. No doubt the minister is preparing for closure.


William Thomas White: No, I am not; not on this Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I object to allowing any basis for closure, and I think this section should be disposed of.


William Pugsley: This motion to stand is a very dangerous motion.


William Thomas White: I shall consider whether it is necessary to make an amendment to exclude churches, which I think is the intention of the measure.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was going to suggest that the words " war contribution " should be used instead of " war charity," and that subsection (b) of section 2 should be amended by substituting " contribution " for " charity " in the 11th line, and that the 17th line should be amended by striking out the word " charitable " so as to give jurisdiction over associations formed fo.r

any other purpose. My hon. friend would get jurisdiction over all funds in that way.
Mr. MeKENZIE: Is it the intention that before commencing, say, a bazaar to collect money for war purposes, application should be made to the minister and a permit secured? It says that the final determination as to whether anything is for war purposes should be made by the minister.


William Thomas White: Only a fund, institution or association established for the purposes mentioned in (b) would have to obtain registration before it could promote a bazaar. All promoters of bazaars or other entertainments would not :be liable. Then by subsection 4 provision is made for local registration, so that no- hardship could result in any case.
The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) suggests using the word "contribution" instead of "charity." He has not read the section carefully. Charity has two meanings; sometimes it is used as in this Act in the sense of the organization that is engaged in charitable work. You often speak of organizing a charity. That is derivative, because the objects of the association are charitable. But we call the organization itself a charity. It is the organization that is called a charity here.
Mr. MeKENZIE: If the minister wants to define charity, Paul has given a very full definition, and I would, warn the minister not to conflict with what is so well understood and so well defined by Paul.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What does Paul say?
Mr. MeKENZIE: The minister will learn.


William Thomas White: Charity begins at home.
Mr. MeKENZIE: Not exactly.


William Thomas White: We had better not introduce Paul into this assembly. I am afraid he would feel strangely out of place iri association with the hon. member for Cape Breton. The suggestion of the hon. member for Pictou does not appeal to me, for the reason that the word "charity" is here used for the organization, and to substitute the word "contribution" would not meet the case, whereas the word "contribution" might in some cases be almost synonymous with "charity" in one sense of the meaning, it would not meet this ease where the word applied to an organization. Personally, I think that most of the objections to the Bill are rather fanciful. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Mc-

Kenzie) has referred to the criminal law. The criminal law is useful to obtain punishment of offenders after offences have been committed. The object of this legislation is to prevent the commission of the offence. My hon. friend's suggestion is to lock the door after the hdrse is stolen. Our object is to prevent the stealing of the horse.


Frank Oliver: Is the purpose to prevent the collection of the money, or to prevent the improper diversion of it?


William Thomas White: To prevent improper organizations -attempting to collect, and also to prevent diversion of the money. In the first place, if application is made to the minister by an organization as to which he is dubious, he would make inquiries under the provisions of the Act, and probably, if he came to the conclusion the organization was not one which should be allowed to appeal for funds, he would not grant registration. It is- entirely in the judgment of the minister to say whether he will grant registration or exemption from registration. It seems to me the Act rs hedged about by every safeguard that can be suggested.


Frank Oliver: It seems to me there could be no improper organizations that collect for war charities. The only impropriety that could possibly occur is that the money might not be sent to the war charities. It is inconceivable that there could be any impropriety in collecting money for a war charity.


William Thomas White: It depends upon the intention.


Frank Oliver: If the money is collected for a war charity 'there is by no possibility, any\ impropriety in that act. The only impropriety that can be connected with it is that the money, after being collected, is diverted from the charity. It seems to me that is a point the Government might very well 'have concentrated 'its attention upon; but in undertaking to pass judgment on the good intentions of any man or woman or sat of men or women who are undertaking a project that of itself is essentially and necessarily good, he is certainly taking a very serious responsibility, and however much confidence my hon. friend has in the omniscience of the 'Secretary of State I have not the same confidence in his omniscience to foresee what the intent of iamy body of men or women is when they are undertaking to do what is a laudable and legitimate act.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend speaks of a laudable and legitimate act.

The question of intention is of importance in that connection. Let us assume that some person, designing fraud upon a community, forms an association to appeal to the public for the charitable purposes mentioned .in this Act. Will my hon. friend say that enterprise is laudable? Does not the question of intention count. The purpose of this Bill is to prevent organizations of that character appealing to the public throughout Canada. In that way, if the Act is carried out, only those organizations that have officiai sanction through registration, in other words proper organization, will be allowed to appeal to the public, whose sympathies can be enlisted .readily in any project that promises aid to sufferers during this war. If hon. gentlemen desire to take up time discussing the Bill, I am willing to sit and listen, but I must confess that the arguments put forward by hon. members do not appear to me to be well founded, if the principle of the Bill is sound, namely that it is the duty of the public in war time to protect the public from appeals to their sympathy that may he made byparties who are not disinterested, but who are seeking to promote their own advantage, and to divert funds which were raised for certain worthy purpose * to other purposes.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I do not know just how far the Act goes, and I desire information. I know that a great many lectures were given on the prairies this year, in towns where there was no Red Cross and no organization of any kind. I gave quite a number myself. Collections were -taken up at these entertainments, and were sent to the nearest Red Cross or Patriotic Fund, or devoted to purposes as the local people thought fit.


William Pugsley: They would be liable
to a fine of $500, under this Bill if they were not registered.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister does not
intend taking action against these people, and I am satisfied no person will make trouble for them. But it is not wise to enact laws that will, even in a good cause, be broken. It is quite a common thing for young people on the prairies to have their evening entertainment. They dance at these places, and charge a fee each evening to those who dance, and, after all the expenses -are paid, the money goes to charitable purposes. They sometimes make $60 and $70 a night, and they send it to Moosejaw or Regina as the case may be. A large amount of money has been contributed in that way. I remember a Conservative candidate in the provincial election in Saskatchewan could
not get an audience, and he announced that there would be a dance, and basket social for the Red Cross. They held the meeting, had the dance, held an auction, and sold off the baskets. They got $150, and they had the time of their lives getting the $150 from the Conservative gentleman, who held the bag with the money. However, that was not the fault of the association. Perhaps the hon. minister will make provision to prevent cases of that kind occurring. Will the minister say if these entertainments vrould be prohibited by the Act?


William Thomas White: I would say that is not an association having for its object the purposes mentioned in this Bill. This measure would not prevent parties getting up social or other entertainments, on certain occasions.


William Erskine Knowles: That is all I wanted to know.


William Pugsley: The difficulty is that
the Bill does this extraordinary thing:	it
mixes up the money that is raised with the institution that raises it. Charity is defined to be a fund, an_ institution, or an association. Therefore, under this, a church organization is a charity within the meaning of the Act, and a temperance organization is a charity." The individual fund becomes a charity. It seems to me the Act ought to define charity to be the fund which is raised. Let that be the charity, and let the organization be entirely separate and distinct from that. One of the difficulties about this Bill is the confusion caused by the minister attempting to give one meaning both to the money which is raised and to the institution which raises it. You cannot do that, and make a satisfactory Bill. That is the reason why my hon. friend cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that the title of the Bill should be " An Act relating to War Contributions." It would be very much better to use the words " War Charities," and to define war charities to mean the funds which aTe raised for the objects to which the money may he devoted. Let the institutions be an entirely different thing. Then I would exempt churches, and generally religious organizations. There is no reason in the world why they should be compelled to register.
It would be unwise to place the pastor or other officials of a church who raise money for the Patriotic Fund, the Red Cross Fund, or for other war purposes, in the position of criminals simply because they fail to ob-

tain registration. The member for Moose-jaw (Mr. Knowles) mentioned a case that has occurred frequently and that will occur very often in the future: people hold public meetings and collections are taken up for charitable purposes. If in such cases no registration is made, a criminal offence is committed and the persons in charge of the meeting are liable to a penalty not exceeding $500 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months.


William Thomas White: I do not agree
with my hon. friend in that.


William Pugsley: The gentleman who
drafted the Bill seemed to think that that would be the result, because he specially exempts collections made at churches during divine service. The fair inference is that the meaning of the draftsman was -I am satisfied that this would be the meaning attached to the Act by any court -that except in cases where collection was made during divine service, persons making collections for these purposes without registration would be criminally liable under this statute. It is true that they could not be prosecuted without the consent of the minister, but it is one thing to be amenable to the criminal law and another to be saved'from prosecution through the kindness or the sympathy -of the minister. I do not think that any person should become criminally liable for acts which are thoroughly laudable in their character and which should be praised instead of being punished. The minister ought to do as suggested by the amendment of the member for Pictou: make this Act relate to war contributions. Give a definition to war contributions; do not mix up the contribution with the organization which may be the means of collecting the money. I think also that the hon. gentleman should accept the reasonable suggestion of the member for East Middlesex (Mr. Glass). All members of the committee will give full credit to the member for East Middlesex for a desire to make the Bill as perfect as possible. If the minister will accept these suggestions, I am sure that he will in the end have a statute which will bring about the desired object. If he insists on the Bill going through in its present form, a good deal of confusion will result; many people will find themselves in the class of criminal offenders, although their sole object may have been to do their best in the way of collecting money for charitable purposes connected with the war.


William Thomas White: One reason why I find myself unable to accept the suggestions of the member for Pictou and the member for St. John that the Act should apply to contributions and not to charities, is that such an amendment would change the entire purpose of the Act. This Act is not directed at contributions; it is to regulate organizations appealing for contributions, and to these organizations the general name "charities" is given, because their objects are charitable.


William Pugsley: If the Bill is intended to apply to organizations, why is the word "fund" used? Surely a fund is very different from an organization.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is altogether too intelligent to be deceived for one moment by his own argument in that respect. He knows that the word "fund" has two meanings, just, as the word "charity" has two meanings. A fund may relate to the money possessed by an organization; on the other hand, the organization may be called a fund. For example, The Patriotic Fund is the name of an organization; The Red Cross Fund is the name of an organization. Thereiore there is no ambiguity in including the word "fund" in the term "War Charities." In this Act the organizations are dealt with, not the contributions which these organizations may obtain. We have had a wide, edifying, and somewhat desultory discussion of this Bill. One thing we have succeeded in doing: we have used up the time of the committee from 3.30 to 6-which may be a desirable thing to do at this time. It is not my intention to go on with this Bill this evening; I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. In the meantime, I shall be glad to consider whether the amendment suggested by the member for East Middlesex with regard to the matter of exemption to churches is necessary. Personally, I do not think it is.


William Pugsley: I am sorry, indeed, that the minister, in taking the very laudable step of asking the committee to rise in order that the amendments suggested, particularly that of the member for East Middlesex, may be considered, should have recurred to his habit of scolding the members of the. committee. My hon. friend says that we have succeeded in occupying the time of the committee since half-past three. What are we consulted by the minister for? Why does he submit these Bills for our consideration? If my hon. friend feels that we

are doing wrong in having any discussion of these matters, I suggest to him that ho have the Rules of the House. amended to provide that it shall not he necessary to submit Bills to the consideration of the Committee of the Whole House; that they shall be passed at the pleasure and upon the dictum of the Government. In this way a great deal of time would be saved, and the will of the Government could be carried oat to the satisfaction of my hon. friend.


George Green Foster: (There is no doubt that time would be saved.


William Pugsley: The minister should take ^that suggestion into consideration.


William Thomas White: The Committee of the Whole has its uses, and the member for St. John is able, as well as any member of the House, to bear an important and useful part in debate-when that is his object. Whether that was his object this afternoon when he was splitting hairs over the definition of the words "charities" and "fund," I leave to his own good judgment and to the judgment o-f the committee. Personally, I have no objection to any remarks that the hon. gentleman may make in regard to the Bill, but I do think a large portion of the afternoon was wasted in discussing matters that were not in the essence, so far as the Bill is concerned. On the other hand, some suggestions were made that are well worthy of consideration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand that section 2 is to stand, subject to the introduction of certain amendments?


William Thomas White: Subject to consideration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And some amendement is to be introduced, I understand?


William Thomas White: Possibly.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then my hon. friend must have profited by the discussion this afternoon.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
empire and the children of the

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the message from the Senate disagreeing to the
348	_
second amendment made by the House of Commons to Bill No. 95, to incorporate the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire and the Children of the Empire (Junior Branch).

Mr. Steele.
Mr. STEELE:: 
George Ewan McCraney: Is the whole of the
section which has been rejected by the Senate incorporated in the motion just moved?


Michael Steele: Yes, the whole amendment as we originally put it in the Bill is still in the Bill, but we amended it to clear up an objection of some of the members of the Daughters of the Empire representing local chapters. They thought the or-



iginal amendment would permit the chief organization to interfere with property held by the local Chapters in trust.


George Ewan McCraney: Then the additional
amendment contained in my hon. friend's motion in addition to the section which was rejected by the Senate?


Michael Steele: Yes.


George Ewan McCraney: Would my hon. friend be so good as to read the section rejected by the. Senate as he now proposes amending it, because members have not before them the Bill as printed by the Commons.


Michael Steele: The section inserted in
the Bill by the Private Bills Committee, to accomplish the purpose they had in view, was as follows:
The Order shall acquire and take over all the existing- assets, interests, rights, credits, effects and property, movable or immovable, held and enjoyed by the provincial society, and shall be subject to all the obligations and liabilities of the said provincial society, and except in so far as it may be necessary for the purposes of such transfer, the powers and authority vested in the Order under the provisions of this Act shall not be exercised or become effective until all the assets, interests, rights, credits, effects, property, obligations and liabilities of the said provincial society have been transferred to and assumed by the Order, and evidence of such transfer and assumption satisfactory to the Secretary of State of Canada has been filed with the said Secretary of State, and a statement to that effect has been published in the Canada Gazette by the said Secretary of State.
With the proposed amendment this section will read:
The Order shall acquire and take over all the existing assets, interests, rights, credits, effects and property, movable and immovable, held and enjoyed by the provincial society, but nothing herein shall be deemed in any way to affect the rights in respect of any property real or personal, of which any primary, municipal or provincial chapter may be possessed at the date of this Act, and shall be subject to all the obligations and liabilities of the said provincial society,-
And so forth.


George Ewan McCraney: Does that apply to provincial societies other than the one incorporated in the province of Ontario under the Revised Statutes?


Michael Steele: That will apply to all
societies and all chapters. As a matter of fact, we believe the society incorporated under this Bill would have no right whatever to interfere with any of the properties held by the local chapters, but in order to satisfy some of the local chapters who object to this Bill, and to satisfy the Senate, we are willing to insert those words to

make it perfectly clear that there would be no interference.


William Erskine Knowles: Inasmuch as this is a new matter-I speak subject to correction

should it not go through the committee?
As I understand the matter, in the Private Bills Committee, there was added to the Bill new matter which was not in the Bill as it received its second reading in this House. I do not know the exact wording of the rule, but one would think the principle of the rule would require that the additional matter inserted in the Bill by the Private Bills Committee should run the gauntlet of discussion in committee of the whole House.
I would therefore ask you if it should not first pass through committee so we may have an opportunity of exchanging views upon it in a more informal way than could be done in a Committee of the Whole. Of course, I want it to be understood that I am not in any way endeavouring to obstruct the Bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is quite proper for the House to order this amendment to be considered in Committee of the Whole, hut it is not- essential. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenao) moved that the House go into Committee on Bill No. 126, for the relief of Albert Edwin Gordon.
Michael Steele: Before
you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a matter in connection with this Bill which I think worthy of consideration. Since the Private Bills Committee considered this Bill, information has come to me regarding an irregularity in the procedure before the Divorce Committee. I had not this information when the committee met, or I would have drawn it to their attention, and I think it probable the committee would not have taken the Bill into consideration with that information, before them. I desire to make a motion, but before doing so I wish to give my reasons. I think it is an established rule, supported by the authorities, that a Committee of the House cannot accept evidence taken by a committee at a former session, without that evidence being referred to the committee by the House. Bourinot makes this quite plain, I think. At page 474 he says:

-Neither can a committee report the evidence taken before a similar committee in a previous session except as a paper in the appendix, unless it receives authority from the House to consider it.
May also gives a very clear statement on the matter. In the footnote to page 418 he says:
When for any reason the evidence taken before committee has not been laid before the House, the committee re-appointed in a subsequent session cannot report it except as a paper in the appendix.
My information is, and I believe it to be quite accurate, that the Divorce Committee did not have the evidence taken in this case in 1915 referred to this year by the Senate. In support of my belief that this was not done, I may state that a search has been made of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Senate, and it fails to reveal any reference to the evidence.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Do I understand the hon. member desires to rise to a point of order?


Michael Steele: No, I did not rise to a point of order. I wished to draw attention to an irregularity in the procedure, and to conclude by moving that the Bill be referred back to the Private Bills Committee for further consideration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is a question as to whether it is competent for this House to go into the matter of procedure in another Chamber. I do not wish to make a ruling upon the point, hut I shall follow the hon. gentleman carefully.


Michael Steele: I have no desire to depart from the rules of the House. I was merely bringing the matter to the attention of the House in order to substantiate the motion I proposed moving, and was giving the reasons why I moved it. Perhaps it would be sufficient for me to conclude by moving:
That the order for the House in Committee of the Whole on Bill No. 126, (Letter T2 of the Senate) intituled "An Act for the relief of Albert Edwin Gordon" he discharged and that the Bill be referred back to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills for further consideration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings):: If I understood the argument of the hon. member, it was that the evidence taken in a prior year, 1915 I think, had not been laid before the Committee of the Senate. I presume this House, as the highest judicial body in the land, wishes to do what is right between the parties. I have under my hand
348J
a copy of the evidence and proceedings in this case before the Senate, and I find it was expressly agreed between the parties, in the presence of the committee, that the evidence theretofore taken should he used with permission to either party to add anything thereto the party wished. It seems to me when the hon. gentleman rises to the point he does, he must be ignorant of the fact that there was a straight agreement made between the parties and the Senate. It is found on the first page of the Minutes of Evidence, and is as follows:
Hon. Sir James Lougheed: May we expect new evidence, or are we to be confined to the evidence produced on the hearing some two sessions ago?
Mr. Wilkie: There will he some evidence.
Hon. Sir James Lougheed: I think counsel mjght discuss this question between themselves, and perhaps they could agree to accept the evidence which has already been taken and printed.
(Counsel confer together.)
Mr. Wilkie: My learned friend and I have agreed, subject to the wishes of the committee, that the evidence taken on the former occasion and printed shall stand, with leave to either party to supplement or explain it.
Hon. Sir James Lougheed: Is there anything that you wish to add to Mr. Gordon's evidence? I think it would he well to indicate as you proceed what the new evidence is.
Mr. Wilkie: I desire that the evidence of Mr. Gordon should stand unchanged.
The chairman: What do you say, Mr. Mikel?
Mr. Mikel: I have a copy of the evidence. I may say that I am not as familiar with it as my learned friend whom I am representing.
Then witness after witness was named, and the parties agreed that his evidence should go in. It all follows out the agreement made at the beginning:
Mr. Wilkie: My learned friend and I have agreed, subject to the wishes of the Committee, that the evidence taken on the former occasion and printed shall stand, with leave to either party to supplement or explain it.
I submit, it is one of the rules of this House that when a matter is referred to a committee prima facie the finding of that committee governs the House. I do not say it is absolutely conclusive, but prima facie it governs. In this case, we find that a Committee of the Senate after hearing the evidence came to a certain decision, and a Committee of our House agreed with the Senate. This body to-night, composed of members who have not seen the evidence, is asked practically to override the opinions expressed by those two committees. I submit that it is our duty to ait here as judges in a matter of this kind, and whatever feelings of sympathy may exist towards the respondent, the petitioner has. his rights, and if the evidence he has brought



W98 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
forward satisfied the Senate and the Private Bills Committee of this House, and if that evidence was put in by express agreement, the House can well proceed to give a third reading to the Bill.
John Allister Currie: I rise to a point of order. If there is any merit in the objection to the third reading of the Bill, that evidence was taken before the committee without the consent of the House, that applies only to the Senate, and the point should be raised only in the Senate. The Senate having passed over that irregularity, have passed the measure over to us for our consideration and conclusion.
Obviously, we have no right to raise a question as to the irregularity of the proceedings of the Senate. For that reason I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give your ruling on that point of order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The point of order raised by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) is, I have no doubt, well taken. It seems to me that when a measure comes to us from the -other chamber, certified to by its proper officer as having been duly passed, and in regular form, we must be governed by that, and it is not for us to go back and make inquiry as to the regularity of the steps which were taken, or as to whether the proceedings were properly conducted by that body.


William Erskine Knowles: May I speak to the point of order, before you give your decision?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no objection to the hon. member expressing his views, although I have my mind pretty well made up.


William Erskine Knowles: I am sure that no person would take any exception to the spirit which animates the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), namely, that we must show the utmost respect for the proceedings of the Senate. The Chairman of the Private Bills Committee is in his place. He believes that his motion is quite in order and quite proper, and he has supported it with certain observations in regard to what might have happened in the Senate. But the Chairman of the Private Bills Committee will excuse me, I am sure, if I speak for him to this extent when I say that there is no thought of casting any reflection on 'the Senate. I fancy that the Senate were desirous, just the same as we are, to do the correct thing, and we would

respectfully bring that question up if P went back to the Private Bills Committee. Surely no offence could be taken by the other chamber. We try to treat one another with the utmost respect and we are all friends. I would submit that the motion is strictly in order, and that it is a perfectly proper procedure to send this Bill back to the Commons Private Bills Committee so that we may have the matter properly cleared up. From the record which is in our hands, it appears that an inaccuracy has crept in. I would refer the House to page 10 of the evidence, and it will see that the record contains 70 pages of evidence taken in 1915. That is bound up with the evidence taken this year. It is within these 70 pages that the evidence with regard to the alleged offence of adultery is contained. There was no doubt that it was by inadvertence that the evidence was admitted by the Senate. If we were to address an interrogation to the Senate or call their attention to the fact that the rule of the House seems to have been unintentionally controverted, I am sure that they would agree that such was the case and that they would take steps to see that the matter was properly rectified. If hon. gentlemen will look at page 10 of the evidence they will see that it reads:
Evidence Taken on Petition of 1915.
Minutes of Evidence.
The Senate,
Ottawa, March 15, 1915.
That evidence extends from page 10 to page 79.
I would support the motion that the report be referred back to the Private Bills Committee, because I think that if the Private Bills Committee had understood the position, the Bill would not have been reported until this matter was cleared up.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for
Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) must have misapprehended the point raised by the member for North Simcoe, which has nothing to do with the motion submitted by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele). The point of order raised by the hon. member for North Simcoe had to be with the reasons assigned by the mover of this amendment. If his point of order is based upon that ground it is well taken, inasmuch as it calls in question the action of the Upper Chamber. But that does not vitiate the motion made by the hon. member for South Perth.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: What is the motion?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That the Bill be referred back to the committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills for further consideration.


John Allister Currie: The reason given by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) why this motion should be adopted was that the procedure with regard to this Bill was irregular and he wanted it referred back to the committee of this House. A com-.mittee of this House cannot cure that irregularity, which he said had taken place, and in consequence of which he asks that this Bill should go back to the Private Bills Committee.


William Erskine Knowles: He said it was not a
point of order.


John Allister Currie: He said that the proceedings were irregular and that for that reason he wanted the Bill sent back. But the reasons which he advanced, in view of what the Speaker has said cannot possibly be an argument for referring it back. I think the hon. member for South Perth would be justified in withdrawing his motion after the statements made by Mr. Speaker. Let us proceed with this Bill because we have only a few days more. There will be only one or more occasions when this Bill can be taken up by the House. Can it be said that there is no attempt to block this Bill? It is whispered all around that every attempt has been made to block it. Let us proceed to the third reading. Withdraw the motion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion submitted by the hon. member (Mr. Steele) must be regarded as an amendment to the motion which was put: that I do now leave the Chair. Mr. Edwards moved:
That I do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole on Bill No. 126, letter 2T of the Senate intituled "An Act for relief of Albert Edwin Gordon.''
Mr. Steele moves in amendment, seconded by Mr. Bennett (Simcoe):
That X do not now leave the Chair, but that the order of the House for the House to go into Committee on Bill No. 126, letter 2T of the Senate, intituled "An Act for the relief of Albert Edwin Gordon" be discharged, and that the Bill he referred back to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills for further consideration.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: As the seconder of the amendment that the Bill be referred back to the committee, I will not touch upon the point that has been raised by the Chairman of the Committee, but for other reasons I think that this Bill should be referred back. I have been a member of this
House for a number of years, and for the first time in my life have I known an important divorce case to be brought down to the House and members absolutely forbidden to read the evidence. Why this departure from the old-established rule? My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) says: "Who says you must not read the evidence?" Who will tell me where to get copies of the evidence to read it? Copies of the evidence are always printed and they are always placed in the boxes, but for some extraordinary reasons the evidence in this case has not been brought down and handed to members. It is true that I havo seen in the possession of some of the elderly members of the committee copies of the evidence, but to be allowed to lay hands, much less eyes, upon these holy things is utterly impossible, I see one now lying upon a table before me-I will not point out which table-ear-marked and thumb-marked at the top of every page where there may be something or wherever there may appear to be something against this unfortunate woman. I am a member of this committee, and I have heard the case discussed ad libitum. I was told that if I would wander up to the committee I would find out what the mysterious parts of the evidence were in this case. I wandered up and heard the evidence discussed. On that committee there are sixty members apparently interested in what goes on at that committee, but on the occasion when this matter was decided there were but only seventeen members sufficiently interested in it to be present. The committee was almost evenly divided-there was only one of a majority in favour of granting the divorce. Is it not absurd to ask that a divorce he granted when only seventeen members, or a third of the committee were prepared to go and hear the matter discussed, and when, after it was discussed to a certain degree, there was only a majority of one in favour of it? I heard enough of the evidence to convince me that I should not vote to permit this suppliant for a divorce to be cut loose to marry any decent woman, as I believe his present wife to he. The man knew it would never do to give a point-blank denial to the evidence of this woman who had presented herself, and whose evidence, according to the committee and from what I heard, was of such a nature and such a class that he did not dare to contradict it.
Let us take another phase of this estimable party who is applying for a divorce. I think that of this unhappy marriage there


Mr. MORPHY:: That has nothing to do with the case. The man is taking care of his own children.


William Humphrey Bennett: My hon. friend came late into the case. He did not hear the evidence.


William Barton Northrup: I hold in my hand the judgment of the court-Sir William Mulock -between these parties.


William Humphrey Bennett: An action for alimony was brought by her, as I understand, and she was adjudged a certain amount, and the complainant in this case failed to pay the amount; he has not paid her anything since November last.


William Barton Northrup: Not the case at all.


William Humphrey Bennett: I happened to
glance at one of the copies of the evidence to-night, and it is evident that they went all around the bush to beat this woman out; they even tried to make her out a thief when she was working hard at the occupation she took up as a milliner in Chicago; they tried to prove that she had been guilty of stealing. At every turn she took they had detectives on the track, or some evidence of that class to try and vilify her and beat down her reputation. We hear a great deal about detectives. We know that once you put a detective on the track to hunt down a woman, it is his business, in order to secure further occupation, to get a committal. Why, a case was reported in Toronto a few days ago; a detective was called in with some others to make an arrest, and while they were making the arrest he actually stole some $20 which he found lying around, and they had to arrest the
LMr. W. H. Bennett. J
detective. That is a fair sample of detective work, and all the evidence against this woman is, in the main, the evidence of detectives. This man comes here, not with clean hands, but with disgustingly filthy hands, the hands of a party to procuring an abortion, and he wants the House of Commons to grant him a divorce so that he may go out and marry again. I am not going to vote for any divorce of this kind, and I am willing to leave the parties where they are.	-


Mr. EDWARDS:: I am in a rather peculiar position so far as this particular case is concerned, inasmuch as I must confess that I never heard of it until late this afternoon; in fact it was after six o'clock before I knew that such a case had been before the Senate and that my name was connected with it as sponsor for the Bill in this House. I do not know who takes it upon himself to attach the name of a member who is not even a member of the Private Bills Committee to a Bill to come before this House. I want to assure the committee that in this case it was done without my sanction and without my knowledge. As I said, I did not even know that such a case had been before the Senate until after six o'clock, when I was informed that the first hour to-night would be given un to Private Bills and that I was sponsor for one of the Bills. I understand that only a few members of the Senate committee gave attention to this Bill, only some eight or nine, and the Bill passed the Senate committee by a very small majority. We have been told that only a small proportion of the House of Commons committee gave consideration to the matter, and the time is very short for giving consideration to it now. I am disposed to favour the motion of the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele), because I certainly know, from a glance at one page of the evidence, that the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. W. H. Bennett) was absolutely wrong in regard to this woman stealing, because the evidence shows that she admited that herself. That is, however, only one point, but I think there is no doubt about that.


George Perry Graham: That is not a reason for divorce.


William Cameron Edwards: At page 156 of the evidence I find the following:
Q. When you were recently in Chicago did you take a situation?-A. Tes I did.
Q. With whom?-A. Marshall Field's.
Q. How long were you with them?-A. Well,
1 do not just know, I was with them several months.

Q. How did the employment terminate, or why?-A. Well, I left; 1 wanted to he with the children and I left.
Q. Was there any difficulty between you and Marshall Field & Co.?-A. No.
Q. Did you sign any documents before you left Marshall Field & Co.?-A. I do not know that X did.
Q. Oh, but yes, Mrs. Gordon, you would not forget that; did you sign any documents before you left Marshall Field & Co.?-A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was the purport of it?-A. If you have got the document you can look up and see.
Q. Tell me the purport of it.
Mr. Mikel: This is irrelevant.
Mr. Wilkie: It is a matter of credibility of the witness.
By Mr. Wilkie:
Q. Did that document have to do with the matter of your honesty?
Mr. Mikel: Surely we are not trying the witness' honesty.


The Chairman:: Mr. Wilkie is dealing with the credibility of the witness. He may ask the question, but if she denies it that ends it.
By Mr. Wilkie;
Q. Then will you tell me, had that statement anything to do with your honesty?-A. Yes, it had.
Q. Had you been accused of stealing?-A. Yes.
Q. And did you, in writing, confess to the fact?-A. Well, of course, I would like to make an explanation in regard to that.
Q. I should like your answer first, and then your explanation may follow.-A. Yes, I will admit that.
Q. Then give me your explanation.'-A. I was employed in the millinery department in Marshall Field's, and of course I handled the merchandise, and in handling the merchandise I came across different little articles which were badly damaged, and in fact they were no use at all, as far as selling them in the store was concerned. One of the articles was a flower, and I do not know what else, but at any rate I did, I must admit, I will have to admit that I took them, but the reason I took them was that they were so terribly badly damaged that they never could have been sold. Of course I should not have done that, even at that.
Q. There was a search made for the articles? -A. Yes.
Q. And where were they found?-A. After I told them, I was questioned regarding the matter, and I told the person who made the inquiries that I had-they asked me if I had them, and if I would return them-and I told them that I had them at the house, and they could have them and welcome-and I did return them.
Q. Was a search made of the house?'-A. Yes.
Q. Whose house?-A. My brother's house. Mr. CURRIE; What was the evidence as to the value?


William Cameron Edwards: The evidence continues:
Q. That brother where your children are now?-A. Yes.
Q. In Chicago?-A. Yes.
Q. Can you give me an idea of the total value of the goods that were found there belonging to Marshall Field & Co.?-A. No, I could not.
Q. Am I wrongly instructed when I am told that they would approximate $1,000?-A. Yes, that is wrong, it would not be that much at all.
Q. Then about how much?-A. I haven't any idea.
II my hon. friend can produce any corroboration for the statement that the respondent was wrongfully accused of stealing, after what I have just read, he is a cleverer lawyer than I think he is.


Michael Steele: Is theft a ground for
divorce?


William Cameron Edwards: I am not saying that it is, but I am pointing to the fact that only a small number of the members of the Senate committee gave any attention to this matter, and that only a small number of the Commons committee attended the meetings of that committee. The misstatement of the hon. member for _ East Simcoe, as shown by the evidence, is, to my mind, strongly in favour of the motion moved bj the hon. gentleman from South Perth (Mr. Steele). I do not know anything about it further than what I have read, but it appears to me to be a matter concerning the conduct of a man and a woman, and, inasmuch as these matters come before us for consideration, we should not deal with them lightly. And we should not fritter away time, when only one hour is allowed for consideration. It seems to me impossible to deal with it fairly in a few minutes' time, and, therefore, that this House would be acting properly in adopting the motion that this Bill be referred back to the committee, when we hope that a greater number of the members will attend, and that they will arrive at a proper conclusion.


George Perry Graham: The severance of the marriage tie is a very serious matter. I have almost reached the conclusion that there seldom is a case so clear against one party, with no case against the other, that any divorce should be granted. Here is a case where the committees in both Houses were divided. The committee of the House of Commons certainly was divided, and the remarks we have heard to-night show the reason why. We are asked in this House to pass the third reading of a Bill which legally makes one party lily white, and relegates the other to the lower strata of society for the remainder of her life. Can we do that without having facts to substantiate our position thoroughly? To-

night is the first time I have heard this Bill discussed. We must not forget that we have in our hands the future of these two parties. I have always considered a divorce case one of the most serious matters that can be placed before a committee of this House. When these cases come to the House itself the committee is usually pretty unanimous, and we accept their finding. Only on two or three occasions has there been an exception to this in my time in this House, and I have been here several years. I make it a point to destroy all evidence in divorce cases, as soon as I see what it is, and never read it unless the case is celebrated, and there is a division of opinion in committee. In such a case I have always felt it my duty to scan the evidence to see what attitude I ought to take in the House, because then a great responsibility comee to every one of us. We are asked in this House solemnly to vote to-night to sever the marriage tie between two people who have three children, and we have not seen the evidence-


An hon. MEMBER:: Two children.


George Perry Graham: -much less have we had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses. The committee has accepted the evidence taken two years ago, as far as it goes, and I do not care anything about the technicalities, so far as my vote is concerned, as to whether this evidence was properly before that committee or not. This evidence has not been before this House, and I will not accept the responsibility of voting to sever the marriage tie between these two people, where such a divergence of opinion exists between the members who have read the evidence and considered the case, until I know what is in the evidence, because I feel that I have a responsibility which I cannot shirk. I am going to vote for the motion to refeT this back to the committee, and when this Bill comes up again, unless the members of the House have been supplied with the evidence, I will vote against the third reading of the Bill. I will take no person's word in this case, after what I have heard. I desire to ask a question, and perhaps it may assume the proportions of a point of order: Gan the Private Bills Committee ask this House to pass upon a question, when the rule which provides,for giving us the evidence is violated? I do not know that I will put it as a point of order; but I believe that it is not fair to the members and the Private Bills Committee have no right, no matter what the Senate Committee did,

to ask us to vote either yea or nay on this question unless we are provided, with the evidence on which we can base an opinion.


Mr. WILLIAM THOBURN (North Lanark) :: For the information of the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), I may say that the reason given by the Senate Committee for not having the evidence published-it is, perhaps, the first time in the history of that committee that the evidence in a case of this kind has not been published-was that they thought that the evidence was of such a nature that it should not be sent broadcast over this Dominion. The evidence is now being printed, and it is expected that it will be in the boxes of all members of the House to-morrow morning.


George Perry Graham: After we have been asked for the third reading of the Bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


William Thoburn: Under the circumstances could not the matter stand without its being referred back to the committee?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Hugh Guthrie: I was in attendance at the Private Bills Committee when this Bill first came before it, and I was one of those who took objection to the committee's proceeding further with the consideration of the matter, on the ground that no copy of the evidence had been furnished to any member of the committee at that time.' A stenographic copy of the evidence lay on the chairman's table, and we were told that we might have the privilege of perusing it if we saw fit. I was supported in my objection by a number of members of the committee, and it was ordered that the Senate be requested to print and distribute the evidence in the usual way. I received a copy of the evidence in due course, and I was under the impression until this evening that every member of the House had received a copy of the evidence in accordance with the rule. I stated in the committee that I did not think any one could intelligently pass upon the question who had not access to the evidence. I am rather surprised to-night to find that members have not 'been so supplied. When I received the evidence I read it carefully and I founded my conclusions upon it. I voted in the committee in favour of the granting of this divorce, but I should not have voted at all had I not had access to the evidence. I think that the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has put the case fairly; before the Bill proceeds,

the evidence should be received by the members. I understand that the evidence is being printed and will be distributed tomorrow. I do not see that any object will be accomplished by referring the matter back to the committee. Only 17 members of the committee met on the last occasion, but the matter was dealt with exhaustively, as is the case with all such Bills, and the committee reported the Bill to this House. Although the committee consists of about 30 or 35 members, we must remember that this House consists of 220 members. If we get the evidence to-morrow and the Bill is taken up in its regular course on Monday,
I think all objections should be satisfied.
I know that there is an evident intention on the part of some people, with the end of the session coming nearer, to delay the Bill. It is commonly whispered throughout the corridors-


William Erskine Knowles: Will the hon. gentleman name any person who .pretends to do that?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not propose to name anybody.


William Erskine Knowles: You had better not assert it, then.


Hugh Guthrie: I can say what I believe, notwithstanding the contradiction-


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend's Temark includes all members.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not say members; I said throughout the corridors.


William Erskine Knowles: It could be done only by members.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that justice will be done and that the House will
9	p.m. be fully informed in the usual way if the matter stands until Monday, when the evidence will be in the hands of all the members.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hour for Private
Bills is exhausted.



LIVE STOCK EXCHANGE.

[Stage Direction]
The House on Committee on Bill No. 123, respecting live stock.-Mr. M. Burrell-Mr. Rainville in the Chair..
On section 1-Short title.
Frank Oliver: Has the minister given a
explanation of this Bill to the House?


Mr. BURRELL:: Yes, I gave a full explanation on the introduction of the Bill. After it was read the second time it was referred
to the Agricultural Committee, who had the Bill before them twice and discussed it pretty thoroughly. Such amendments as were made-they are all of a minor char-aeter-^were unanimously adopted by the committee. There is an amendment to section 1. The old title was " The Live Stock and Produce Act." It was thought that the word "Produce" was rather confusing, so the title was changed to " The Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Did not the minister insert some amendments in the Bill? If so, will he tell me what they are?


Martin Burrell: I have just explained that there were several amendments passed at a meeting of the committee. The first is in section 1, which has just been passed. The amendment is that the title, instead of being "The Live Stock and Produce Act," should be "The Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act." The next amendment is the addition of the following as paragraph (g) at the end of section 2:
Live stock products means meat, poultry, eggs and wool.
. That corresponds with section 9. The next amendment is by adding this subsection to section 3:
Nothing in this Act or in any regulation made hereunder shall take away or in any manner limit the right of any farmer or drover to sell his live stock at any stock yard.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Should not the words "or other person" be inserted after the word "drover?"


Martin Burrell: It is assumed that such sellers would be farmers or drovers.
Mr.'MORPHY: That is not a fair assumption. Many people who are neither farmers nor drovers have stock to sell.


Martin Burrell: I suppose a section could be inserted covering that. This was designed simply to differentiate the farmer or drover from the man who was selling on commission. There was some discussion on this amendment, but I do not know whether that point was raised or not. In section 7, after the words "and a schedule of the fees," the words "and charges" are added. In section 9, paragraph (a) the words "and operated" are added, so that the paragraph read.,.

The manner in which stock yards are to be constructed, maintained, equipped and operated.
Those are the only amendments.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
On section 3-Live stock exchange at stock yards:


William Pugsley: Will the minister explain the practical application of this phrase:
Unless he holds a special license from the minister.


Martin Burrell: That is explained in some of the sections following. If there was any dispute in any stock yard between the department and the stockyard, and it was clearly shown that an injustice was being done to the stock owner or farmer sending his stock there, and there was liable to be an interruption of business, we would - have the right to issue a special license in order that the business should not be interrupted in the stock yard. Such a case is not likely to turn up, but this is provided in order that the selling may go on.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If there was trouble in the exchange, a special license would authorize the commission merchant to go on doing business?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


William Pugsley: Is it the intention that every stock yard as defined in paragraph f of section 2-
"Stock yard1" means any area of land used as a public market for purchasing and selling live stock, with the buildings, fences, gates, chutes, weigh scales and other equipment situated thereon and used in connection therewith.
-can be required by the minister to have a stock exchange established in connection with it?


Martin Burrell: Yes. The term "stock yard" is used. There are only six stock yards in, the whole of Canada.
~ Mr. PUGSLEY: I happen to know a place in New Brunswick in which there is an area of land where cattle are sold, so that it would come within the definition in paragraph f. It would strike the people who deal at that market as a most undesirable thing that they should be compelled to have a stock exchange in connection with it. No large operations are carried on there, but still it is a place where cattle are regularly sold, and this regulation would therefore cover it. That is not the intention?


Martin Burrell: No.


William Pugsley: Then why use language which would so clearly express that?


Martin Burrell: I do not think it could be interpreted in that way although I quite admit that it might be, as my hon. friend states, in some people's, minds. But there are in Canada only six stockyards as they are ordinarily understood in the trade.


William Pugsley: What constitutes a stock yard?


Martin Burrell: That matter was gone
over very carefully not with our department, but with the parliamentary counsel, and this is his wording of the whole section. A stock yard is a yard in which live stock is sold by commission men, bought by packers and butchers, and is a great centre of live stock business. There is one at Calgary, one at Edmonton, one at Winnipeg, one at Toronto and two at Montreal. They comprise the whole of the stock yards in Canada as stock yards are known amongst the live stock men of the country. There may be here and there some small places such as that to which the hon. member refers, but I do not think they would come under the ordinary term "stock yards" as used in the trade, and apparently this was satisfactory to the parliamentary committee and to the counsel. There was not the slightest intention of applying it to any place except to those recognized stock yards that I have named.


William Pugsley: Then some language
should be used which would make that clear. What is ordinarily known as a stock yard might be a very different thing from a stock yard after Parliament has given a legislative definition. The definition is not limited to these big stock yards, in the cities, but it would take in every little place where ordinarily, once a week we shall say, cattle are brought in and bought and sold.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Are they not sold by
auction at the stock yards mentioned?


William Pugsley: Not necessarily by auction ; some are private sales, and some are by auction. It is a place to which people bring their cattle on regular days, for the purpose of making sales, other people attending there to buy.


Martin Burrell: Is that not more in the nature of what is known as a market? It is not called a stock yard in the ordinary sense of the word.


William Pugsley: But the minister is asking Parliament to give a definition to it. It

will then become a 6tock yard within the meaning of this statute. That is not what the minister intends, and why can he not use language which would declare what he intends ?


Martin Burrell: Although I may admit
there is some force in what my hon. friend says, if we were to apply regulations in the strict legal definition, I can only repeat that every man in the country who deals in live stock at all, the farmers, drovers, butchers, abattoir men, and so on, mean only the great stock yards of the country by the term " stock yard." Apart from that, there would be absolutely no intention to apply this to any of the smaller organizations to which my hon. friend refers, which are not really stock yards at all. There would be no intention of applying it except to stock yards which are known as such. The x'lace my hon. friend refers to is not ordinarily known as a stock yard.


William Pugsley: But the moment this
Act passes it will become a stock yard.


George Perry Graham: The minister has mentioned the places wheTe these stock yards exist. Gould he not name them in the Bill?


Martin Burrell: One difficulty in the way would be that there might be stock yards of this kind established in some of the larger centres. It is not so long ago since the Edmonton stock yards were established -about a year ago, I think. Everybody knows what it means, and that is a 6tock yard to which stock is shipped in large numbers, and where there are commission merchants. If we name them we would perhaps shut out the creation of another stock yard in a very big centre. In spite of what my hon. friend says, there would be no likelihood, and certainly no intention, of it being interpreted as being applied in any shape or form except to those places which are recognized in the trade as stock yards.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Clause (f) says that a stockyard means any area of land used as a public market for purchasing and selling live-stock. Some hon. gentlemen seem to think that might include places where men are buying and selling privately, for instance, at our country fairs. Of course, you do not intend to include such places as those?


Martin Burrell: No.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Then why not say "stockyard means any area of land used as a public market for purchasing and selling livestock on commission?"


Martin Burrell: That definition would not cover the case of a farmer selling his own stock, for a private owner may sell his own stock in a stockyard. I think it would be extremely difficult to get a definition that would entirely meet the point raised by the hon. member from St. John. At the same time, I do not think there would be the slightest difficulty in working it out as it is, because the term is known so well in the trade that there is not the slightest likelihood of confusion.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If there was no definition of "stockyard" at all, it seems to me it would be a good deal plainer. It is rather confusing as it is. The minister says a stock yard, under this Bill is a place where stock is sold on commission, hut he does not say that in the definition of a stock yard. When you look at sections 3 and 4 confusion seems to arise in regard to the establishment of a stock exchange in a stock yard. The stock exchange idea seems to clear it up, if hon. members will look at it carefully:
3.	There shall be a live stock exchange in connection with each stock yard operated under this Act, of which live stock exchange every commission merchant doing business at such stock yard shall be a member, unless he holds a special license from the minister.
4.	A live stock exchange shall not be operated until the by-laws to regulate the management and business of such exchange have been duly approved by the minister, and a written notification of such approval has been sent by the minister to the secretary of such live stock exchange.
A public market, which might be considered to be a stock yard would not be a "stock yard" under this Act, unless by-laws, etc., were prepared and sanctioned by the minister, and a stock exchange established which would be regulated by these rules, regulations and by-laws.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will
look at section 8, he will see that the minister is obliged within a delay of not more than three months-, to cause a stock exchange to be established in connection with each stockyard. The minister's difficulty is, I think,that he is under the impression that although Parliament may give a definition to the term "stock yard" it would not mean anything more than it mean3 now. That is not the case.- The moment Parliament declares that any area of land used as a public market for purchasing and selling live stock shall be deemed a stock yard within the meaning of this Act, the difficulty will arise, and it will be the duty of the minister to order a stock exchange, even in connection with those smaller markets.

Would the minister not agree to put it in this way?-
Stock yard means any area of land used as a public market for purchasing and selling live stock, and designated by the minister as being a stock yard, which should be brought under the provisions of this Act?
It seems to me that would make it clear.


Mr BURRELL:: I would have no objection to that. Of course, there is a little confusion in this way; there are two elements in the stock yard business. We are dealing in one ease with the live stock exchange, so far as it affects the buying and selling operations. The rest of the Bill, so far as it affects stock yards, deals with the ownership and management of the stock yards, apart from the buying and selling. If the amendment suggested by my hon. friend makes it any clearer, I have no objection to adopting it.


William Pugsley: I will draft something
and send it to the minister.


Frank Oliver: I agree with what has been said by my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy). The essential thing is the establishment of an exchange. It is the establishment of the exchange that brings the stock yard under the regulations of the Act. Therefore I do not see any purpose in having a separate definition of what constitutes a stock yard. Wherever a stock exchange has been authorized by the minister, it is a stock yard. That absolutely settles the point, and the confusion that arises by reason of the definition would disappear if the definition were simply stricken out.


Martin Burrell: All those points were
placed before the Parliamentary Counsel. Of course, I do not pretend to say what should or should not be included in the Bill in the way of definitions. There is, however this feature which must be borne in mind, that a stock yard is a dual business, the live stock exchange being one phase of it, and the stock yard management being another. There may be things about the stock yards, in regard to the buying and selling which it might be desirable to touch in connection with this Bill. I do not see any objection to including a definition of the stock yard, and it seems to me that the addition of something such as suggested by my hon. friend from St. John would absolutely clear it up. If we say that it is such a place as is designated by the minister, I think that would cover all the points.


Frank Oliver: What authority goes with the live stock exchange, and how it is constituted?


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: What are the conditions precedent to its establishment?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Martin Burrell: Some stock yards operate, as far as the buying and selling operations go, under live stock exchanges. I think that Toronto does so, and I fancy Montreal also. Two or three of them operate through the live stock exchange in so far as the buying, selling and handling by the commission men go. The live stock exchange operates in an analogous way to the Grain Exchange of Winnipeg. It conducts the actual buying and selling operations, but it does not have to do anything with the management of the stock yards.


William Pugsley: Would the minister
allow me to suggest an amendment? I think it might be well to amend paragraph (f) by inserting after the word "market" the words "designated by the minister as suitable to bo brought under the provisions of this Act."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is not that a little dangerous? What the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has spoken of is the only important matter as far as we are concerned. The stock dealers in the West are very apprehensive of the word "exchange," and that is the reason, I take it, why my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was laying such stress upon the conditions precedent to the establishment of the exchange. I think he is absolutely right in that. The explanation of the minister i9 that it is an innocuous and harmless thing, but, unfortunately, the word "exchange" has a meaning to the ordinary man, producing from four to seven head of cattle, wnich is not innocuous and not harmless. It is to meet any possible difficulty that [DOT]might occur that, I take it, my hon. friend [DOT]from Edmonton is interposing his observations. We have in Calgary a stock exchange the majority of the shares of which are held by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. There is one in Winnipeg where the railways and the city have united in a scheme that enables it to be operated witn [DOT]some degree of fairness. For the reasons that the public have so strongly criticised the grain exchanges, there is always the danger that the same conditions will arise in the cattle exchanges. If the minister makes it clear that the Government can exercise sufficient control, if necessary, as

to the conditions under which such institutions shall be operated, and that there shall be some form of a control in the shape of a license, perhaps the people will have more confidence in it.


Martin Burrell: That is provided for in the Bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not read the section, but, that being so, it would meet very considerable difficulties which my hon. friend has referred to. We cannot get away from the fact that there is a measure of suspicion and doubt among people who have a small number of cattle with regard to anything called an exchange, because it will not be possible to disassociate the cattle exchange from the grain exchange in the public mind. People will not be quite sure I do not quite see that the amendment of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) would advance it very much. He says that you should leave open to the minister the power to say that this is a stock exchange.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No, stock yard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think that the Act was intended to operate in that way. I understood that, provided a stock yard complied with certain conditions, the minister would say in his certificate that the conditions met the demand. If those conditions were complied with the certificate should be given as a matter of course. This is a legal matter. Perhaps my hon. and learned friend (Mr. Pugsley) will remember that Mr. Fulton, when he was provincial secretary of British Columbia, let some papers lie in his office for an undue time and failed to give a certificate at the time he should have given it. They brought action against him, and the Privy Council held that the- action would properly lie against him, although he was a public officer, because the law imposed upon him the duty of sending out these papers within a certain time. I take it that the draftsmen of this Bill proceeded upon that principle. With respect to the amendment, I think it should not prevail, because the minister should not have imposed upon him the duty of saying if the certificate should issue. The Act should determine what a stock yard is, and then his certificate could issue when the conditions provided for exist.


William Pugsley: The object I had in view in suggesting. the amendment was to prevent small stock yards throughout the country from coming within the provisions
of this Act. At St. John there is a place where cattle, sheep and hogs are regularly brought and offered for sale. Under this definition of a stock yard such places would be included.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see the point.


William Pugsley: That is the point I want to cover and if the language I propose is not sufficient for that purpose it ought to be possible to use some language that would cover it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend cannot use language that is sufficient to effect that purpose it cannot be used in this House.


William Pugsley: I am not proud of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We do not want this Bill to apply to the hundred and one little stock yards that exist all over the country.


William Pugsley: Does not my hon. friend think that upder the language of paragraph (f) it would apply?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If you really
think the danger is a real one we should remedy it, because there are little institutions all over the country where live stock is bought and sold. In Edmonton there are three or fouT, and in Calgary there are three or four besides the big stock yards. That, I apprehend, is what we want to prevent. You would not want it to apply to the smaller institutions?


Frank Oliver: No.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I have a suggestion that I think will meet the idea pretty well. I would say:
"Stock yard" means any area of land used as a public market and operated under the provisions of this Act for purchasing and selling live stock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That covers it I think.


William Pugsley: Yes, that would be
quite -satisfactory to me.


Mr. ROBB:: I was not present at the
Committee on Agriculture when this Bill was discussed, and I am not positive that I know what the purpose of the minister is in introducing it. Does he hope that this will assist stock raisers to get larger prices for their produots? It looks as if it might permit a group of men to get together and fix prices, crowding out the average buyer who has been doing business for many years fairly well and who, by competition,

gives the stock raiser all that the market will stand.


Martin Burrell: I explained the purpose of the Bill when I introduced it, and it was also discussed fully in the Agricultural Committee. The purpose is precisely the opposite of what my hon. friend seems to fear. The department have been looking into the stock yards feature for two yearF, and this Bill is the result of a widespread and insistent demand of the stock raisers, owing to abuses in stock yards which they wish to have remedied by governmental regulation. They have felt that commission men occasionally were not to be relied upon, that their charges were too high, that they acted in collusion, and that, in the management of the stockyards, there was sometimes discrimination in such things as the allocation of space. There were also long-standing grievances in regard to the charging of exorbitant prices for feed for stock and the furnishing of poor feed and complaints respecting weighing etc. 'There was a great deal of dissatisfaction, especially in the West. The purpose of the Bill is two-fold, to exercise control over the owners and managers of stock yards, and to make all commission men belong to a live stock exchange whose constitution and by-laws shall be submitted to the approval of the minister, in order that control may be exercised over the operations of the exchange. There is, however, nothing to prevent a private owner going to any stockyarcUand selling his own cattle. Our whole object is to improve the conditions as they affect the raiser of live stock, by giving him a fairer deal in his market than in the past. Some of the strongest demands have come from the Western Live Stock Union, and we have had telegrams saying they are heartily in sympathy with the Bill. After the first meeting of the Agricultural Committee, a personal letter, with the Bill, was sent to every live stock yard management and to every live stock association, and suggestions were invited. We have received no adverse comment, but we have had approval of the object of the Bill.


Frank Oliver: Following what the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) has said, the term "exchange" has a sinister sound to our people ini the West. We have had very serious experiences which we believe have grown out of the power and the authority of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. It is many years since the grain producers of the West became convinced that the Winnipeg Grain Exchange was, in

its operations, a detriment to the welfare of the people of that country. The Government has practically eliminated the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, and to-day it is out of business-and I think there are no mourners except those who were members of it. That being the experience Of the West in regard to the Grain Exchange, the minister will have to pardon us if we are somewhat timorous about the establishment of a live-stock exchange. We have at Edmonton a stock yard which was started last fall by a number of enterprising local men and is operated simply as a stock yard proposition-that is, the owners are not dealers in live-stock. That has been of great benefit to the stock producers of that part of the country.


Mr. WILLIAM SMITH:: Has that stock yard been a financial success?


Frank Oliver: I do not know whether it has been 'beneficial to the investors, but it has been of great advantage to the producers of live-stock throughout the country, a vast benefit to the live-stock producers of Northern Alberta in ways not thought of when the stock yards were established.
It has been, for instance, a means of exchange between the parts of the country that were perhaps short of feed and the parts of the country that had abundance of feed. A great deal of trade was done last fall in cattle through the stock yards in that line, which was of vast benefit to the stock interests of the country. Buyers have come from Toronto to buy at those stock yards. So far as the business end of the stock yards is concerned, they have been of very great benefit to the stock industry, and, as far as we can see, will continue to be a benefit. There has been, I take it, no stock exchange there, up to the present time. For my part, I would be very desirous of seeing the present conditions continue. I do not want to see any legalized combination amongst the men who are buying on commission at that stock yard.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is there no association?


Frank Oliver: No, not so far as I am aware at present. The men are there acting individually. The United Farmers of Alberta has one commission buyer there.
I forget the name of the other association, but there are two that I know of, and I believe several others.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Are there no regulations or rules?


Frank Oliver: I could not say anything about that. There may be regulations or

rules of the stock yard company. Everything is now operated under the control and rule of the stock yard company, and, so far, it is entirely satisfactory as far as I know. What I want to see-and what I am satisfied the people of the West want to see-is that the supervision of the stock yards and of the business of the stock yards shall be carried out by the Government, and that no part of that responsibility shall be delegated to an association of the commission buyers who are operating on that market. As a western man, I take alarm at that feature of the proposal. It is necessary for the proper working of the Bill, which I certainly consider very desirable, that there should be government supervision. over and above the supervision of the owners of the stock yard-a dominant supervision to see that conditions are as they ought to be, and to see that those who desire to use the stock yards get an even deal, and to ensure that those 'who purport to buy and sell on commission shail be responsible men, duly licensed and under *penalty if they fail in their obligations. That all, as I maintain, should be carried out under supervision, according to the terms of this Bill or some similar Bill. With regard to the provision that sets up those parties who are buying on commission as a separate authority, giving them control which should not be exercised except by the Government, I shall certainly have to hear from the minister very much more complete and satisfactory explanation than^ he has yet given us. I am entirely in sympathy with the purpose of the Bill, so far as it relates to government supervision of the yards and of the trade, and of those who are carrying on the trade, but I am absolutely against any delegation of authority to an association of men who are carrying on the trade.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: Would the hon. gentleman show us the section he is referring to when he says that the minister delegates certain powers to others?


Frank Oliver: If I understand correctly sections 3 and 4 provide for the constitution of a live stock exchange under authority from the minister, to provide its own by-laws and regulations. That is the provision to which I object.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What the hon. member for Edmonton has stated with respect to the matter generally is unquestionably correct, so far as the West is concerned. There is no argument about it, they simply feel there is a measure_of suspicion attaching to any body of men who do business under the name of exchange. That is the story in a nutshell. Litigation took place in Manitoba in connection with the Winnipeg Grain Exchange under the Criminal Code, which resulted in the acquittal of one of the members, and subsequently resulted in legislation which changed the whole character of the operations of that exchange. That litigation has had such an effect on the public mind that the United Farmers and the Grain Growers have been endeavouring to establish exchanges for all kinds of agricultural products and commodities of their own. It is tlie word "exchange" that causes the trouble in this Bill.


Frank Oliver: Not that word only.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think my hon. friend attaches perhaps a great deal of importance to the word " exchange " but on looking at the Bill carefully, he will find that the difficulties which arose in Manitoba, and which were the subject malter ct litigations, have been provided for here by vesting a general authority in the minister, which did not exist in Manitoba. It was felt that they had there an Act of incorpora-, tion and a constitution that put them,as mv hon. friend said, entirely beyond the law, and they arrogated to themselves the right to do what they pleased, when they pleased, and how they pleased, and do every other sort of business just as they pleased, which was detrimental to the interests of *the community. The live stock exchanges, as I understand it, if we can eliminate our pre-oonceived jnotions, are much sought after by the farmer, as well as by the dealer, using the very word " exchange " as indicating a body of certificated or licensed commission men, who will be able to maintain a certain general reputation for the institution and to see that the business is conducted in a decent and a proper manner. If that idea were lived up to instead of the idea that attaches by reason of the dealings in Manitoba in relation to other things we should not have so much trouble. Tlie hon. member for Edmonton properly remarked that on account of the free entry of cattle into the United States considerable number of buyers from that country have come to Edmonton, Oalgary and other points and I believe there has been a very general disposition on the part of all those interested in the live stock industry in those provinces to build these live stock yards, and the corollary of that, so they tell me, is some sort of exchange-not the sort

of exchange that my hon. friend has referred to which is obnoxious to everybody, but a body that might be able to deal with the situation and yet be under such control as to prevent the possibility of injury being done to the farmer. That is the story, and I think, if my hon. friend will look at the section he will see that the Government must assume the whole responsibility for it. I think this provision will probably meet the difficulty that I have *always felt in connection with these exchanges, and which my hon. friend has just referred to. Section 3 reads:
3. There shall be a live stock exchange in connection with each stock yard operated under this Act, of which live stock exchange every commission merchant doing business at such stock yard shall be a member, unless he holds a ."Special license from the minister.
I am not sure that the provision "unless he holds a special license from the minister" is useful. Section 4 says:
(1)	A live stock exchange1 shall not be operated until the by-laws to regulate the management and business of such exchange have been duly approved by the minister, and a written notification of such approval has been sent by the minister to the secretary of such live stock exchange.
I- am not so sure that that language is calculated to overcome the difficulty to which the member for Edmonton referred. Probably it would be better to have some other tribunal than the men themselves to decide upon their own integrity. It was in connection with that very point that the difficulty in Winnipeg arose. The section continues:
(2)	Such by-laws shall provide for the admission as members of such live stock exchange of such persons as desire to carry on the business of commission merchants, and who furnish evidence of integrity and financial standing satisfactory to the executive of the exchange, and such by-laws shall require every commission merchant becoming a member of the exchange to furnish sufficient and satisfactory security for the proper accounting by such commission merchant of the proceeds of any sales received by him, and of any money paid to him to effect any purchase.
That is nothing more than the provisions that obtain in the Grain Act with respect to elevator licenses. As to the general principle of the establishment of an exchange, I am advised by the men who frequent these exchanges, not as buyers, but as sellers, that it conduces to the proper carrying on of the business to have a secretary there to whom a man with a dozen cattle may go and say: I have a dozen cattle; who is buying to-day? The secretary may say: Smith is buying, from
[Mr. R. B. Bennett. 1
Chicago; Burns, from Calgary; Gallagher, from Edmonton. The all-important point to which the member for Edmonton referred as to the conditions precedent to the establishment of the exchange is one to which this committee should give serious consideration. After the exchange is established the regulations will be sufficient; but too much care cannot he exercised in controlling the condition precedent to the establishment of the exchange. But we should not, in my judgment, permit these men to be the judges of their own integrity. I desire to place myself on record as favouring the idea of the exchange; of control by the Government, of supervision of the feeding, accommodation and care of the stock-because sometimes the stock does not receive the attention that it should; we all know that the animals sometimes go without water for a considerable length of time. After all, this matter is of as much public importance as the grain business; it touches what you might call the suffering of the animals, and in that respect it is important. The people with whom I have communicated are entirely in sympathy with this legislation; they are not anxious that the difficulties that were experienced in Winnipeg shall arise again. I repeat that we must eliminate that section which permits the men themselves to govern their own conduct and to determine their own integrity. Some other tribunal should determine whether a man who furnishes the necessary evidence should become a member of the organization-because once you get the monopolistic tendency developed; once you get a tendency to exclusiveness, a desire not to let in a man who wants to go into business, then you have trouble.


James Alexander Robb: Last fall throughout Southern Alberta the hotels were filled with buyers of sheep; they were simply tumbling over one another. Are we now going to change the conditions and compel all those .men to go to certain stock yards and buy from commission merchants?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I am glad to assure the hon. member that such is not the case. This legislation does not in the slightest degree impede the free movement of those who desire to go out and buy sheep, horses, cattl , or anything else. If, on the other hand, men take their stock to the yards, as they do in Chicago, for instance, it is desirable that there should he an exchange, representing the controlling

authority with respect to buyers and sellers as distinguished from the stock yards company itself. I agree that we should not by legislation encourage or compel the lessening of the activities of those who desire to purchase live stock in competition with one another. The condition to which my hon. friend has alluded is one that obtained with reference to steers and beef cattle at a time when there was a shortage in the United States. You can buy where you like-in the field,' in the hotel, in the village store;-but when the animals stop over night in the stock yards, as they often do, then the regulations with respect to stock yards obtain, and Government supervision is had. The animals must be adequately fed, properly cared for, sufficiently watered; and if there is buying and selling in that stock yard, it takes place under Government supervision and regulation. It is desirable, for that reason, that those who hold themselves out as commission merchants should not be permitted to exercise that business to the
10	p.m. detriment of the farmer who trusts them. It is advisable that there should be some responsible body, such as an exchange, of which the commission merchant should become a member, thus ensuring that the money due to the farmer will be paid to him-because the exchange stands behind the farmer as a licensed buying and selling organization. That, and that only, is the intention of this Act.


Martin Burrell: The purpose of the Bill, which was gone over very carefully after a long discussion with men interested, both from the East and from the West, is to try and prevent the very abuses to which reference has been made. I am aware that there is some feeling in the West in regard to the matter of an exchange. There is a live stock exchange in the United Stock Yards, Winnipeg; there is another at Toronto. In the United States business is done in the stock yards through the medium of an exchange, but there is no Government control. The simplest machinery to establish in respect to the buying and selling activities seems to be a live stock exchange. In encouraging or compelling its establishment, it was desirable to have thorough and complete control over its operations. In providing that they themselves should guarantee the integrity of a member of their exchange and supervise their own activities, it is thought that that would be the simplest and most efficient
way of conducting the business. We allow them to take good deal of the responsibililty themselves, always with the understanding that, besides approving their by-laws, we maintain supervision over their operations. In this way we relieve ourselves of a good deal of work in connection with running the exchange. I do not think we could get away from the establishment of an exchange, association, or whatever you like to call it. I think the committee may be absolutely confident that the department will have full power to supervise the operations of the exchanges at all times and to prevent any abuses. In short, if there are any abuses, v-e can have quick investigation and, if necessary, suspend the exchange. This section which provides for the special licensing of commission men is inserted for the purpose of preventing a possible, difficulty such as my hon. friend suggests. If any trouble or abuse by these live stock exchanges or groups of men arises, we can suspend the whole thiflg and issue a special license to such commission men as we think fit. I think we can cover the point brought forward by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) who is not now in his place, by adding a subsection to section 8. There would be no objection to inserting an amendment to section 3, but when we come to section 8, the whole point will be very clearly covered.


Frank Oliver: The minister apparently
has made up his mind to the establishment of these exchanges. In my judgment, sections 3 and 4, if they have any meaning at all, mean the establishment of a close corporation of commission buyers at each of these stock yards. That is wrong in principle and detrimental in practice, just as in the case of the Grain Exchange at Winnipeg. It will be accentuated in the case of live stock exchanges, and the smaller the exchange the greater the evil of this creation of close corporations. The minister says that it will relieve the Government of some measure of detail in looking after the business of the stock yard. That is true, but it will do so to the very great advantage of the men who are doing the relieving. They are not/ philanthropists, and if they are going to exert themselves along those lines, they are going to do it for their own benefit, and that benefit must come out of the pockets of the producers. If sections 3 and 4 were struck out, the rest of the Bill would stand perfectly complete with the operations of the stock yards and the transactions of the commission



men directly under the control of the Government, and that is exactly where they ought to be. That being the case, I consider that sections 3 and 4 are not only superfluous, hut detrimental. While the minister, I suppose, has made up his mind on this subject, I wish to make my most emphatic protest against those sections establishing live stock exchanges at those stock yards, as they will be close corporations, the purpose of which, in the nature of things, will be to work in the interest of those who comprise them and against the interest of the producers.


Mr. WRIGHT:: The other evening when the Minister Agriculture introduced this Bill, I suggested that it should be turned over to the Agricultural Committee for consideration. I believe to-day the suggestion was a wise one, and I understand the Bill was fully threshed out before that committee-unfortunately I was unable to be present. The live stock interests in this country are to-day so great that they deserve and should receive every attention from the Government. The Bill as introduced by the minister is in the right direction. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) asks that sections 3 and 4 should be struck out. I would draw his attention to one fact;-had this Bill been in force, I believe it would have been unnecessary to -say what I am about to say. That exchange is to-day financially bankrupt and is appealing for funds. Had this Bill been in force, had the department been able to exercise their rights, this would not have happened. Whilst hon. gentlemen opposite have every right to criticise and it is their province to criticise, I think they should withdraw all opposition to this Bill and allow it to go through as printed, with the addition of the amendments suggested by the minister.


Frank Oliver: I have stated my objections and do not intend to press them further. There was just one other thing I wished to point out, namely, that as the Bill stands there is no security provided to the producer of cattle, the man who sells cattle to the commission merchant. All the security that any body has is the provision that the .stock association shall be satisfied that the commission merchant is reliable. That is to some extent a safeguard, but it is not security. There would be no less security if only such buyers operated on the stock yards as the minister saw fit to license, as provided under section 5, and we would be just as well satisfied that the commission merchants licensed by the minister directly would meet

their obligations as we would in regard to those who are admitted to membership in a live stock exchange as being men of character and repute. There is no guarantee to the seller in the provisions of this Bill as there is in the provisions of the Grain Act under similar circumstances.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend has
pointed out a weakness in the Bill. I do not like section 5, because really the exchanges ought to be held responsible in some way. Nobody should be specially licensed by the minister as a commission .merchant on an exchange without the consent of the exchange, and the exchange should be held responsible for such commission merchant.


Martin Burrell: While I quite appreciate what the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) says, I am sorry I cannot agree with him, for this reason: I think we have absolute control, and there is entire safety provided under these sections for the producers and sellers of live stock, because of the evidence of integrity and the security which has to be offered to the exchanges who will run this business under our supervision. Before a live stock exchange can do any of these things, we have to be absolutely satisfied with their constitution and by-laws, to .ensure that they will carry on their business properly.
Our regulations cover all these points, and if there is any trouble or any difficulty, or if there is any complaint made of abuses such as my hon. friend anticipates we would have the right to close up that exchange and issue special licenses to commission men to do business notwithstanding the fact that the live stock exchange was closed'. I do not think that sections 4 and 5 can be withdrawn. I may say this Bill was gone over very carefully with men who are very keenly appreciative of difficulties such as my hon. friend suggests. One of the men who most strongly urged .this feature of the Bill was Dr. Rutherford, whom my hon. friend knows well. Dr. Rutherford is President of the Western Live Stock Union and was formerly Veterinary Director General. I feel certain he is as familiar as any man living with stock conditions in the West. The Sasloatchewn Government appointed a live sock commission to examine these conditions, and they laid very great stress on the same points. These clauses were drafted after consultation with various people who know the conditions thoroughly, and after consultation with our own officers. I therefore think I should hardly

be justified in amending them or altering them at this time. I do not really .anticipate the difficulties my hon. friend fears, arid I can assure him that every precaution will be taken by the department to see that the public is protected1 to the very limit.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think this Bill is a great step in the right direction. Subsection 2 of section 4 will have a tendency not only to regulate the exchanges, but to make them more reliable. At the same time, it does not provide for the complete financial responsibility of a commission man who has a right to operate on the exchange. For instance, if I ship a carload of steers to a commission man to sell, there is nothing in this subsection making the exchange responsible for that commission man in regard to the price of the stock. That is what I meant by not allowing anybody to operate except such commission men as were permitted to do so by the exchange, and then making the exchange financially responsible for them. I dh not mean as to the charges, the weighing, the feed, etc-I mean responsibility for the price of the stock.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not quite agree with my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) wished section 4 to be struck out. To my mind that section contains the very thing he desires. The section reads as follows:
(2) Such by-laws shall provide for the admission as members of such live stock exchange of such persons as desire to carry on the business of commission merchants, and who furnish evidence of integrity and financial standing satisfactory to the executive of the exchange, and such by-laws shall require every commission merchant becoming a member of the exchange to furnish sufficient and satisfactory security for the proper accounting by such commission merchant of the proceeds of any sales received by him, and of any money paid to him to effect any purchase.
What language could be stronger? Of course, it all depends upon the nature of the security they take, but the presumption is they will insist upon security that will be sufficient, to cover the operations of any members of the exchange, and I would assume that if they could not get personal security which is absolutely gilt-edged they would get other security which would guarantee the purchasers. That section is about as strong as language can make it.


Samuel Francis Glass: The criticism offered by the hon. member for North Oxford was duly considered by the committee. Subsection 2
of section 4 was explained by the minister, and seemed to offer sufficient security to the drover who might have cattle to sell on the exchange. The details as to what that security shall be, or what the character of the responsibility shall be are not embodied in the Bill, but the primary object is to give the .security the hon. member seeks, and this clause supplemented, by the regulations of the minister and the department and the by-laws of the exchange, which must be approved by the minister, seems to me to furnish that, security. Of course, it all depends on the stringency of the regulations which the minister imposes. I am sure the committee had confidence that the minister would impose conditions that would give absolute security, knowing the necessity for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: After considering-the matter with practical men, and hearing what my hon. friend from Edmonton had-to say, I would suggest to the minister that after the word "merchants," in the third line of subsection 2 of section 4, we add the words "on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the by-laws." This change would meet the difficulty referred to by my hon. friend from Edmonton, and instead of leaving it open to the executive to do as they pleased would provide that any man who complies with the by-laws would be a member. Does not my hon. friend from Edmonton think that would get over the difficulty?


Frank Oliver: Of course, they frame the by-laws.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the minister has to approve of them. Then the responsibility is on the Government.


Frank Oliver: I think that would be an improvement.


Martin Burrell: I have no objection at all to that amendment. I really thought we were achieving the purpose with the subsection as it was, but on further consideration, I agree, it might sound as if these men were judging of the integrity of their own members. I therefore move:
That subsection 2 of section 4 be amended by striking out all the words in line 4 and the words in line 5, to and including the word "exchange," and inserting in lieu thereof "on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the by-laws."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section a* amended agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On section 7-Tariff of fees and by-laws must be approved before stock yard is used:
Mr. BURRELL moved that the words "and charges" toe inserted after the word "fees" in the third line of the clause and the words "and charges" after the word "fees" in the eighth line.
Amendment agreed to.
On section 7, subsection 2-Stock yard may be closed when not operated in accordance with regulations:	^ .
Hugh Boulton Morphy: I think the wording of this subsection is rather restrictive. There might be a stock yard in charge of some one who was not the "owner" or "operator." I could imagine a case where a stock yard might have gone into disuse for a little while and there would be no' person on whom notice could be served who might be called the owner or operator. I would suggest that the word "owner," "lessee, occupier or operator" should be used.


Martin Burrell: There would be no objection ito putting that in. I therefore move that the section be amended by inserting after the word "owner" in the first line the words "lessee, occupier or operator;" that the words "lessee, occupier" be inserted after the word "owner" in the 34th line and that the words "lessee, occupier or operator" be inserted after the word "owner" in, the 38th line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-How Act may be made applicable to stock yards now in existence:
Martin Burrell: To meet the point raised by the horn, member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) and the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy), I beg to move that the following subsection be added:
The minister shall have power to decide whether any public market where live stock is purchased and sold, hereafter established, as a .stock yard is to be operated under this Act.


Frank Oliver: I understood an amendment was inserted after section 3 to provide that any owner of stock could sell his own stock at any stock yard. Is there any restriction on any person coming to the stock yard to buy?


Martin Burrell: No, I should think not,


Frank Oliver: Last winter buyers came from Seattle.


Martin Burrell: I should think there would be absolutely no restriction.


Frank Oliver: The establishment of a stock exchange would not prevent outside buyers coming to the stock yards and buying?


Martin Burrell: No. The intention was to control only the commission side of it.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.



SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 121, an Act to amend an Act in aid of provincial legislation prohibiting: or restricting: the sale or use of intoxicating liquors.-Mr. Doherty.
George Perry Graham: This is a funny Government. I mean it is made up of funny members. They tell ns at six o'clock what they are going to take up at eight o'clock, and then they take up something else. We were told at six that we would take up to-night the Live stock Bill and then Estimates, and now the Minister of Justice comes along with a temperance measure. Perhaps it is inoffensive and we may let him go; but I call attention to the fact that about four times a week the Government take up business other than that of which they have given notice.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I am sorry if my hon. friend finds this measure offensive. I shall explain it briefly and then he can get to his Estimates. This is a measure that has come back from the Senate with amendments that, I may be pardoned tor saying, do not, in my judgment, improve it.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: About the papers?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member says, " about the papers." The hon. gentlemen in the place which perhaps I should not discuss seemed to be under the same misapprehension as the hon, member for Rou-ville, that this is a Bill about the papers; and so they have struck out a provision in section 2 of the Bill which simply provided that it should be an offence to use the post office as a means of violating constitutionally enacted provincial laws. As I am informed, they have interpreted that as being legislation by this Parliament to prohibit the circulation of newspapers containing liquor advertisements, because it was possible that a province might prohibit that. The section in question simply declared that it should be an offence to use the post office as a messenger for the violation of properly enacted provincial law. The Senate have struck that out because, I presume, in their

judgment it is a proper thing that His Majesty's mails should he used as a means of the violation of properly enacted provincial law. The prohibition of such use was the full extent of the offending section.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did not the Senate give the right interpretation to that penalty clause? I think that in this House I called attention to the fact that it would be hard to keep the papers in line, that papers like the Montreal Gazette, the Montreal Star, and all the large dailies published in Montreal could by that legislation be prevented from circulating in the province of Ontario, for instance, unless they gave up the advertising of famous brands. It might be that the provinces would not prohibit the circulation of papers containing such advertisements; but, on the other hand, they - might. But now the Senate, full of apprehension, thought, in its wisdom, that such a cruel clause should not be inserted in the Bill. I do not say that I would like to curtail the power of the provinces to prohibit.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Doherty) has the floor; we are not in committee.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. minister explain the amendment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It simply strikes out the clause which made it an offence for anyone to use His Majesty's mail as an instrument for the violation of provincial laws, II is quite true that the hon. gentleman, when the Bill was before this House, pointed out that, if the provinces prohibited a newspaper circulating within the province on the ground that it contained a liquor advertisement, the effect of this legislation would be to make it an offence to use the post office to circulate that newspaper. That would be true, and the circulation would be prevented, not by means of this legislation, but by means of the legislation of the province enacted within its constitutional right. All that this legislation would have done, if it had taken effect, would be to deprive people of the right of using the post office to violate the provincial laws. The effect of striking this section out of this Bill would be this: Suppose a province passes legislation prohibiting the distribution of circulars advertising the sale of liquor, any person will be guilty of an offence who himself circulates, or hires a messenger to circulate, such advertisement, but provided he puts it in an envelope,
puts a stamp on it, and hires the post office to circulate it, he will be an innocent man. That is the effect of the refusal of the Senate to enact this legislation. I cannot say I am prepared to accept that amendment. On the other hand, the Senate has left in this Bill two provisions which are valuable, and, for that reason, I do not propose to ask the House to reject these amendments. Sooner than lose the benefit of these provisions left in the measure, I do not purpose to endeavour-which endeavour I have no reason to suppose would be successful-to induce the Senate to reconsider its action with regard to the amendment nor with regard to another which I will mention later. I purpose to ask this House rather to concur in these amendments. If I should have the opportunity, I shall certainly make a further endeavour to have so reasonable an enactment as was contained in the struck-out clause re-enacted, and give the Senate some future opportunity of reconsidering their action in the matter.


George Perry Graham: Supposing these circulars were mailed in the United States to people in Canada, would the law, as contemplated by the minister, reach the case?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, it is not possible for us to enact a law to make it an offence for a man to do anything in the United States.


George Perry Graham: But when it came over here?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The law was enacted against the person who used the post office. It was no.t proposed-and I do not think it would be wise-to exercise a censorship over letters, and have the post office authorities open every letter, on the chance of finding a circular in it. We made it an offence to use, the post office for the circulation of liquor advertisements when such circulation is prohibited in a province. In the nature of things, we cannot make it an offence for a man to do certain things in the United States; we cannot reach him. I believe this legislation would have reached a man who, through the medium of people in the United States, used our post office for that purpose, and I understand abuses are perpetrated in that way, to evade the war stamp. Representations were made that people sent in immense bundles of liquor advertisements, and posted them in the United States, because they could be sent for 2 cents instead of 3 cents. The other

amendment is also by way of striking out the provision which enabled the prosecution of any one who violated this law, by sending liquor into a prohibition province from an outside province, to be instituted at the place whence the liquor was sent. It is the second time this House has enacted that provision. Last year the Senate struck it out in the same way. That, too, ip an amendment which, I must confess, I would describe myself as submitting to, rather than accepting. I think the section was essential to the proper enforcement of the law. But, for the same reason, I do not propose to ask the House to reject it. I do not look upon the third amendment as open to criticism. I refer to section 4 B. The section as it passed this House gave a right of search for liquor in cases where a violation of the law was suspected, to any constable or other peace officer who had reason to believe that any intoxicating liquor was in any premises or place, in violation of the provisions of the Act. The Senate has thought it wise-and I do not purpose to offer any observation on that amendment-to make that right of search subject to information being laid, and to it being established before any judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, two justices of the peace, or any magistrate having the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that the liquor is within the premises. I do not desire to offer any criticism of that, but will be prepared to accept it.
_ I move that the amendments be concurred in, without withdrawing the observations I have made with regard to the first two amendments.


William Pugsley: The amendments seem to be so important and so contrary to'the views of the temperance people throughout the county, that I should think the minister, entertaining the strong views he does upon the question, would prefer to avail himself of the power which is conferred by the rules and practice of Parliament, of having a conference between members of this House, to be appointed for the purpose, and a committee of the Senate, for the purpose of fully discussing the matter with a view to seeing if the section could not be agreed to as it was passed by the House, or at all events, if a section substantially to the same effect could not be adopted, which might, to a reasonable extent, accomplish the object the Government had in
IMr. Doherty.]
framing the section. It seems to me that my hon. friend ought not to abandon the matter just now by concurring in the amendment which has been made by the ' Senate in the striking out of this section.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I had any ground
foT believing that the conference-


William Pugsley: My hon, friend does not know what bis persuasive powers might accomplish.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have endeavoured to exercise them so often on the member for St. John with so little success that I have almost begun to lose faith in them. Speaking seriously, if I had hoped that the desired result would be obtained, I certainly would have followed the course which the hon. member suggests. But I have' excellent reasons for believing that it would not produce the effect which my hon. friend,' and I with him, would like to see produced. On the other hand, we have by this legislation, even as it stands, a clause with regard to search which is a great improvement on the law as it stood. We have furthermore a clause which is a great improvement and which has been urged on me by the temperance people in different provinces. This clause makes possible the suspension of the Canada Temperance Act, without resorting to another election, in counties where it is now in force and where the prohibitory law of the province is, in the judgment of the Governor in. Council, as restrictive as the Canada Temperance * Act. I think that the probability of concurrence by the Senate in the clause that . they have struck out is so remote as not to justify our running any risk of losing what they have left to us of the Bill-which, I think, is of value.


William Pugsley: There would he no risk of losing what has been enacted. If nothing resulted from the conference, we should still have the other features of the Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, if we got it through in sufficient time to deal with the matter again in this House.


William Pugsley: There is quite enough time.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are other things
to do.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and amendments concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On the order being .called: House again in Committee of Supply:
George Perry Graham: It is eleven o'clock, and we sat late last night. I suggest that we do not go on with Supply.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not want to insist upon our proceeding, if hon. gentlemen are very desirous of getting away, I simply wished to deal with a few supplementary estimates for the Department of Justice and the Post Office Department.


George Perry Graham: We will put them
through quickly some other time.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Is that a promise?


George Perry Graham: It is a threat.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty for the adjournment of the House :


George Perry Graham: What business will be
taken up to-morrow? It has been rumoured that the Government intend to ask the House to sit to-morrow night. Several gentlemen from both sides of the House have made engagements for to-morrow night, and I would ask the minister if the Government have decided as to an evening a sitting.	*


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to the first question, I understand that we shall take up the Franchise Act to-morrow. It has been the desire to sit to-morrow evening; perhaps I might undertake to consult with those who are in higher authority than myself and to give the hon. gentlemen an answer early in the morning.


Rodolphe Lemieux: While the minister is
in his place, I may say that when I was last in Montreal several people-^


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon: gentlemen is not going to introduce a new subject. The motion for the adjournment of the House does not permit a word of debate. The practice has grown up in the House of permitting a question upon the motion for adjournment as to what business will be taken up the next day. I hope that the hon. gentlemen is not going to introduce a new matter; he would be entirely out of order in doing so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will see the Minister of Justice personally.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11.02 p.m.
Saturday, September 8, 1917.