ORTHODOX RUSSO-GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta) moved that the report of the Committee on Standing Orders on a petition of the Right Rev. Tikhon for an Act of incorporation under the name of ' the Bishop of the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church ' be referred back to the said committee for obtaining their recommendation for the introduction of the Bill, notwithstanding rule 49.
Mr.  A. A. C.@: LaRIVIERE (Provencher). This petition lias already been twice referred to the Standing Orders Committee. The first time the committee reported that the rules of the House had not been complied with, and then my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) moved that it be referred back to the said committee for reconsideration. The committee has reconsidered the petition, and instead of amending their first report, they call the attention of the House to further objections to the petition, to the fact that the petitioner is not a British subject, and is not living in the British possessions, but that he is a resident of San Francisco, and an alien, as he admits himself in his petition. Now I do not know whether my hon. friend expects that this committee will stultify itself by making a different report than that which it has already twice made. Moreover, I do not know that the rules of the House will admit that this report may be referred back to the same committee without giving any reasons therefor. There is no reason adduced, there is no instruction asked to be given to the committee. The committee has considered the question twice very attentively, and I may say that the officers of the Crown were present at its meetings. In the first place the Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Carroll), and in the second place both the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick)! and the Solicitor General were present, and the last report of the committee was made, in fact, at the suggestion of the Minister of Justice himself. 1 am not usually a supporter of the government, but on this occasion
I think I will have to support them. I am not at all objecting to the incorporation of the Russo-Greek Church, but I think this should be done in a regular way, in such a way that the people who are most interested should know what is taking place. We are asked to incorporate a bishop, a foreigner, who resides in San Francisco, and who claims to be Bishop of the Greek Church in North America and of the Aleutian Islands, he wants to be recognized as such in his petition, and he wants to control the Greek Church in Canada. While my objections are perhaps not relevant to the point of order, I desire to say that in this very important matter we ought to make haste slowly. The committee has taken all these questions into consideration and found everything irregular. The petition itself that came before the Committee on Standing Orders is not even endorsed by the member who presented it to the House, there is no responsible name to the petition, it is irregular in every way, and we cannot expect that the Committee on Standing Orders will stultify itself by reconsidering for the third time a question they have already sufficiently considered. I am not a member of that committee, and, contrary to the statement made by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton), I did not take advantage of my position as a member of the committee to bring about the report which was made. I was there as a private member, and I was there as a representative of a portion of the population that it is sought to incorporate without their knowledge. I have one or two thousand of these people In my riding, and it is for that reason that 1 protest against the way things are arranged, and the way in which the incorporation has been sought. I raise the point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I ask your decision upon it.


Mr. OLIVER.: May I make a statement, or at least give the hon. member some information in regard to the motion that I have made ? I understood him to say that it was indefinite, that the Bill was asked to be reported without consideration. My motion asks that the Bill be referred to the committee for the purpose of getting the committee to recommend' the Bill for the consideration pf the House. We understand that that was the understanding of the House, and I supposed it was the understanding of the committee. There has been a mistake somewhere, I think. The committee has reported on the Bill, but has not reported the Bill, which I understand was the intention of the committee. The report of the Committee on 'Standing Orders may be found on page 338 of the Votes and Proceedings, and is as follows :-
In obedience with the Order of the House of the 15th instant, your committee have again taken into consideration the petition of the Right Reverend Tikhon, of the city of San Francisco, California, bishop of the Orthodox

Russo-Greek Catholic Church, for North America and the Aleutian Islands, for an Act of incorporation. The attention of your committee having been drawn to the fact that the petitioner in this case is, by his own admission, an alien, living in a foreign land, and desiring as such to be created a corporation sale within the Dominion of Canada, they beg to report the same for the information of your House.
. Now I read that report as reporting the Bill to the House. But I am informed that another construction can be placed upon it, and that it does not report the Bill to the House ; and that therefore the Bill is not and cannot properly come before the House without further consideration by the committee. As I read the report the Bill is reported to the House, but in deference to the views of other parties I have to ask the House to refer it back to the committee so that there may be no mistake.


Mr. T. B. FLINT (Yarmouth).: As chairman of the committee, I may say that there is a little misunderstanding. The point having been called to the attention of the committee that the petitioner appeared, on the face of the petition, to be a non-resident of Canada, I understood the committee to decide that the point should be called to the attention of the House and that only, as regards notice the petition is all right, but that the point should be called to the attention of the House; therefore, nothing more was said and the petition was accepted with that understanding. Of course, there was a haziness about it. My own impression . is that when it was considered it was the intention that the petition should go before the House in the usual way and that the committee should simply call the attention of the House to that particular point in order that it might be considered by the House. As far as that point is concerned the committee expresses no opinion, but I think it would be well that it should go back to the committee to have the question settled as to whether the committee intended to recommend the Bill in calling attention to that point.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly evident from the proceedings which have come before the House in connection with this Bill, that technical objections are sought to be x'aised as against this Bill for the pui'pose of preventing the House from considering its merits. In the first place we had the objection x'aised as to insufficiency of notice. It went back and it was perfectly evident that the notice was substantially sufficient. When the question of the l'esidence of the petitioner was suggested, it was of course admitted by everybody that it was a question either for the House, itself, to consider, or for the House to consider through its committee on private Bills. But, what is attempted now is to prevent the House from considering that fact altogether. This House, itself, Mr. OLIVER.
either in proper session, or through its committee on private Bills, ought to consider objections such as those that have been raised. If the objection to the considei'a-tion of this Bill be l'aised under a rule of the House, then, it is quite clear, that it is not customary to enforce that rule. The precedents upon the subject are quite clear. I would ask your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Bourinot, page 320 :
Aliens, not resident in this country, have strictly no right to petition parliament. In the case of applications for private bills, however, this rule is not enforced. It was agreed in ISIS, at the suggestion of Mr. Speaker Anglin, to receive a petition from the Hartford directors of the Connecticut Mutual Insurance Company, on the ground that it was a mutual company, partly composed of Canadians, and that it was the subject of parliamentary legislation, the company being required to make a certain deposit before doing business in the country. Iu 1883, a petition from certain persons in the city of Portland ir. the state of Maine, asking for an Act of incorporation, was received on the ground that the subject matter came within the jurisdiction of the House, as in the case already cited. The reception of such petitions may be considered as an act of grace.
While a petition has been presented and has gone to the Committee on Standing Orders, I understand that the members of the committee and the promoter of the Bill understood that the Bill was being reported to the House. After It had gone to them, as was quite proper, it was called to the attention of the committee that the petitioner was an alien and they desired to call the attention of the House to the fact, so that the House might consider it and might, in its judgment, agree to the usual grace being extended to this petition. I submit that the House ought not to put this petitioner in the position of not being able to get before ns at all. Having complied with the rules so far as notice is concerned, having done everything that the law requires him to do, and the Bill having been passed upon by the Standing Orders Committee, he should be put in the position of being able to come before the House and of having it decided by the House whether his Act of incorporation should be passed or not. Certainly, he has that right, and every person who comes asking for legislation has that right. If this House decides that it will not extend the usual grace to him but that on the ground that he is an alien it will refuse to give him the legislation which he requires, and I am not going to assume that the House will decide in that way at all, he certainly has a right to have a decision from the House. If it be necessary under tbe terms of the report, as the bon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) has read it-that is a matter upon which yon, Mr. Speaker, will rule-if it be necessary that the Bill shall go back to the Standing Orders Committee in order that the committee may amend this report, I submit, that it is only fair and just to the petitioner that he should

have a decision from this House on the merits of his Bill.	.


Mr. D. O. FRASER (Guysborough).: I think there is only one matter before the House and that is : Does the report convey what the committee agreed to ? I certainly understood that the committee was to report the Bill with the statement that they did this for the information of the House, because the petitioner had, In the petition, represented himself as a citizen of the United States, and that the matter would come up In connection with the Bill. Cer-tainy, I agree that the Bill should not be left with the committee without coming back at all. The question is : Does the report of the committee bring back the Bill to this House ? I think it is very doubtful.
1 think that while I would inquire into the standing of this man that the Bill ought to come back here as the committee agreed and then we will take action. I do not say that I will vote for the Bill, but, if it comes back, it will come back from the committee, and, as I understand, they were to report on the Bill, adding the words that were there. As we have had the report the committee do not report the Bill at all. I think we should have the Bill reported.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Objection is raised to this motion which has been made by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) and which demands that the report of the committee presenting this petition shall be referred back to the Committee on Stand-Orders. If I understand the situation, a petition was presented some time ago by this reverend gentleman, and was received by the House. The petition has been actually received by the House and has been referred to the Standing Orders Committee. Now, I think also that the petition, even though it be signed by an alien, can be received by this House if the House is disposed to receive it. I see that in many instances, especially concerning private Bills, petitions signed by some aliens have been received. This petition has been before the Standing Orders Committee, a report has been made upon it and the report according to the motion is not satisfactory. I think that the motion to refer back that report to the committee is absolutely in order.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: The only thing referred to this House is a particular fact regarding the Bill, and the Bill is before the committee yet to report on it or not as they see fit - In view of this, I submit with great respect that this motion is entirely irregular. The committee have not technically reported on the Bill, but only on a fact in connection with it, and the House can deal with that or not as they see fit. I submit that there is) nothing in the world to prevent the committee proceeding to deal with this Bill just as if this fact had not been reported to the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I wish to give notice that I will move to-morrow the motion which stands in my name.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I thought the Minister of Railways was to make his statement to-morrow.


John Graham Haggart: Not until after the committee reports.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Very well.



YUKON TERRITORY ACT.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 119) to further amend the Yukon Territory Act. He said :	The
first section of this Bill changes the wording of the clause which gives the Commissioner ini Council of the Yukon territory jurisdiction, and the effect of the change is that in case of a conflict between an ordinance passed by the Governor in Council and an ordinance passed by the Commissioner in Council, the ordinance passed by the Governor in Council shall prevail. It is simply for -the purpose of avoiding unnecessary litigation where there is a dispute in regard to jurisdiction. The Bill also gives the local council of the Yukon territory the control and regulation of [DOT] the sale of intoxicating liquors in the territory. It will be observed by -the House that that clause does not affect the section in the Act which deals with the manufacture of liquor in the Yukon territory. The second section refers to the sittings of the court. The third section makes an important change in connection with the local council of the territory. It is the view of the government that matters have now arrived at the stage at which a further measure of representative government may be extended to the Yukon territory, and it is therefore provided in accordance with the application of the Yukon council :	That instead of two
elected representatives in the local council thel'e shall hereafter be five. The fourth section of the Bill amends the clause which relates to the powers of the Governor in Council respecting the territories. The amendment as drawn removes the prohibition as against the Governor in Council imposing a tax in that territory, but I desire to explain to the House that this clause was drafted by error, and I will ask an amendment to be made, the exact terms of which I will announce on the second reading of the Bill.
Robert Laird Borden: How many members will compose the council under this Bill ?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: There are five appointed members now, and

there *will be five elected; with the commissioner.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 120) to amend the Dominion Lands Act. He said:	I need not
explain in detail the different sections of this Bill, but the purport of it and the effect of it if passed will be :	To provide
that hereafter sales of land and homestead entries which may be granted in the Northwest Territories shall foe subject to the provision that the government of the Northwest Territories may open a road not more than 60 feet wide and comprising not more than 5 per cent of the particular parcel of land in question, without paying anything for the right of way. That is to say : Homestead entries and sales shall be subject to the right of the government of the North-west Territories to open a road across the lands sold. It is found that a large number of roads have to be opened by the government other than on the road allowances, and the difficulty of opening these roads is largely increased toy demands for compensation for the right of way. I have thought that we should assist them to the best of our ability by providing that hereafter, lands when sold shall be subject to *the right of the North-west government to open a road without paying anything for the right of way. The details are worked out in the Bill. There was formerly a similar provision with respect to the right of way of the Canadian Pacific Railway so that there, is no special difficulty in practice in working this arrangement out.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) moved for leave, to introduce Bill (No. 121) further to amend the Acts respecting the North-west Territories. He said :	The intention of this
Bill is to give the Legislative Assembly of the North-west power to pass ordinances in regard to road allowances which have been handed over to the territorial governments. There is also provision as to the returns of the survey being filed after the change in road allowances is made.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 122) to fur-Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
ther amend the Act to restrict the importation and employment of aliens.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).: The object of the amendment which I propose by this Bill, is to put the enforcement of the Alien Labour Act in charge of the Minister of Labour, instead of the Attorney General as now. I propose to amend the Act so as to give effect to section 6. The House will remember that since certain amendments were made to the Alien Labour Act last session, the government have interpreted the law to mean that they have nothing at all to do with the enforcement of the Act. The amendment in this Bill will give effect to section 6, so that the government will be called upon to send, out their commissioner at the request of the labour unions to investigate any complaint with regard to the importation of alien labour into the country, and to report on each case, and if necessary deport them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
List of shareholders of chartered banks.- The Minister of Finance.
Report of commissioners appointed to inquire into the alleged paper combine.-The Minister of Finance.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 69) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Guthrie.
On section 11,
Frank Oliver: That section 11 of the said Bill be amended by striking out the words, 'at such rates as may be fixed by agreement.'
He said : I do not wish to detain the committee ; but this section incorporates the railway company as an irrigation company. I have no objection to that whatever ; but as the only irrigation district in Canada is within the constituency which I represent and the adjoining constituency, I feel bound to be satisfied as to what the law is in regard to irrigation in that district. It seems to me that the words which I have moved to strike out conflict with the general Irrigation Act, chapter 33 of 1898, section 51 of which provides that ' the minister may regulate from time to time the water rates which may foe charged by licensees, and the publication of tariffs of rates.' My contention is that if we empower the company specifically in this Act to charge such rates as may be agreed upon, we relieve them from the control of the general Irrigation Act in that particular, which I need hardly say is

the most important provision in the Act. Iam anxious to have this question clearly decided before allowing the section to pass. If the words of the section do not conflict with the provision in the general Act, then I wish to withdraw all opposition to it ; but if there is a possibility of these words conflicting with that vital power in the general Act, then I would respectfully ask that they be struck out.


Mr. SCOTT.: The power to be conferred by section 11 of this Bill is, I understand, to be exercised wholly within the district of Alberta, and the district which I represent.
I may say that I have no objection to urge generally. On the contrary, I am very pleased to know that a strong company like the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, having financial ability, has in contemplation the construction and operation of irrigation works, likely to largely promote the development of the country. But while I have no objection to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company obtaining the powers of an irrigation company, I have objection to them being put in a position different from that of other irrigation companies already organized, or which may hereafter be organized. Other companies are under the general irrigation laws subject to public control of rates. It may be that the words which we move to strike out of section 11 do not relieve the Canadian Pacific Railway Company from such control, but if the words do not have this effect, then it seems to me they are wholly unnecessary. At all events they may serve to cast a doubt, and give rise to difficulty. If the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, as an irrigation company, is to be exactly on the footing of other companies, the words which we wish to be struck out are unnecessary.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: This matter was fully considered when the Bill was in committee, and if lion, members will study the clause they will find that it only applies to lands now owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway. As regards their own lands the company can surely claim the right, which any individual enjoys, of making what agreements they please for the furnishing of water, but the moment they seek to go off their own lands, or in what are known as the even number sections, the general Irrigation Act will apply to them as well as it does to other companies. The saving clause which defines the whole position is the following :
At such rates as may be fixed by agreement, and for the purposes aforesaid, generally exercise the powers of irrigation.
That puts it beyond reasonable doubt that the moment that company seek to irrigate lands not their own they will come within the scope of the general Act.


Frank Oliver: The ownership of lands does not relieve the owner from the control of the government in the sale or disposal of
the water, which is specifically declared by the Act to be the property of the Crown. The owner is given the privilege of selling that which belongs to the public, but only at such a price as may be fixed by the Minister of the Interior. It makes no difference, under the general Act, who owns the land. The point is that the country owns the water and has the right of fixing the rates at which that water shall be sold, and when you allow the Canadian Pacific Railway to fix its own rates, you are relieving it from the general operation of the Act and enabling it to sell public property at such figures as it may choose to fix, thus giving it a privilege by statute over every other irrigation company. That is absolutely contrary to the spirit and intention of the Irrigation Act.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: IVhen this matter came up before the Railway Committee it had not previously attracted my attention, and when the general proposition was advanced by some member of the committee that this company, as an irrigation company, would be subject to the general Irrigation Act, I felt that except, in so far as the company might by statute be exempted from the operation of that Act, the proposition was well stated, and, in a general way, I expressed my assent to the statement of the law as made. On further consideration I am inclined to modify the view I then expressed as respects this particular portion of the clause. The company, it is true, has only asked for powers to construct irrigation works upon its own property, but the concluding portion of section 11 contemplates that the water which it may conduct through its own property, it may dispose of to municipalities or individuals who may own property adjoining or contiguous to that of the company, or be within reach of the company's operations. In that case it does not strike me that the company is simply providing water to persons who may occupy its own property but is obtaining a general irrigating power. And when they do so supply all persons outside, I' would think it only reasonable and just that the provisions of the general law should apply, which says that the rates shall be fixed in accordance with its provisions. In that view, the words which are proposed to be struck out by the motion, it seems to me, might properly be struck out, so I support the amendment. I think there is no difficulty or trouble at all likely to arise from that, because the provisions of the general law are ample to enable this company which is supplying the general public to do so under as favourable circumstances as any other irrigation company that may be incorporated.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and Bill, as amended, reported ; read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 103) respecting the Lake Champlain and St. Lawrence Ship Canal Company.-Mr. GeofErion.
On section 1,
Mr. LaRIVIERE. At the request of the party acting on behalf of the company, who have met this morning in Montreal, and in the absence of Mr. Geoffrion, I would move that the names of Thomas Craig, of Montreal, and W. Dale Harris, of Ottawa, be added to the list of directors. I take it that there will be no objection.
Amendment agreed to, and Bill, as amended, reported ; read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 73) to incorporate the North Shore Power, Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
On the preamble,
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Has this Bill anything to do with the North Shore Navigation Company ?


Mr. MCCARTHY.: Not the slightest.


Samuel Hughes: Are not the terms somewhat confusing ? There is already a company incorporating the North Shore Navigation Company.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Their place of business is going to be down east of the Saguenay, 300 miles below Quebec. I don't think there is any chance of their coming into conflict.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Not the slightest.
On section 6,


Mr. ROSAMOND.: I think these are altogether too wide powers to give to any company. Everything under the sun is takenin.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I could not hear what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rosamond) said. I am in charge of the Bill if the hon. gentleman wants any explanations.


Bennett Rosamond: What explanation or excuse is there for giving such extensive powers to this company ? About every trade and business in the country is to be carried on by this company.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The power, as far as manufacturing industries is concerned, is limited to the territory east of the Saguenay river on the north shore of the St. Lawrence. The territory is an absolute wilderness. The incorporators of this company have purchased about GOO miles of limits, they have acquired a water power on the Marguerite river and their business opera-Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
tions will be carried on at Bay of Seven Islands. That company is going into a district in which there is no habitation, which is an absolute wilderness and it will have to develop as it goes ahead. While the powers which it asks for are considerable, I think the hon. gentlemen will agree with me that, having regard to the circumstances, they are not too great. They will enter there and they will immediately have to put up a saw mill and a pulp mill as the limits will require both a saw mill and a pulp mill. They may find in that district clay out of which they can make brick and tile and they require the power that is given in the Bill for the purpose of enabling them to manufacture their own brick for the erection of buildings and other uses. They may find certain kinds of ore which can be manufactured there. Perhaps my hon. friend will agree with me when I say, that if they take sheep down there and find that they propagate and increase they may be allowed to sheer these sheep and manufacture the wool into material for the clothing of their employees.


Bennett Rosamond: What about the cotton mills ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I do not know that they have discovered any cotton in that district. Having these matters in view the committee did not think the powers they were conferring upon this company were too great ; in fact it was stated, that people who have the nerve to put their money into an enterprise of this kind and purchase the licenses and the territory upon which they are going to operate, asking no concessions from any body, ought to be encouraged to the fullest extent.


Mr. MONK.: We should encourage them, but it seems to me that these powers are very extensive. I do not know all about that district, but it is a very wealthy district. There is very large mineral and timber wealth and I think there are companies already organized to work in that district. Although we must give the greatest encouragement to parties who are willing to invest their capital down there, we must not lose sight of the fact that this is a very rich district in natural resources. If my hon. friend (Mr. McCarthy) reads section 6 he will find that this company is authorized to do almost anything-build canals, for instance. Where will these canals be built ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: That is only for power purposes. The company's works are on the river six miles from the Bay of Seven Islands.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very glad to see a company extending its operations down there but I am afraid that these powers are tco various and too numerous.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Speaking as an Ontario member I may say that we are very sorry to lose them.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it would be simpler to enumerate two or three things that the company may not do and say that it may do everything else. I do not observe any restrictions upon the operations of this company at all. My hon. friend (Mr. McCarthy) says they are restricted to a particular area. Where is that ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: It is in the amendment,
*-east of the Saguenay river on the north shore of the St. Lawrence.


Robert Laird Borden: If you go far enough east on the Saguenay river you can come round to it again and that practically takes in the whole earth.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: You cannot stay on the north shore of the St. Lawrence and come around to it again.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me absolutely unrestricted as to territory. Take only one of these clauses in the Bill and you will find a numerous variety of things in which this company may engage :	The
company may :
(b.) carry on the business, in all its branches, of manufacturing pulp wood, pulp, paper and all other business incident thereto ; and also the business of manufacturing and burning of bricks, tiles, drain pipes, terra cotta and other materials from clay ; and also the business of general merchants and general contractors ; and also the business of general luanufactux-ers, millers, common carriers, wharfingers, warehousemen, and may construct, charter, acquire and navigate steam and other vessels between any port and place in Canada, and any other port or place in Canada or elsewhere ;
This is only one of many sections.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: If my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) would like to discuss the Bill clause by clause I think I could satisfy him.


Robert Laird Borden: I think some special reason ought to be advanced for giving a company such an enormous variety of powers.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) what possible objection, from a public standpoint, there can be to giving these powers to a company to carry on the business enumerated iu that clause ?


Robert Laird Borden: I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) a question. Why not incorporate the company under some general form of this kind : The company may carry on any business it sees fit in any part of tiie world ? Would the hon. gentleman think that a desirable class of legislation ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We have not that power. As far as Canada is concerned, in my humble opinion, an enterprise of this kind must prove a public benefit. It is always difficult for me
to understand why, when a Bill comes before the House incorporating a company which is raising capital to develop the country in a legitimate business way, there should be so much discussion and so much opposition to it. I believe it would be in the interest of the companies and in the interest of the public if we were to incorporate companies of this kind in a very simple way, making them subject to the laws of the country. I believe that almost every limitation is against the interests of the public and I believe that legislation interfering with enterprises of this kind which is supposed to be in the interest of the public and against the interests of the corporation, is very frequently against the interests of the public. Such limitations are uot imposed upon companies in other countries doing business here. These companies, if they go on at all, simply go on by evading the law if the limitation put upon them is fo-und to hamper their operations too severely. I feel very much interested in this class of legislation and I shoulu like to know why we should not follow the example of England and the United States and give more liberal terms to companies like this which are investing their capital and carrying on a legitimate business in the country.


Samuel Hughes: I presume that the powers conferred on this company could have been conferred upon it by tbe legislature of Quebec. It need not have come here at all for these powers and I take it that this House will be chiefly interested in securing the rights of the Dominion in this territory. There are very many parts of Quebec in which there are waterways and other resources of value to Canada as a whole, that might possibly be interfered with to the detriment of any similar company.
' The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES. I do not know if there is anything of that kind.


Samuel Hughes: As long as these interests are safeguarded I think the conferring of these powers would be all right.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think this Bill must have been before tbe Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee and that it did not get so far as the Railway Committee, because I have been attending the Railway Committee-
Mr. McCarthy. It is reported from the Private Bills Committee.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then, I am right in my conjecture. My interest in the Bill before the committee is as to how far the railway portion of it has been properly safeguarded. 1 see that power is taken also to * maintain, construct, use and operate canals.' That language is very general.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is limited to the country below the Saguenay.

You will not be able to build any canals down there.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I see also that the Bill states that the Railway Act is not to be applicable. If that has been amended so as to include the application of such provisions of the Railway Act as would be proper and necessary, I would not have any serious objection to the Bill.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: That section is amended.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have seen the Bill since it came to the House, and I do not see that the ordinary clauses of the Railway Act which are made applicable to railway undertakings apply in this Bill, but only certain amendments which were made to the general Railway Act in 1890.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is so. If the members of this committee understood the conditions under which this company will be called upon to operate, they would realize that there is nothing dangerous in the powers conferred in this Bill. The operations of the company are limited to that territory on the north shore of the St. Lawrence which is east of the Saguenay river. That means that they are going into a country that is at the present time almost absolutely a barren desert.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not barren.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I have fished and hunted over this part of the country and there is not one inhabitant to a hundred square miles. Perhaps the word barren does not apply, but there is practically nothing there except timber, minerals and fish. There is, however, in that district possibly the best harbour on the St. Lawrence, east of Quebec, and known as the Bay of Seven Islands ; a bay which is 25 miles wide, and which is the only harbour of refuge on the north shore of the St. Lawrence east of Tadousac. These gentlemen have bought 1,000 miles of limits down in that territory and it is their intention to develop these limits. They have also acquired a very extensive water power. Up to the present time, almost all the pulp wood of that territory has been exported to the United States, but the intention is to populate that country so that we may manufacture our own timber into pulp. They must have means to export that pulp. This territory is absolutely inaccessible for seven months in the year, and for the other five months it is only accessible by water, there being a bi-monthly service by steamer from Quebec. The territory of this company does not extend as far as the Bay of Seven Islands but they have acquired a stretch of land fronting on the hay where they propose to build wharfs, and to which they


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: wish to have communication by a railway, ten or twelve miles long, in order that they may bring their pulp down to the harbour. A mile, or a mile and a half back from the shore there is nothing but mountains, so that this short railroad must run alongside the shore. It is absolutely necessary that they should have tills railway to the Bay of Seven Islands in order to export the products of their mills. I said that the country was barren, and I was perhaps very properly corrected by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). The country is not barren, but it is practically uninhabited and it will be necessary for the company to bring people down there and to provide them all the necessaries of life. They therefore ask to have a grist mill, to have a farm, and to have all these things which are necessary to start this new company in a country which at the present time affords absolutely no facilities for business. While these powers may appear extraordinary, I would remind the House that they are limited to this territory on the north shore of the St. Lawrence east of the Saguenay, and the company is not going to enter into serious competition with industries in other parts of Canada. Suppose that even they had power to operate a cotton mill, they could not compete with cotton mills elsewhere. I would point out that last year this House gave just as extensive powers to the Ottawa and Hull Power Company, and moreover, they gave to that company the right to operate throughout the whole of Canada and elsewhere.


John Graham Haggart: What Bill was that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Chapter 108, 1 Edward VII. In view of the fact that we have limited the operations of this company to the territory I have, described, and in view also of the precedent created last year, I think we can well afford to let this Bill go through.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not wish to be understood as endeavouring to create any difficulty about the passing of this Bill. It may be quite true that this territory is comparatively unpeopled to-day and there may be no town or villages and no public highways, but if there be even one public highway it is liable to be crossed by the railway.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Draw the amendment the way you want it.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The railway is only ten miles.	.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But ten miles of railroad may cross at least one highway, and there are strong reasons why it should be subjected to the Railway Act. There may be many highways 3 or 4 years hence, and we are

creating a railway corporation with power to obstruct the highways, and we ought to see, in granting that power, that the company is made subject to all the provisions which govern railways.


Mr. WADE.: I would suggest as to section 15, which provides that the Railway Act shall not apply to the company, the words be added 1 except as respects the company's undertaking.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does not the Minister of Justice think some of these clauses are a little too general ? I am glad to see that this company has succeeded in acquiring a thousand square miles of territory, because, although not inhabited much at present, it is a very rich territory. 1'here is a pulp industry at Chicoutimi which sells its whole output to England at $18 a ton, and I think it is kept very busy. Here is a clause which states that ' the company may construct, acquire, use, maintain and operate canals, watercourses, raceways, and water powers, and construct dams, sluices, conduits and buildings in connection therewith.'


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Let that power be limited, if you wish, to be exercised in connection with their enterprise.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They have also power ' to lease and acquire rights and privileges with respect to fisheries and fishing in the waters of the St. Lawrence river and gulf and streams emptying therein.' I question very much if that clause would satisfy what population there is down there. We may find this company in the position of those two powerful companies which acquired such large fishing rights in Gaspe that they are considered to-day to be a considerable deterrent to the advancement of the county.
Mr. McCarthy. I move that subsection ' j ' be amended by adding the words ' in connection with their undertaking.'


Bennett Rosamond: The hon. gentleman in charge of this Bill mentioned that the company are bringing down sheep, and that they propose starting a woollen factory. I think there must be an omission from that clause, because if they bring down the sheep, it would be well for them to make provision for tanning the sheepskins. Therefore, I would suggest that a tanning business be added.
Mr. McCarthy. I have no objection.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I would like to ask the promoter of this Bill whether he seriously means us to carry sub-clause ' d, ' which provides that the company may carry on the business of farming and, stock-raising. I do not know that this parliam'ent is accustomed to license companies to carry on a farming business. I have heard with a good deal of interest what the Minister of 99
Justice saidiabout the country being uninhabited, ; but I protest against this company going into an uninhabited country aud doing all the farming there instead of bringing in immigrants. Apparently no immigrant can go into that country to engage in farming unless he deals with this corporation. I think we ought to have some restriction placed upon this company, that will bring in the policy of the immigration department of this government, so that we may know whether immigrants are to be excluded from going into that uninhabited country, unless they make such arrangements with this company as it thinks fit. It seems to me that this is nothing but a hugh trust or monopoly for that part of the country.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Will my hon. friend explain what he means when he says that this company is a trust ? The Bill authorizes the company to run a farm.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I ask you to restrict this company so that it will not have power to prevent any one else going there to farm.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My trouble is to understand what is in this Bill to prevent any one going there to farm.


John Graham Haggart: There is but one clause that prevents it. You ought to embody in the Bill a provision that the company may engage in banking.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They have a good substitute for money in that part of the country, where the people use little bits of paper called pitons. I cannot see anything in the Bill which prevents a man going there to farm. It simply gives the company the right to farm, but does not prevent any one else doing so.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is the first time I have known any incorporated company to be given that power.


Fletcher Bath Wade: This company, 1 think, owns a thousand miles of land. Will any hon. gentleman tell us what possible objection there is to allowing it to farm that land ; or if there are any minerals there, to its being allowed to mine or smelt them ; or, if there is timber, to its being allowed to cut that timber or manufacture it into pulp. What reason is there for preventing the company utilizing their thousand miles of territory in any may they possibly can ? These gentlemen, by going into the state of New Jersey and filing their application, could have created themselves into a legal entity, and could have come here and done everything they ask for power to do under this charter. Or they could have gone to Nova Scotia and done the same thing or, I understand, in Ontario, under the Joint Stock Companies Act. Certainly they could do so with us, or they could have gone down to Maine and
REVISED EDITION *

have got it. Is there any objection to their working that property in every possible way, I do not care how, that will make it most productive. Hon. gentlemen make objections to this kind of charter but they do not say what their objections are or what hardship or possible wrong can be accomplished under it.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I assume of course that this company will have an exclusive right, and that no other company or individual will be able to operate without its consent, because the company owns the land and can prevent anybody else going upon it. It seems to me then that it makes very little difference to us what power we grant it. But it is quite possible that when this company secures incorporation, it may not carry out more than a very small fraction of the powers we are giving it. It is difficult for us to know, when Bills of this kind are introduced, just what the intention is, and I have no doubt that a great many Bills are drawn up in this way, with the intention of misleading the House and causing us to believe that the parties seeking incorporation are going to do a great many things, when they only intend doing two or three. The company asks power to carry *on the business of lumberers, timber merchants and manufacturers of timber and lumber in all its branches. That gives it the power to cut all the timber on its territories and possibly it will do nothing more. For my part, I do not believe it will enter into one-twentieth part of all the other undertakings, for which it seeks incorporation, and therefore I think we should limit its powers as far as possible and have them exclusively exercised for the benefit of Canadians. One restriction we should put into this Bill would be to prevent this company from exporting a single stick of pulp wood, and compel it to do all its manufacturing in this country. When it is asking for such extraordinary powers, we should hedge our grant around with everything that will compel the company to give the country something back in return instead of simply carrying away our natural products. The power in the first section will enable the company to cut all the timber on its property and export it from the country-to put as little labour into it as possible, and distribute as little money as possible in the country, which possibly would be the most profitable way for the company to conduct its operations. Before giving the company such extraordinary powers as it asks for, we should insist on some limitation in the interests of the people. I would suggest that the promoter of the Bill should agree to the insertion of a clause, which will prevent the export of pulp wood from this territory to any foreign country, and will oppose the Bill unless that be done.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: So far as the timber products of the company are concerned, they are entirely within the purview of the local


Fletcher Bath Wade: government. When any one, obtains the right to cut timber from a local government, he purchases that right subject to any restrictions which the local government may deem fit to impose from time to time. The ' Ontario government, for instance, some time ago prevented the export of pine logs, and altered the licenses they had given in this respect. There was a lawsuit, but the alteration was sustained, so that any man who purchases timber limits does so subject to the conditions and regulations of the Crown Bands Department of the province. Thus the purchase by this company from the Quebec government is subject to the regulations and conditions which that government may impose, and that government may impose an export duty on any pulp wood exported and not manufactured" in the territory. I am informed, however, by my right lion, friend the Prime Minister that in the province of Quebec the license holders have to pay so much timber dues on the wood they cut, but if that wood is manufactured in the province, they are allowed a rebate. In Ontario the license holders have no right to export pine logs, and I think the same regulation applies also to pulp wood. When a lumber merchant purchases, as those seeking incorporation have done, he does so subject to the regulations and conditions imposed by the Minister of Crown Lands in the province of Quebec, so that I do not see why this House should interfere in the, direction suggested.
I might further add that the parties seeking incorporation have told me that their intention is to proceed at once to erect a large saw mill and pulp mill on the territory they have purchased and build up a large industry there. I may tell my hon. fwend that his statement that these powers are asked for in order to mislead parliament is entirely incorrect. It is necessary for people who are developing a country to have these powers. The hon. gentleman well knows that when the Sault Ste. Marie Company was incorporated, it began operating in pulp. Then the proprietors discovered mineral wealth in their territory, and immediately began developing that. Then they found that they required ships for navigation purposes, and immediately began to develop in that direction. All those who have gone into the work of developing the country have learned by experience that it is necessary they should obtain the powers mentioned in this Bill. It is most important that this company should have the right to acquire ships-more so than it is to the Sault Ste, Marie Company, because there is at present only bimonthly trips by steamer to that locality and ships do not call regularly there, and probably could not be induced to go there. These people will require the necessary ships to transport their supplies and materials in and the manufactured products out, and I do not think that we ought to curtail the powers they are asking. The ineor-

porators of tliis company are all Canadians but one. The two first named gentlemen are old Toronto men who went to New York and made money there in the paper business aud who desire to develop largely the territory they have acquired. One of them is a United States citizen, but the other is still a Canadiau. The other members of the company are all Toronto men of substantial means. These people have paid their money for the limits and are going to a territory, which is now practically a wilderness, for the purpose of developing it as Canadians and for Canadians.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Mr. BORDEN (Hailfax).: I observe that.
Mr. McCarthy. If they do manufacture pulp to a large extent, they will probably require their own ships to bring the product to the English and European markets.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not regard that incidental consideration as a sufficient justification for the interference of this parliament. I do not know what proof was laid before the committee that it is absolutely necessary that this company, which is entirely in the embryo at present-
Mr. McCarthy. It is only in the embryo as regards its charter. It has acquired and paid for all this territory.


Robert Laird Borden: These gentlemen have not yet commenced to manufacture so that the company, as regards its operations, is still entirely in the embryo, and I would not suppose that it was an absolutely necessary incident of a company formed for this purpose, that it should own its own ships. But if that be the case, the proper mode would be to go the provincial legislature, which has primary jurisdiction over this matter, namely, the legislature of Quebec, and seek incorporation there in the first instance. And then, when the company has been formed, if it is necessary that it should have this power, let it come and get that incidental power from this parliament. That has been done in many cases in the past and is the proper way to legislate, it seems to me. For, what we are doing is this-in order to grant an incidental power, such as is mentioned by the hon. gentleman and which may never be exercised by the company at all, we are invading the jurisdiction of the legislature -of the province of Quebec, and, without 994	.
giving any voice to the representatives of the people of that province in their legislature, we are dealing with a great multitude of subjects which are properly matters to be considered by the legislature and not by the Dominion parliament at all. I would like to know from the right hon. gentleman who leads the House (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) whether he regards this as a good mode of legislation. I raised this question once before during the present session and gave my opinion that the proper mode was to go to the provincial legislature for such powers as they could give, and not for this parliament to seize jurisdiction from them.
I have not changed my mind on this subject, but so far as I have been able to give consideration to the matter, that seems to me the proper way. For otherwise you usurp the functions of the provincial legislature by dealing with ninety-nine things that they could properly deal with on the plea that there is one subject concerning which the company wishes powers and which can be dealt with only by this parliament.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The organization of capital for the development of industry is one of the latest achievements of civilization. It is quite within the memory of hon. members present that companies could not be incorporated except by an Act of parliament. Men who wished to associate for the purpose of carrying on business had to come to the legislature to get their powers. It was found, after this had been carried on for some time, that no danger would be incurred, and, on the other hand every good purpose would be served if, instead of parliament dealing with these matters, power were delegated to the government. An Act was passed in this country following similar Acts passed in the mother country and elsewhere, giving the government power to grant charters for certain purposes. That Act has been in force for about twenty-five years. Now it is found too cumbrous, and a Bill has been introduced in another branch of the legislature to facilitate the creation of corporations. For my part, I cannot see what objection there can be to granting to any corporation the amplest powers to engage in business which will develop the country. I can see that there is one ground for restriction, and that is that no company should be granted a monopoly. When the question of granting a monopoly arises, that introduces another principle. But I cannot see why this company should not be organized to do business in pulp, to engage in navigation or to do anything in the way of that kind of business, especially in such a territory as that which is to be the scene of this company's operations. If there were danger that this company would come into conflict with existing interests, we should carefully study its nature, but so far as I know7 the provisions of the Bill, no mono-

poly is given. We give this company power to carry on its business, but I do not know any reason wliy another company cannot go into business right alongside o'f it. What wrong is done then, and what danger is involved to the interests of anybody ? I do not see that any good purpose would be served by refusing this incorporation, and, on the other hand it seems to me such a refusal might restrict the development of the country and put a damper upon the use of capital. I have followed the discussion with care, but have not heard any suggestion that there is a monopoly granted. But, if there is, we ought to attend to it. If the only objection is that the powers are too large and cover too many industries, I must say that I do not think there is force in that objection.


Robert Laird Borden: But I asked the right hon. gentleman as to the power of the provincial legislature and the advisability of our invading their jurisdiction for merely incidental purposes.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not see that we are invading any right of the legislature or that they are invading ours. We clearly have power to incorporate such a company as this, and I am strongly of opinion that it is wise for a company of this kind to seek its powers from the Dominion legislature. We can give it more extensive powers and more elasticity-


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend, perhaps, is forgetting that the provincial legislatures have power to incorporate companies-


The PRIME MINISTER.: So it has.


Robert Laird Borden: To incorporate companies for provincial objects.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We also have power to incorporate companies.


Robert Laird Borden: But I say that every power sought by this company could be given and should be given by the provincial legislature, except the incidental power which may never be exercised or used of carrying on the business of common carriers between Canada and other countries. Are we to invade the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature in respect of ninety-nine subjects because there is one power which may or may not be required by the company and which is within our jurisdiction ? Is it not much better to let the provincial legislature deal with these ninety-nine subjects, and then, if the hundredth power is required, let the company, having secured incorporation from the provincial legislature, come before this parliament and seek this power if it is necessary ? Is not that the better mode of legislation in the interests of good government ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know that it is. No doubt, a great deal of what is done by this parliament could be done by the provincial legislature. The hon. gentleman goes further and says that it should be done by the provincial legislature. I do not see that, in passing this Bill, we are invading a single right of the province. We give them power to do business all over the world, and this company if it is in earnest, as I understand it is, can be better served by securing its powers from this parliament than by securing them from the provincial legislature.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) if he considers the case more fully will realize that the power to carry on business as a common carrier is absolutely essential to the proper exercise of the rights conferred upon the company in other respects. The company could not get out the material necessary to their work from the Bay of Seven Islands except by the aid of navigation, nor can they hope to export their product in any other way than in steamers. Therefore, the right to carry on the business of common carriers to foreign countries and to other provinces is as essential to their business as the right to manufacture lumber.


Samuel Hughes: Has the amendment been made to properly safeguard the railway interests ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Mr. J. GIRARD (Chicoutimi and Saguenay).: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, the Bill which is now before the House relates to a company which is seeking to implant a new industry in the county of Chicoutimi and Saguenay. As the representative of that county, I think it my duty to say a few words on the Bill under discussion. It was my Intention at first to have spoken English : but as I am not quite familiar with the English language I thought it preferable to speak French.
The company is going into a territory which is almost an absolute wilderness, and in which there is practically nothing, except fishing, Which is confined mainly to codfish. There is a very small population, and with the exception of a few fishermen and telegraph employees, it consists mainly in Indians who repair to the Bay of Seven Islands several times a year. The Quebec government have gone to great expenditure in order to make known the natural resources of the province, its mineral wealth and its water powers ; and they have brought to light the fact, that on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, there is considerable forest wealth, notably around the Bay of the Seven Islands. There are also good farming lands and a pretty extensive agricultural area. Apart from the surveys made by the provincial goveru-


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: ment, a few capitalists have also taken tlie means of ascertaining tlie accuracy of those surveys and data The promoters of this Bill, after going to the trouble of making those surveys, have purchased from the Quebec government one thousand miles of limits down in that territory and they have also acquired water-powers. They have, started building a railway and they are putting up a pulp mill, with a force of over a hundred men.
I do not intend to go now into the merits of this Bill, nor do I wish to inquire whether this parliament have tlie power to incorporate this company, or whether we are invading the rights of the local government in so doing. But from the standpoint of the public interest, I am free to say that on the North Shore where there are now only a few fishing settlements, the news that this manufacture was being put up was heard with the greatest satisfaction. This morning, I received several letters from Pointe aux Esquimaux, from Magpie and other places, and these people want to know whether the fishermen, who have no other means of livelihood, could find employment with the company at the Bay of Seven , Islands.
There is no doubt that the whole region of the North Shore will be greatly benefited by tlie fact that this company has acquired this territory and is going to put up those mills ; and on that ground alone, great credit is due to the promoters of this Bill, despite the fact that they are asking for such extensive powers around the Bay of Seven Islands.
It is well known that there are large deposits of magnetic iron ore all along the Moisie river, and that, many years ago, those deposits were worked by Mr. Molson, of Montreal ; but, for the want of transportation facilities, that mining enterprise had to be discontinued. But now, there are many chances of that industry being revived and put on a paying basis.
Some hon. gentlemen object to granting the company the power of carrying on the business of farming and stock-raising. I do not think such objection can be raised in the interest of the settlers. If I understand aright the Bill now before the House, it does not encroach upon the rights of the provincial legislature in that respect.
Now, as long as the provincial law governing the sale of lands is enforced, there is no danger of a monoply being granted, or of this company coming into conflict with the agricultural interests. With the bad record they have been building up for the north shore, which has been described as a barren wilderness, altogether unfit for farming purposes, surely, if this company were not to go into that territory and attempt to carry on a farming business, no private individual, unless he could dispose of unlimited resources, could ever dream of making the attempt. On the contrary,
should the company succeed in its operations, and should its venture be attended with paying results from a farming standpoint, other settlers would undoubtedly follow in its footsteps. As I remarked a little while ago, from the reports of the Crown Lands Department of the province of Quebec, we gather that around the Bay of Seven Islands, there are agricultural lands enough for two parishes to be carved out of them. But that territory is inaccessible except by water in the summer season. Now, the company which is seeking incorporation from this parliament intends to provide communications for the carriage of its agricultural and other products. On the other hand, such settlers as may go into that country will have a considerable market at their door, for the sale of their products, as they will have to supply the wants of all the workingmen in the employ of the company.
I do not think that the powers this company is asking for, extensive as they are, can come into conflict with the interests of the district. Should there toe a monoply, the action of that monopoly would be restricted to the territory to the east of the Saguenay river, which is included in the county which I represent here. I have no hesitation in saying that the people down in the Saguenay region will only be too glad to welcome that monopoly ; the more so as, with the exception of Escoumains and Man-icouagan there is no manufacturing industry at all in that district. As this company is willing to invest its capital down there, it ought to be encouraged to the fullest extent, and we ought to give the people all the necessary powers. Should their venture prove successful, other capitalists are likely to go into that district and invest their money in other manufacturing industries ; for there are many other water powers that could be operated in portions of the country which have not yet been granted.
On these several grounds, I hope that the objections raised may be waived, and that the company will be granted the charter it is seeking from this parliament. From the granting of this charter and the exercise of the powers asked for, there is no danger to be feared from the standpoint of the agricultural interests ; whereas from the standpoint of the manufacturing interests it cannot be fairly claimed that a monopoly is being created.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I wish to relieve my hon. friend (Mr. Girard) as to the position we are now taking. I have indeed listened with a great deal of pleasure to his remarks, and I think he has given us very useful data on a territory with which we are not very familiar. We have no objection to granting this company all the necessary powers for the carrying out of its undertakings. But the only question is whether we have the power to incorporate such a company as this.

I, for one, believe-and I have no hesitation in saying so-that, judging from the various subject matters enumerated in this Bill, the provincial legislature has primary jurisdiction over the matter. You cannot deal with these subjects without invading provincial rights, and this is well worth considering. There are but two or three words in this charter that would justify us in claiming jurisdiction. If you remove these two or three words, the scope of the Bill is purely provincial, and we caunot constitutionally legislate. These two words are to be found in subsection 2, empowering the company to carry on the business of common carriers bet ween any port in Canada or elsewhere. Well, in my opinion, this is insufficient to bring this Bill within the purview of the federal government, because any company, be it ever so provincial or local in character, can seek and secure such a power, and exercise or use it without invading the legislative sphere of its province. So, a purely local company, incorporated for carrying on the business of stock-raising in the Saguenay district, could ship its cattle to other countries. It is a privilege inherent in its character, which can be legally exercised by a purely local company. So I do not believe that even these words, under which the company is empowered to carry on business as common carriers and ship its products to foreign countries, are sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this parliament.
Let my hon. friend bear in mind that we are willing to grant the company all the necessary powers, but we may well inquire whether in conferring upon such a powerful company the power mentioned in section I) of owning and farming lands, it will not work to the detriment of the settlers down there who are engaged in agricultural pursuits. Moreover, there is the very extensive power, conferred upon the company under subsection J, which was amended by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, empowering the company to build canals, raceways, sluices and dams without any restrictions upon their operations at all, so as to protect the people down there. There is also the power of acquiring fishing rights. I think there are in that district a good many fishermen. I am not so familiar with that country as my hon. friend from Chicoutimi and Saguenay, but I doubt whether the whole people in that district would be in favour of conferring on that company so extensive and such a variety of powers. I am quite willing to give all these powers to the company, but I am anxious to know whether it would prove agreeable to the people of that locality.


Joseph Girard: (Translation.) Let my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who objects to the conferring on the company of the power to carry on a farming business, look over the provincial statutes, and he will find, I think, that any Mr. MONK.
company may undoubtedly enjoy a similar right without being incorporated. Under similar circumstances, it is lawful for any one to run a farm. The Price concern, the pioneer of the lumber business in the district of Chicoutimi and Saguenay, also went into farming-when they started their operations-and they did so, with a view to raising, as extensively as possible, all the necessary produce for their operations. And by this, the settlers who later on went into that district to engage in farming pursuits, were largely benefited.
At present it may be said that this territory is an absolute wilderness, and that it is wholly unpeopled. Well, if that company carries on a successful farming business, those who will come and work for it with the preconceived idea that that region is unfit for settlement will soon be undeceived.
The people cannot object to the company owning two hundred acres of land in its own name. Under, the provincial legislation, it would be entitled to no more. I do not say that in addition to that it could not acquire as many more acres of land in the name of its employees, but I hold that it cannot own any more in its own name.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) I understand * that the company has bought 1,000 acres of limits. Is it wholly timber limits ?


Joseph Girard: (Translation.) There is a wide difference between the lease of timber limits and the sale of colonization lots. In the first case, the leaseholder can only take away the timber ; he is not proprietor of the ground.
With regard to the rights of the shore fishermen-and a large number of people have no other means of living-they are subordinate to both the federal and provincial governments. The company could have no fishing rights unless with the consent of both the federal and provincial authorities, who, anyhow, would have to consider the nature of the company's claims.
On these grounds, I do not consider as serious the objections that have been raised. The people do not oppose the granting of this charter. Besides, a federal charter could not invade provincial rights as to those matters pertaining to the province. Assuming that this charter be granted, I do not think it will ever be considered as a stain upon the federal legislation. If we do not grant the privilege asked for. the company will apply to the provincial authorities, and will no doubt obtain everything that can be conceded there. But it will be without power as far as navigation is concerned, because these powers cannot be regularly granted by a provincial charter. Navigation is under federal control.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: tTransla-tion.) The aim we have in view by the present Bill is to create a corporation whose

object is to develop the natural resources of this part of the country, especially the lumber industry, the pulp industry, the fisheries and the magnetic iron mines. To develop these resources, not only must we manufacture pulp wood and iron, and catch fish, but we have also to export these products elsewhere ; otherwise it would be useless to attempt going into this industry. Now, it is just as necessary to give this company the power of exporting its products as the right of manufacturing its products. The one is just as essential as the other. With this end in view, it is absolutely necessary for the company to apply to this parliament, for everything connected with navigation is under federal control. Therefore it is necessary that this parliament should give the company its whole legal entity. The local legislature can only grant it a partial legal entity. It has to come here to obtain complete powers. That is the rule which should apply in the present case.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) I understand that the pulp company at Chicoutimi is doing considerable business. Does it hold its charter from the federal parliament ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: (Translation.) It has been incorporated by letters patent.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) This company exports its products to England, and I think they are sold in advance for seven or eight years to come.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: (Translation.) I know something about this company. As far as the export of their products is concerned, for a good many years back a pretty large fleet of ships have visited the very place where this company is carrying on its business, so the company has the choice of the best markets. But that is not all, there is also a railway near by, and three-fourths of its products are exported via Quebec. With regard to the Bay of Seven Islands, as my hon. friend of Chicoutimi (Mr. Girard) is aware, it is not frequented by oceanic steamers, but by coasting vessels only-schooners and other small craft of that description.
The promoters of the Bill intend to establish a line of steamers to carry the products of those different industries to the markets of the world, and so far as shipping facilities are concerned, the town of Chicoutimi is better provided than the Bay of Seven Islands.


Joseph Girard: (Translation.) At the present time the Chicoutimi company has no means of transportation of its own. The goods, as soon as they are manufactured, are piled up on the wharf and placed on board the steamers or railway. But as to the company which is now seeking a charter from parliament, what they want is the power to own steamers and to give shipping
facilities to a locality formerly considered as inaccessible by water. My hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) said that this place had never been visited by oceanic vessels. Quite a number of vessels have entered the bay ; it is a safe harbour of refuge. As a matter of fact, the only argument put forth to show that oceanic vessels cannot enter the bay is the sad wreck of a French steamer which had made for the bay without knowing the way. The wreck took place at the entrance of the bay.
On section IS,


John Graham Haggart: That clause should not be in the Act. If we have jurisdiction let us exercise it, and not say that this company, a private enterprise, is for the general benefit of Canada in order to bring it under our jurisdiction. That is the only thing that gives them jurisdiction. We can take the jurisdiction over nearly everything in Canada by adding a clause like that. If we have not jurisdiction such a Bill ought not to have been introduced.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We are doing it all the same.


John Graham Haggart: Not with private enterprises.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It may be better to enact that clause so as to give us jurisdiction.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: If the opinion of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) is correct, we certainly need it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I take the position that we have not jurisdiction unless we make use of the power we have under section 92. Under that section we can declare that this work is for the general advantage of Canada, and what the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Girard) has said, would lead me to that opinion. Then it gives us jurisdiction ipso facto.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 93) respecting the Hudson's Bay and North-west Railways Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 83) to incorporate the Canadian Northern Express Company.-Mr. Davis.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MORRISON-by Mr. Sutherland (Essex)-asked :
1. How many telephone companies are there doing business in Canada ? In what provinces do they operate ? (a.) What is the total mileage of each company ? (b.) What is the capitalization cf each company ?
[Stage Direction]
2.	What is the mileage of the Bell Telephone Company ?
3.	How many of such companies have transfer or other connection with the Bell Telephone Company ?
4.	What is the amount of unissued stock of the Bell Telephone Company ?
The MINISTER OB' AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) :
1.	We have fifty-five telephone companies on our list of 1902. Of these, six report themselves as sold to the Bell Telephone Company; three not operating in 1901; one sold to Bellechasse Telephone Company, and one amalgamated with New Westminster and Burrard Inlet Telephone Company, leaving forty-four telephone companies in operation.
Of the fifty-five, twentyfive are in the province of Quebec, seven in Ontario, six in Nova Scotia, five in New Brunswick, eight in British Columbia, two in the North-west Territories, and one in Prince Edward Island.
The Bell Telephone Company lias offices in more than one province-in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and the North-west Territories.
2.	The return of the Bell Telephone Company gives the miles of wire as 94,314.
3.	I have no information as to the number of companies which have transfer-connection with the Bell Telephone Company.
4.	Tile Bell Telephone Company report that they have no unissued stock.
I am unable to state the capitalization of the several telephone companies.
E. D. Smith, AYirtona	$ 160 65
J. Geddas, Winona	
129	15M.	Pettit, Winona	
116	65A. H. Pettit & Son, Grimsby	
13	20J. W. Smith, Winona.. ..	'	
165	70W. P. Geddes, Winona	
45	60W. M. Orr, Winona	
110	40E. J. Woolvcrton, Grimsby	
62	25	'N.	Keep, Winona	
50	40D. J. MacKinnon & Sons,	Grimsby.. ..	124	80S. M. Culp. Grimsby	
31	20
[Stage Direction]
This fruit was sent to see if Canadian grapes could be successfully sold on the English market, and a quantity of this fruit was given away in Great Britain for advertising purposes.
2.	Auditor General's Report, year ended .Tune 30th, 1901, page D-67, item ' Less-* Refunds from sales of fruit, poultrv, cheese, &c.'
Manchester Fruit Brokers	$241 02
Simons, Shuttleworth & Co	 136 35
[Stage Direction]
Included in item	$1,089 79

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. Hughes (Victoria)- asked :
1. Was the sum of $247.42, as shown in the Auditor General's Report for the year ending June 30th, 1901, page D-60, paid to Wellington Mutch, Eldon, P.E.I., for the following articles and services, viz. :-

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Sir. Hughes (Victoria)- asked :
1.	What amount was received for the expenditure of $1,554.55, as shown in the Auditor-General's report for the year 1890 and 1891 on page D- 62, as follows :-
Excelsior Basket Company, 15,000 4
pound baskets	$ 270 00
Grank Trunk Railway, rent for cold
storage	 5 00
D J. McKinnon, travelling expenses,
$14.90; freight charges, $88 ; customs fees, $1 ; printing, $22.50 ; telegrams,
$3.15 ; telephones, $1.50 ; paid W. B.
Calder for inspecting, &c., 33 days at
$4 ; expenses, $6.50	 269 55
D. J. McKinnon & Pons, grapes, 40,400 pounds at 2J cants	 1,010 00
[Stage Direction]
2.	Where does the amount received, if any, appear in the Auditor General's report ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) :: 1.	Three hundred and seventy-seven dollars and thirty-seven cents.
Note-The grapes were purchased through Mr. D. J. MacKinnon, for the Department of Agriculture, from the following fruitgrowers :


Mr. MORRISON.: 233 chickens, $55.C4 ; ground oats, 1,137 lbs. at $2 per cwt., 876 lbs. at $1.90 ; skimmed milk, 2,698 lbs. at 40 cents per cwt.; tallow, 351 lbs. at 4 cents ; sulphur, 5 lbs. at 5 cents ; coops, 10 at $1.75 ; natls, 5 cents ; 17 bags, $1.34 ; attending and feeding chickens, $84 ; use of scales, $2 ; paid to piuckers, 18 days at 75 cents ; man and team, 8 days at $2 ; cartage, $3.13 ; labour, $3. $247 42
2.	Is the amount shown in page D-68 of the said Auditor General's Report, viz.: * Eldon,' the sum of $70.57, all that was received for the sale of said chickens ?
3.	If not, where is the balance shown as having been received, in said Auditor General's Report?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) :: 
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hou. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The revising officer for Lisgar was Alexander McLeod, barrister-at-law, Morden, Manitoba. He was appointed on the 9th November, 1901.
A copy of the list as revised was received by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery on the 17th day of February, 1901.
The lists do not show on their face the day on which the final revision was made. Nor have we any record of the exact date.
The lists were printed in Manitoba.


EXPORT OP CATTLE TO UNITED STATES.
Mr. HOLMES asked :: 1.	How many cattle, home product, one year old and under, were, exported to the United States in each year since 1890 ?
2.	What was their value ?
3.	How many cattle over one year old, home product, were exported to the United Stgtes in each year since 1890 ?
4.	What was their value ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: In 1891, 1892 and 1893 the statistics were not kept in such a way as to show the number one year old or less, but the information asked for, as far as it can be furnished by the Customs Department, is contained in the following statement showing the number and value of cattle. (Canadian produce) ' one year old or less ' and ' over one year old ' exported from Canada to the United States, in each year since 1890 :
board of trade or other commercial organization of a similar character setting forth the opinion of such boards of trade or other organizations, that in the event of the imposition of duties upon wheat and other cereals by Great Britain, the products of Canada should be exempt from such taxation, or should receive preferential treatment ?
2.	If any such resolutions were sent to the government, from what organizations did they come, and at what dates were they received ?
3.	Has the government, since the first day of February last, made any and what representations to the British government, that in the event of the imposition of duties upon wheat and other cereals, the products of this country should be exempt from such taxation, or should receive preferential treatment ?
4.	If so, what is the date of such representations ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 
PREFERENTIAL TRADE WITHIN THE EMPIRE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. KEMP-by Mr. Hughes (Victoria)- asked :
1. Did the government, since February 1st last, receive copies of resolutions from any

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEMIEUX-by Mr. Talbot-asked :
1. Have any Queen's Counsels or King's Counsels been appointed, by the Federal government, since the 23rd June, 1896 ?
[Stage Direction]
2. If so, who are the persons who have heen appointed, and what are the dates of their appointments 1
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: There have been, since the 23rd of June, 189(3, three King's Counsel appointed, two in the North-west Territories, and one in the Yukon.


PAYMENTS TO GILBERT BROS. ENGINEERING COMPANY.
Mr. ROCHE (Marquette) asked :: 1.	How much was paid the Gilbert Blasting
and Dredging Company for work done in Galops Rapids from May 1st, 1901, to December 15th, 1901 ?	'
2.	Is the work now completed ?
3.	If not, is it the intention of the government to have this firm, with their fleet, at work this season in said rapids ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. 6. Blair) :: 1.	Gilbert Bros. Engineering Company, not Gilbert Blasting and Dredging Company have been paid for work done in the GaloDs Rapids from May 1st to December loth, 1901, the sum of $18,760.
2.	No.
3.	No decision has been arrived at yet as to this.


CENSUS COMMISSIONER-DISTRICT OF CASSIAR.
Mr. McGOWAN asked :: 1.	On whose recommendation was J. W. Mc-I1 arlane appointed census commissioner (or to some other position) in the census department for the Atlin district of Cassiar, British Columbia ?
2.	How long was the said McFarlane so employed, and what was the amount paid him'as remuneration for his services, including expenses ?
3.	Was McFarlane's account reduced ; and if so, how much ?
4.	What was the amount paid Enumerator Coutts for his services, including expenses ?
5.	What was the amount paid Enumerator Polly for his services, including expenses ?
6.	What was the amount paid Enumerator Brown for his services, including expenses ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) :: 1.	G. R. Maxwell.
2.	(a) 210 days. (b) $3,415.70.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) $560.70.
4.	$1,043.10.
5.	$826.50.
6.	$843.


RIFLE PRACTICE FOR YOUNG CANADIANS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr.f SAMUEL HUGHES (North Victoria) moved :
That, in the opinion of this House, the best interests of the country demand that the youth of Canada should as soon as possible be afforded opportunity of practicing target shooting ; and to that end, it would he advisable to supply each school district or similar locality with Mr. LEMIEUX.
rifles and the new safety practice ammunition for use on the Peters or similar inexpensive and safe target, where all citizens from the age of fourteen upwards should be afforded opportunity of practice.
He said :	As it is near six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I shall be exceedingly brief in presenting some observations in support of this motion. All authorities on constitutional law and government agree that one of the greatest dangers to the permanent stability? of any nation is the maintenance of a large standing army. But as every nation must take adequate measures for its defence the alternative of an ettective militia force is offered in substitution for a standing army. Such a militia force might be deemed adequate for the purposes of a country situated as Canada is. Except on occasions of great emergency, I can imagine no easier way to maintain what would be the equivalent of a standing army, than the maintenance of a system by which the youth of the country would be thoroughly trained in rifle shooting, and in the simple and necessary movements in drill which the new strategy and< tactics require. The proposition which I make in the resolution is simple on the face of it. There is a very inexpensive system of target practice provided at the present day, and I wish to see that system placed at the disposal of the youth of our country. In the United States they have what is called the gallery or pratice ammunition, whereby a regular service rifle and short range ammunition can be used without any danger of the bullets doing injury, beyond the range of the target. Of course with the regular service ammunition it would be impossible to use these rifles in practice, but with this ammunition which I understand the Minister of Militia is about introducing into Canada, there is no danger whatever. 1 would point out that the good rifle shots of to-day who are beyond tlie age of forty years, learned the use of tile rifle by snapping caps at: candles. The best shots at Wimbledon in the old days and the best shots at Bisley nowadays learned rifle shooting by snapping caps at candles, and hitting or missing as the case may be; the great thing being the practice in pulling the trigger. If the system which 1 have outlined in the resolution is adopted, it will be of great service to the militia of Canada. I may point out that Mr. Beck, mayor of London, has placed at the disposal of Colonel Peters, the D.O.C., a very handsome trophy to be competed for by the people of the schools in his district.
Mr. INGRAM.: Is not that confined to collegiate institutes ?


Samuel Hughes: It applies to wherever there are cadet corps in the district. In the city of Montreal there are some excellent cadet corps, among others the Highland cadets of Montreal, and the Highland cadets of Westmount, both of

315&
which corps are maintained without one cent of'cost to the government, and both corps, chiefly the Montreal Highland cadets have furnished nearly one hundred men to the South African contingents, as well as several hundred well trained and well drilled men to the militia corps of that city. In Toronto there is a most excellent cadet corps made up of detachments from the different schools. When I had the honour to be first English master of the Toronto Collegiate Institute years ago, I had a battalion composed of the young men of that institution, and I may say that a number of officers in the city regiments and in different regiments throughout the province received their training in that cadet battalion, Wherever the young men of a country are drilled early in life, experience has proved that they maintain .in after years their zeal and' interest in military matters, and this very fact in Canada has kept the militia force of our country together, iu spite of the many drawbacks that have combatted it during a number of years. It was my intention to speak at greater length, but it being six o'clock I will simply draw the attention of the minister to the necessity for drilling the youth of our country in their early days when their sympathetic interest is most alive to matters of this kind. If we can adopt the system foreshadowed in this resolution, together with the system of training officers which I previously outlined, I am satisfied that Canada will have at her disposal a reserve of men such as no country in the world could equal. I believe, Sir, that without the slightest trouble Canada could turn 1,000,000 men of fighting age and not draw her resources to any greater extent than the Boers have drawn on their resources during the war in South Africa. With such a body of men, Canada would be impossible of invasion, I care not how powerful the enemy might be. I trust the minister will accept this resolution, and with that hope I submit it to his judgment.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: I am in entire accord with the spirit of the observations made by my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes). We have in Switzerland an object lesson as . to what can be done in the way of making the militia effective. In that country they have an army of 250,000 men which is exclusively a militia force. I wish, however, to point out that while I am in sympathy with the observations that the hon. gentleman has made, I think we cannot pass a resolution of this kind here, because the matter with which it deals is within the purview and control of the local legislature. Education being in the hands of the provincial legislatures, I think it would be impossible to carry out a resolution of this kind without the consent of the provinces. It seems to me the proper course would be to open up correspondence with the governments of the respective provinces with reference to the matter, and I may say that I had it in contemplation to do this ; and now that my hon. friend has given his views to the House, and has received the assurance I have given him, I think it would be more convenient if the resolution were withdrawn.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the Militia Act gives him power to supply free ammunition to the different clubs and associations ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: But the Act does not allow him to give free ammunition to the cadet corps ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That is what I said.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is very unfortunate.
I hope the hon. gentleman will carry out the suggestion he made some time ago.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I would point out to my hon. friend that the militia is composed of men from 18 years up. We have no power to include in the militia any below the age specified in the law.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand it is the hon. gentleman's intention to amend the Act ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, next year.


Samuel Hughes: The resolution does not in the slightest degree infringe on the constitution. I would like it to stand, so that we may have some discussion on the question.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Under the circumstances, I move that the debate be adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) moved :: That the consideration of notices of motion be postponed, and that the House proceed forthwith to order No. 10 of Public Bills and Orders, House in Committee on Bill (No. 3) and Act to amend the Railway Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr.  E. A.@: LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara) moved that the House go into committee on Bill (3) to amend the Railway Act. He said : In moving that the House

31G0
resolve itself into committee on the Bill, I realize at the outset of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that I am met with an obstacle but one which I hope on reflection the House will not regard as sufficiently serious to defeat this Bill. I am appealing to the whole House from the decision of the Railway Committee which has not seen fit to report the Bill. This committee perhaps, does not voice the feeling of the House and the report being the vote of only some fifty members, is only twenty-five per cent of those who sit in this House, and is at most a minority of those who are here to-night, or who will be here later.
The law, as, it stands at present, with regard to cattle-guards on highway crossings was admitted by the Railway Committee, as it is all through the country, to be in an improper state. Although the railway companies were originally required to have cattle-guards at all highway crossings, so as to prevent animals straying on the lines of railway, that Act has been so amended as to practically relieve them from that obligation. By the amendments of 1888 and 1890, the whole value of the original legislation regarding cattle-guards was taken away, because these amendments provided that the railway companies shall only be liable for damages, even when they do not have these cattle-guards at their crossings in cases where the animals were properly at the points of intersection between the railway lines and the highway when the accident occurred. In fact the law, as it stands at present, provides that the companies shall only be liable under a circumstance which cannot reasonably be expected to exist at all. it would be more frank and honest to repeal the whole section requiring cattle-guards. I do not suppose that the people would stand it, but still it would be better to do so than to delude them, as we are now doing, with the mere semblance of a protection which has not the slightest existence in reality. It would be far better to say that the railway companies shall not be bound to have cattle-guards at all than to say that they shall only pay damages for not having them, when the animal that happens to be killed ' is properly on the highway,' bearing in mind that the courts have construed those words as meaning in charge of a human being. But it can be easily seen that there is no need for a railway company to have a cattle-guard when the animal is in charge of a human being. No one in charge of an animal will allow it to get on to a railway line, and the legislation in the first instance was no doubt intended to compel the railway companies to take means for preventing animals, that were not in charge of anybody, from straying on their track, and the reason is evident. An animal cannot read the sign 'railway crossing' or appreciate the danger of getting on to a railway line, and therefore it was deemed neees-Mr. LANCASTER.
sary that the companies should be compelled to provide some obstruction against its doing so. I am quite well aware that the speed of railway trains and the necessities of railway service may require changes in the cattle-guards from time to time, but I submit that the railways should be compelled to put up some guard that would be reasonably sufficient to prevent animals getting on to their tracks from the highway, whether these animals be in charge of a human being or not. In the discussion in the Railway Committee, it was urged against the supporters of the Bill I have introduced that it would encourage farmers to become careless and allow their animals to run on the highway and thence on the railway line, and that we should do everything possible to teach the farmers that they must keep their animals off the highway, but we all know that, despite the greatest care, an animal may escape on to the highway. The wind may blow down a farmer's fence, a neighbour coming to visit him may accidently leave his gate open, and thus a farmer, who takes every care, whose gates are fastened and whose fences are good, may still find that by the purest accident one of his animals has wandered on to the highway and thence on to the railway track, and yet though the railway company may have wilfully neglected to provide the protection required by law, he must bear the whole loss.
But then look at the other side of the question. Here is a most positive enactment requiring railway companies to provide sufficient cattle-guards, and they do not comply with it simply because, under the amendments to the law as originally passed, it is scarcely possible for them to be ever required to pay any damages. The farmer is to be held responsible for any accident which might occur, despite his greatest care, and the railways are allowed to go scot free even though they deliberately neglect to comply with the law. The railways are only held responsible where the animals are properly on their tracks and the courts have decided that an animal is only properly on their tracks when it was in charge of a human being and strayed into the danger despite all his care. It must be obvious to everybody that an animal which is in the charge of anybody, would not be allowed to stray into danger, and the railways therefore may violate the law with impunity, whereas the farmer has to suffer the loss should one of his animals, by the merest accident, which the greatest watchfulness cannot always prevent, make its way on to the highway and then to the railway track and be killed.
If the railway companies want the inhabitants of this country to conform to the law they ought-rich and powerful as they are-to set the example and first comply with it themselves, and the effect of my Bill would be that the danger would be met

on botli sides and there would consequently be very little danger of any accident happening" There is no doubt that by the neglect of the companies to provide these cattle guards, when an animal does stray on to a railway track, it runs great danger of being killed, and yet although the railway company was in fault in not complying with the law, the owner of the animal has to bear the whole loss. But even though the owner should be somewhat in fault, why should the chief offender go scot free 7 Anri it must be perfectly evident that the railway companies will not supply those cattle-guards while the law is in its present condition, because people are not likely to do things when they are not subject to any penalty for not doing them. And the law as it stands to-day does not require them except as against a human being to keep a cattle-guard there. The animal comes to that point. If the cattle-guard is not there, there are three directions for it to take-one to the left, one to the rights along the railway track in either case-or straight ahead, where there is no danger. If there is no cattle-guard, there are two chances out of three that the animal will be killed. It is quite as likely to turn to the right or to the left as to go straight ahead, particularly when you remember that the pasture, during some seasons of the year, is better along the railway track than elsewhere. It is not unfair to say that the animal is twice as likely to go down the railway as it is to go along the highway. If it goes down the railway it is pretty sure to get killed, and if it gets killed, no one is practically responsible. The railway will say that the animal was running at large and had no right to be where it was. Though, by Act of parliament the railway is compelled to have-or, rather, is supposed-to have cattle-guards for highway crossings, their answer is : It is true we had no cattle-guard, and so are violating the statute, but we are not liable, because your animal was at large, not controlled by a human being. But, if the cattle-guards are there, is it not plain that the animal will go straight ahead, because the guards will prevent it from going to one side ?	1
know it is said that there is no cattle-guard that will keep every animal from turning upon the railway track. Even though that is the case, yet, if we reduce the likelihood of accident, we are passing good legislation. At the very least, cattle-guards can be put in that will turn a large percentage of the animals and prevent them from getting on the track. So it does not come down to a question whether the owner or whether the railway shall lose the animal, but whether there shall be any animal lost at all. I am not seeking to bring about a state of the law under which a railway will be liable to kill animals. It is not my primary object to cause the railway company to kill an animal and then cause them to be liable
for it; the primary object is that there shall be no animal killed, and so no liability. I seek to create a state of affairs under which both the railway and the owner of the animal will take a certain amount of responsibility, and these responsibilities meeting, so to say, will leave no room for accidents. The law will make it clear that the farmer will be liable if the animal is killed at the point of intersection, that is. upon that part of the earth which is both highway and railway. That being so, he will want to keep his animal at home. But, if it is not killed there, but goes down the railway track because there is no cattle-guard on either side to prevent it, and is killed there, the railway will be liable. This could have no other effect than to prevent the very losses that are making all the trouble. So it is not a question of whether the farmer or the railway shall pay for an animal willy nilly, but whether we shall put responsibility fairly on both parties, so that both parties will work together to prevent accident and loss to anybody. With this general statement of the purpose of the Bill, let me pass on to one or two other matters which I wish to enter on before I sit down.
It was said in the Railway Committee that, if this Bill were allowed to stand over until next year, there would probably be a standard cattle-guard introduced, and made acceptable by Order in Council, or order of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. or in some other way. Because, it was said, you cannot expect any guard that any railway company will put in to turn every animal. There is something in that, as in a great many other contentions, if you do not carry them too far. But if you carry it to the length of saying that because of that this Bill should not pass, then, with all due deference to those who use it, I submit that it is unreasonable. For, if you make a standard cattle-guard next month or next year, you must pass an Act like this to compel the railway companies to put those cattle-guards in, because, at present, the company is not liable without any guard, if the animal is not in charge of a human being. So, even if I concede that there wM be a standard guard authorized in some official way and that if these guards are put in by the railways, they will prevent animals from straying from the highway to the track, you will still he under the necessity of passing some such Bill as mine. It may not be in exactly the same words, still, it must have the same effect, or the railway company will not be obliged to put in these standard guards.
Now, here is a grievance which is admitted to exist, a grievance so clear that nobody has gone further in opposing my measure than to say that we will get the railways to put in a better guard by next year, if you will allow the Bill to stand. But the grievance being what I have just shown it to be, I ask this House why that grievance

shall be allowed to continue for another year ? Why should the report of the committee prevail ? What good reason is there for saying that it is wise not to proceed further with this measure ? Why should another twelve months go by with this state of affairs allowed to continue, now that the attention of the House has been drawn to it ? Why should not the railways be bound to do something as much for the next twelve months as for twelve months after that, or ten years from now ? Why should the railway companies go on for another year without responsibility while we are waiting for some guttl'd which it may suit the railways to put in ? Why not compel them to put in the best guard they can and leave it to the courts to say whether they have put in a guard that is ' suitable and sufficient ' to turn animals. When the Bill is in Committee of the Whole, the principle having been admitted, if it is thought by the majority of the committee that the wording is not such as to secure justice, amendments can be made. If any amendment can better carry out the object desired, I am here to say, before we go into committee, that any amendment that does not really kill the measure I am introducing will not lie refused by me, will not be opposed factiously by me, because it is not of my own drawing. I do not know that any amendment can be irtwn that will make the Bill any better or that will carry out the idea better than the form of words that I have proposed :
And no animal not allowed by law to run at large shall be held for the purpose of such liability

-that is, the liability mentioned in the Act
to keep up the cattle-gard

to be improperly on a place adjoining the railway if such animal gets upon the railway from the highway by reason of such omission or neglect to maintain such cattle guards or fences at the h ghway crossing.
You will notice that, under this amendment, the railway will not be responsible unless the animal goes upon the land which is the railways own individual property, and which the animal-cannot reach if the railway company have a cattle-guard at each side of the highway where the railway crosses. There is no responsibility upon the railway unless the animal gets right over the land where the cattle-guard ought to be and on the railway itself, on the property of the railway which is separated entirely, or if my Bill passes, will require to be separated entirely from the railway by the cattle-guard. As other gentlemen desire to speak upon this Bill, I will not trespass any longer on the time of the House. I trust that the Bill will he allowed to go to committee and will be passed, if not in the exact language in which I have drawn it, at least in language that will make it as efficient, and will remedy to a reasonable extent the grievance which I submit I have Mr. LANCASTER.
proved exists, and put the responsibility upon the railway which, for the reasons I have stated, ought to be placed upon them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
On section 1.
Mr. THOMPSON.: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with considerable interest and with close attention to the remarks of the bon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). I may say by way of apology in offering a few observations to the committee that I certainly do not find in my conscience the accusation that I have taken up a great deal of time of the House thus far this session, so I hope and trust that hon. members will bear with me for a few minutes while I discuss what to some of them seems to be a matter of no importance, but which to others of us who know and understand the feelings and wishes of our constituents, is a matter of considerable importance. I shall endeavour to avoid all those points made by the hon. member for Lincoln, and to confine myself to other phases of the question upon which he has not touched. In the first place many hon. members seem to have the idea that the legislation proposed is along the lines of a return to the old pit-guard. I intend to deal first with this phase of the question. I, for one, if this amounted to a return to the old pit-guard, would most decidedly vote against the proposed legislation. I believe that the pit-guard can find no proper place in railroading at the present day. We know that in the pit-guards of former times water often found a lodging place and froze in the winter, and the road bed was so disturbed as to make railroading uncertain. More than that, when a railway train ran off the track it was quite a usual thing, or a not unusual thing at least, for the trucks of the carriages to plunge into the pit ; the trucks were then pulled from the bottom of the carriage and a frightful accident was the result. With the surface-guard, on the other hand, derailment meant nothing so serious, and the train might run along a good half a mile on the track and then be pulled up with no accident of any consequence. . So I say that a return to the old pit-guard is quite out of the question. Many petitions were laid before this House in the earlier part of the session asking for legislation along the lines of relief to the farmers, and afterwards this House was flooded with a number of petitions from the railway employees praying that pit-guards should not be restored. Mr. Chairman, I say that pit-guards will not be restored, and I propose to show why I think they will not be restored, and if they are not restored, then the petitions of these railway employees are met. Now, I am going to tell you why I think they will not be restored. Some two or three days before this matter was taken up for discussion in the Railway Committee, one

of the great railroads of our country, the Canadian Pacific Railway, was good enough to send each member of this House a very carefully and neatly prepared brief giving its side of the question with regard to cattle-guards ; and I think if, from the four corners of this instrument, I can prove that there will be no return to pit cattle-guards, that there is no reasonable probability of such a return, why then I am proving our case out of the mouths of the witnesses of our opponents, a doubly strong way to prove it. I intend to read some extracts from that brief to bear out my contention that there is no possibility of a return to the old pit-guard if we pass the legislation proposed by the hon. member for Lincoln. In the first place, an official high in the service of the Canadian Pacific Railway-I have not his name here, but hon. gentlemen can find it in the brief to which I have referred- says :
I learn from the railway people

And by the railway people he refers to the employees of the road to whom certain questions were put with regard to cattle-guards.
I learn from the railway people that the dangers to track of the pit cattle-guard are so many that it is practically out of the question for them to use them.
Strong testimony from the same source is that of Mr. H. J. Cambie, no less a person than the divisional engineer at Vancouver, says :
The old fashioned open pit guards with the track rails laid direct on the stringers are complete traps for wrecking trains, and are not worth discussion.
Finally the last statement, which is more important than all the others, is that of Mr. Tye, chief engineer of construction, who says :
The damage caused by one wreck is more than sufficient to offset any loss or injury to stock for many years.
Now, Sir, the whole argument of the opponents of this measure is this, that a return to pit-guards would cause not only one accident but many accidents ; yet here is one of their chief employees saying that a single accident, as opposed to many accidents, would cause a damage to the railway in dollars and cents far exceeding the sum they would have to pay for every head of cattle killed In a number of years. And so since these great corporations well know their own interests, it is fair and reasonable to argue that they would prefer paying for all the cattle they killed to going hack to the old pit-guard which would cause them so much more financial loss. So, I think I have demonstrated from that instrument that there is no danger of a return to pit-guards, and that therefore the petitions of these railway employees against pit-guards are fully answered.
Next, Sir, with regard to the surface-guard ; and here, if I may be permitted to
make a bull-and surely a discussion of cattle-guards might be some excuse for doing so-I will say that surface-guards can be divided pretty generally into three classes :	The first-class where there is no
guard at all, the second-class where there is only a bluff-guard, and the third-class where there has been an honest endeavour to meet the law as it stands upon the statute-book. First, with regard to no guards, I can assure hon. gentlemen that to my personal knowledge, and I only know but a very small part of Ontario, there are a number of crossings at which no cattle guard at all has been installed. What is the reason for this ? The present state of the law is directly responsible for this, and I am going to tell you why. If a cow now gets on to the railway because she is wandering on the highway unattended, even though there be no cattle-guard to stop her, the railway says :
' Oh, your cow was unlawfully on the highway,' and the farmer cannot collect from it. But, if on the other hand, the cow is properly tended by a human being, why, then, she is not going to get killed on the right of way and the railway does not have to pay either way ; so that, which ever way you take it, it is heads I win, tails you lose. The railway company do npt have to pay either way, and they have only to fly in the face of public opinion and not build a cattle-guard at all. But here, they entirely forget the fact that they offer a direct insult to public intelligence which will arouse such a storm of indignation as will compel the peoples' representatives in this House to provide by legislation a remedy for this grievance. Next we come to what is called the bluff cattle-guard.


Mr. CLARKE.: What ?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: That is a term sometimes used In a game called poker. This bluff cattle-guard consists of a succession of slats of wood laid lengthwise and just slanting a little bit. It never stops an animal for one instant ; the animal crosses that guard and goes upon the track. It is perhaps a little better than none at all because it is not such a bare-faced slap at the intelligence of the people. It is an attempt to cajole the farmer into the belief that the railway company are trying to comply with the law. And then, we come to the third kind of cattle-guard which is an honest endeavour to meet the law. This is a metal guard which is reasonably sufficient for the purpose. I have seen a number of these guards on the Canada Southern Railway, now known as the Michigan Central Railway, and they are giving very fair satisfaction indeed, but, these cattle-guards are expensive in their installation and they are very few and far between. Notv, we may go further than that because I have in my hand a copy of the brief with which the Canadian Pacific Railway has furnished us,

I may say that if it be arguable whether we have a cattle-guard which is suitable and sufficient, the legislation proposed by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) does not propose any particular kind of cattle-guard, but simply that the law requiring the company to provide suitable and sufficient cattle-guards shall be enforced. Have we got these cattle-guards today ? Let me turn for a moment to this question. Here we have the report of Mr. James Beattie, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and he says :
There are a number of surface cattle -guards on my division giving the best of satisfaction. This out of the mouth of a witness on the other side. He says :
The new surface guard being put in this season, I am satisfied, is all that could be desired. It lias a neat appearance.
That is nice for the cattle and for the farmers.
And I fail to see how stock can possibly get over it. It is a common occurrence for sheep and swine to walk over the stringers across the old pit-guard. This is impossible with new cattle-guard.
There is a witness of their own saying that he has something better than the pit-guard, and he winds up :
I think every point should be strained to keep to the present system of surface cattle-guards.
Mr. Kilpatrick, in his statement, is equally emphatic :
I would therefore recommend the use of surface-guards very strongly, as if properly put in

If properly put in, mark you.
-they are effective for the purpose intended, and do not become a trap endangering life and property.
This cattle-guard now, if properly put in, will meet the requirements of the law and perhaps if we change the law to make it more important for the railways to put this In, the companies will see that the cattle-guards are properly put in. Finally, Mr. Leonard, himself, says :
One of the most effective surface-guards is the ' Sheffield ' in use on some parts of the division, and the Canadian Pacific Railway guard made standard by drawing No. 16702 last year, is reported as giving good satisfaction. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think I have quoted enough to prove by the evidence furnished by the* brief of the Canadian Pacific Railway that the railway companies have to-day in existence a surface cattle-guard which is suitable and sufficient to turn the cattle back, or if we have not got that perfected cattle-guard, we are at least going so rapidly towards it that if we apply the financial spur to the flank of the rather lazy railway horse, he will be put into a gallop that will take him under the wire a winner with a suitable guard as the prize, and I think It is the members of this House who should see that that spur is properly applied. There Mr. THOMPSON.
have been arguments advanced against this law, and one of the strongest and most frequently quoted which I have heard, is that the farmers of this country will to a great extent resort to this means of selling their cattle. I do not think that any one in this House will seriously entertain that idea for a minute. The farmers of this country have now a very good market for their cattle, and I misjudge their decency and public spirit if to any extent they will adopt this means of selling their cattle. But they cannot be sure of making a sale even if they were purposely to turn their cattle on the highway. If one of these animals goes down the road and is killed at the point of intersection with the railway, the owner gets nothing for the animal. In almost every township in the province of Ontario there is a by-law against cattle being allowed to wander at large upon the public highway. This by-law can be enforced by impounding the cattle found on the highway. I maintain that it is only in the season of the year which is dryest that there is any great danger of cattle getting on the railway, and the reason for that is obvious. Cattle, like human beings, often look for pastures green and pastures new, and so it is that cattle, having eaten the last mouthful of grass on their pasture fields, and seeing the pastures green and pastures new on the roadside, break out and go wandering down the road, and it is in this way that they get upon the railway track provided with defective cattle-guards. Now, Sir, this dry season is the very season when the railway companies have their lines patrolled from one end to the other by their section men who are on the constant watch for fires. These men see these cattle at large, they can impound them, and if they do impound them the farmers have to pay the poundage. I maintain, as a man who knows the conditions existing on the farm, that farmers under these circumstances are not going to allow their cattle to wander about. Now, there was some suggestion made as to an amendment of this Bill along the lines of it being necessary for the railway company to show that the farmer is guilty of negligence in order to shift the responsibility from itself to the farmer. An amendment of that kind I would gladly welcome. It seems to me that if the farmer has been negligent, it is only reasonable that he should pay for his negligence and get nothing for his animal, but the railway should be obliged to show that he has been negligent, provided he has first shown that they were entirely negligent In not providing proper railway cattle-guards. It has been said that this is a matter of very great difficulty for the railway company, that the railway should not be asked to prove any such thing, that it will be very hard for the railway to get witnesses from among the farmer's friends to prove that he wittingly and purposely drove his cow on the railway. There are two sides to every question. One

phase of the law is in regard to fires kindled by railways on the property of farmers. The farmer, if a fire is kindled, has not only got to show that the fire.was kindled by the railway, but he has to show that it was kindled negligently by the railway. He has got to show that the engine which has set this fire alight was false in its construction, and by what evidence can he prove that ? He can only prove it by the employees of the railway, each one of whom is afraid of his life to give evidence, for it may cost him his position. If you reverse the case, and ask the railway to prove from the mouths of the farmers that there was negligence on the part of the farmer whose beast was killed, a great hubbub is raised and it is asked : Is this fair and just to the railway ? I do not wish to say much about the objections raised by other members of this House who do not come from the province of Ontario. I believe that this grievance is largely confined to the province of Ontario, and I judge that from the overwhelming majority that was given by the Ontario members in the Railway Committee in favour of this legislation. I think they were almost as four to one. I appeal to the members from other provinces. If this matter is not a grievance with them let them trust to us in Ontario; let them take our opinion and if they see an overwhelming vote in favour of this legislation by the Ontario members, let them be guided by the view of the majority from Ontario and give us a sympathetic vote, even as time and time again in Ontario we have given them sympathetic votes on some matters of local concern to them. Frequently we are guided by the opinion of the North-west members with regard to this or that railway charter, and we ask a return for that confidence from them now. One member from the Territories said he was going to vote against this Bill because it interfered with the Herd law. I do not believe it does. It proposes a change in the existing law and that existing law does not touch the Herd law at all. Another member said that the Bill did not go far enough and that he would vote against it. That member came from a province by the sounding sea. We are content to take half a loaf; it is much better than no bread', and we would be glad of that gentleman's sympathetic vote even though this Bill does not go as far as he would like. For my part, I never yet had so much pleasure in supporting any legislation as in supporting this. I believe the Bill is in everybody's interest. I do not feel that this Bill will be adverse to the interests nf any of those concerned, and I will tell you why. First of all, it is going to be better for the farmer, because if this Bill becomes law he will get paid for his cattle when they are killed by the railway, whereas before he had to go without compensation, which was often a very serious hardship to him. It is going to be better for the travelling public, which so frequent-100
ly has been invoked in this discussion. The farmers, I may mention, are a large percentage of the travelling public. If we pass this legislation the railways will put in suitable and sufficient guards, and there will be fewer accidents than now, and the travelling public will be killed and injured less often. It will be for the benefit of the railways themselves, for the reason that there will be fewer accidents, and consequently less loss to the railways, and in a year or two the extra expense of these cattle-guards will flow back into their coffers two-fold. I will give another reason why it is better for the railway companies.
I believe, as a business man-though I admit of comparatively little experience-that the sentimental aspect of the case must never be forgotten. I do not care how strong a railway is; it is better for it to have the good-will of the people of the country through which it runs than to have their ill will, and I can assure the railway companies that there is a feeling of indignation in many parts of Ontario to-day against them, because the farmers believe they are tyrannized over by the companies. If the railway companies will remove this grievance, that feeling of antagonism would be effaced, and in time to come there would be a better feeling.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, after having talked the matter over with several people, since this Bill came before the House, I reached the conclusion that it was desirable to amend it by adding after the word ' animal,' in the 9th line, the following words : ' without any negligence on the part of the proprietor.' Under the English common law, contributive negligence debars the injured party from any recourse.
If the railway company has neglected to provide the protection required by law, and if the proprietor was guilty of neglect, each must bear Ms loss.
Under our law, farmers are bound to keep their animals off the highway. The proprietor, whose animal was found straying on the railway track, is supposed to have violated the law. They can take and impound the animal found straying on the railway track, and the proprietor has to pay the poundage. But we also know that, despite the greatest care, an animal may escape on the highway, without the farmer being in the least guilty of neglect. Under the law as it is now, he has no right of action. Under the Bill now before the House and by the Bill under consideration, he shall have the right to sue the company, provided he is not guilty of neglect.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Please read your amendment.


Louis Philippe Demers: (Translation.) I propose to amend the clause by adding the following words : * without any neglect on the part of the proprietor.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) In addition to those words, it should be expressly stated that by the fact that the animal was not in charge of a human being, the proprietor is presumed to be guilty of negligence.


Louis Philippe Demers: (Translation.) That presumption already exists ; because the proprietor is always supposed to keep his animals off the highway, and to prevent them from straying on the railway track. Should an animal get on to the railway line and wander about, that is a presumption of negligence on the part of the proprietor.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) You then throw the onus of the evidence on the proprietor of the animal.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I understand that the amendment proposed by the hon. member (Mr. Demers) is to the effect that as a condition precedent to recovering damages, it must be shown that the animal is on the track without any negligence of the owner. I submit that this amendment puts the onus in the wrong place. Here is a railway with an enactment against it requiring it to put in cattle guards suitable and sufficient for a certain purpose, and if it does not put them in it should be liable. I submit that the amendment suggested by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Demers) might be' very harmful, and that a provision to say that the animal must be there without negligence on the part of the owner will lead to interminable lawsuits. While one judge would hold that the fact that the animal was not attended was not negligence, another judge might hold that the farmer would have to prove a certain thing a negative, and shrug his shoulders and say : I do not know how you can prove it, but you have to prove it. I submit that this amendment is not fair. What my hon. friend from Haldi-mand (Mr. Thompson) and I want to be provided, is, that where the railway companies have no cattle-guards they shall be responsible, and to say that a farmer must prove a negative will be making a good deal of trouble in the country and creating lawsuits with the chances against the farmer, whereas my hon. friend (Mr. Thompson) and I want to make the law simple and plain. It is the unattending of the animal that is the whple gist of the matter. If you ask the court to hold that a farmer has to prove that it was without any negligence on his part that the animal got there, probably the court will say : It is pretty hard on you, but there is some evidence of negligence here, or how did your animal come unattended when there is a statute which says your animal must not be unattended within half a mile of a highway' crossing- and which statute I am not interfering with.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If my hon. friend's Bill passes, I understand that the law will be that if an animal gets on to the roadbed of a railway, whatever may Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).
be the negligence of the owner, the presumption will be that the animal is legally and properly' there, and that if an accident occurs, the company' will be liable ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If there is no cattle-guard.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If there is a cattle-guard, assuming the cattle-guard not toi be sufficient, the company' would be liable.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The railway' company would be responsible, unless the company proved negligence on the part of the farmer other than the negligence of letting the animal be at large. That is a negligence, we must admit ; but it is a trivial negligence. It is no such negligence as the railway company would be guilty of by not having a sufficient cattle-guard, and I do not want the big liability to be killed by the smaller and trival one.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if lie considers that there are degrees of negligence ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Certainly there are.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: And they would be so construed in an action ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Certainly there are degrees of negligence. I do not say they would be so construed by a judge in an action ; but I say there would bei proof of the most positive negligence on the part of the railway company, the deliberate breach of a statute which says that it must have a sufficient cattle-guard-a most malicious, or at least wilful negligence; and against that there would be an accidental, trivial negligence on the part of the farmer whose animal happened to be at large. So my hon. friend, if he wants the Bill to be at all fair to the farmer, should provide that the fact that the animal is not attended on the highway, should be no evidence of such negligence. We must admit that the animal will be unattended once in a while, else the Act would not be required; but that fact alone should not be held to be sufficient negligence to prevent the farmer recovering against the railway company.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: 
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Only if tlie railway company itself perpetrates a most wilful negligence.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is not a question of half or semi-negligence ; It is a question .of the public protection. It is a question whether you are going to obliterate this element of protection to the public.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the Minister of Justice if the public interest will not be promoted by compelling the railway companies to keep efficient cattle-guards at then-crossings ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, and I think that is what we ought to seek to obtain; and we shall obtain that if we carry Out the recommendation of the Railway Committee made at the suggestion of the Minister of Railways.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And if we carry that out, there will be nothing done within the next twelve months.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, there will.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It seems to me, representing a city constituency


Samuel Hughes: Don't you let cattle run at large ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: No, we do not let cattle run at large in Toronto. It :seems to me, as I understand the matter, that if an animal gets on the right of way of a railway company, and is killed, the farmer is completely out of court, and has no chance at all to make a good case against the company.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, that is not correct.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The court never gets so far as to ascertain whether the company7 had a proper and efficient cattle-guard at the crossing or not.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Oh, yes, it does.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Perhaps the Minister of Justice will tell us how and when it does ?
I think we ought to legislate not specially in the interest of the farmers or in the interest of the railway company, but in the interest of the public generally; and if the law now requires the railway company to have an efficient cattle-guard at each crossing, I think parliament should insist on that being done. It is a fact, as I have been advised by many lion, gentlemen on both sides of the House, that since the onus of proving that the cattle were not improperly or illegally upon the highway has been placed on the farmers' shoulders, the railway companies have allowed the cattle-guards to deteriorate. One hon. member on the way- from Smith's Falls to Ottawa the other day, told me that he could point 'out several crossings where there were no cattle-guards at all; and if a farmer's cattle,
through accident, strayed out of his field aud got on to the railway right of way and were killed, the. farmer would have no recourse whatever. He would have to prove that the cattle were legally where they were when they were killed, and he could not do that. The lawi as it is at present throws the entire responsibility upon the farmer of proving that the cattle were where they had a right to be, and unless he could do that he would have no recourse against the company. It appears to those who try to look dispassionately at the. matter that there is something wrong with the law as it now stands, and that under it the farmer does not get fair play; and it is an insult to him to say that he desires to have the law amended for the deliberate purpose of letting his cattle on the track in order to have them killed. He can do better by selling them than by trying to collect damages from a railway company, and I do not think that statement should be made again. I am firmly convinced that under the law at present, as it is interpreted by the courts, the farmer does not get fair play. I am in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Lincoln. If it is wrong, a year's experience will show wherein it is wrong, and then, if necessary, we can have it amended and made what it 'ought to be.


David Henderson: In dealing with this matter, my view7 is that we should not endeavour to complicate the question so as to involve a farmer in a lawsuit on every occasion when an animal is killed. We should make the law as clear as possible, so. clear in fact that the farmer himself can interpret it and know whether he can recover damages or not. I believe that the law can be made so clear that there need be no litigation, and with that view I propose to move an amendment to the amendment. Reference has been made by my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) to the old pit-guard. I am not going to discuss that point because I understand that the general public do not approve of this guard. The railways are also very much opposed to it because it has a tendency to weaken the track, and with rapidly running trains, it is next to impossible for the railway companies to continue that style of guard." The law, as it now stands, provides simply for a suitable and sufficient guard. The difficulty is fo determine when a guard is suitable and sufficient. I do not propose to interfere with the wording of the Bill of my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). I am quite satisfied that we should enact every word of it, but I propose to add something, which I think is only fair to all parties concerned. We are not here to legislate in a way that will simply secure damages to a farmer if his animal be killed. What we want is to legislate so as to prevent animals getting on the railway tracks and being killed, and if we can do that we will be doing a great deal

more than simply enabling the farmers to recover damages. We have also the interest of the travelling public to consider, whom we desire to protect, and for whose protec- . tion it is necessary to have an adequate guard. I, therefore, propose to move, in amendment to the amendment, that the following words be added to the Bill :
Provided, however, that no liability shall accrue against any railway company for damages caused at any point where a cattle-guard approved by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council has been erected and maintained.
If a railway company at any time puts in a guard which has the approval of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, then the company is exonerated from all damages should animals be killed. If a farmer should own a horse, accustomed to jump hedges, hurdles and ditches, which would get over the best guard you could devise, you could not expect a railway company to pay damages, should such an animal be killed in spite of all its precautions. Or if a farmer should allow a breachy steer-an animal that ought to be kept in stable at all times- to remain out in the field, and that animal should break through the fences and get over the railway guard the railway company should not be held responsible. I have sufficient confidence in the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to believe that it would only approve of the very best guard that can be obtained, either in this country or the United States or any other country, and the farmers would know that once a railway company had put up a guard of that character they would have no claim for damages. On the other hand the railway companies, having complied with the law, would feel that they had protection against any claims, and this would act as an inducement to them to put up the guard required by the Railway Committee. I can see no other solution of the question than to adopt a standard guard and the Railway Committee of the Privy Council Is the most competent tribunal to decide what that standard should be. If that committee cannot determine this question, no other court can. Once the Railway Committee have decided upon a Standard cattle-guard, the farmers will know just where they stand. I believe that the farmers would then be perfectly satisfied. I have conversed with some of them during the past few weeks on this matter, and I did not find one say that such a law would be unfair. When the best guard that could be found was put in, the railway companies should be protected against damages, but until they complied with the order of the Privy Council they should be held liable. I may be told that the railway companies will not put in a guard. Well, if they will not, they will he liable for all damages, but the moment they do so, they are afforded all the protection that can be demanded by them.


David Henderson: 


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: This question has been so fully discussed that I need hardly say much about it. The fact that so many petitions have been sent to this House during this session from all parts of Ontario is plain proof that the farmers will not be satisfied unless some action is taken by this parliament regarding this cattle-guard business. All points have been discussed, from the farmer's point of view and that of the railways and the travelling public, this evening. Next to the travelling public, the farmers are more interested than any other portion of the community, because their cattle are liable to be killed, and if so, no damages can be recovered by them under the present law. If a proper cattle-guard be erected, as can be done and as has been done before, the travelling public will be sufficiently protected. The travelling public will be safe, because no cattle can get on the railway to be killed, and the farmers will be safe for their cattle will not be killed unless upon the intersection of the highway if they wilfully allow the animals to stray. The farmers are too much Interested in this matter to allow the railways to be unprotected in the manner they have been. The men who man the railway trains, engineers, conductors, firemen and others-nine out of ten of them-are farmer's sons. Moreover, farmers make up a very large proportion of the travelling public. Altogether the farmers are more interested in the safety of the railways, perhaps, than any other class. I think it only right that at this session we should determine that the railways shall place cattle-guards. As it is at present, when a man wishes to drive cattle down the road, as I stated to the committee, he has to take two or three men with Mm to keep the cattle from getting on the track. Cattle driven away seek to return home, and they take the first opening and make a rush hoping to get away from their drivers. If there are no cattle-guards, they get on the track, and if a train comes along, the cattle are killed and the lives of the people in the train endangered. But, if the cattle-guards were there, the cattle would pass on across the track, and would not be killed, nor would there be that risk of killing passengers in the cars. I think this matter should be decided and decided at once.


Mr. LENNOX.: Mr. Chairman


Fletcher Bath Wade: Mr. Chairman


Peter Macdonald: Allow me to put the amendment. Mr. Henderson moves to amend the clause by adding the following words :
Provided, however, that no liability shall accrue against any railway company for damages caused at any point where cattle-guards approved by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council have been erected and maintained. This Bill, to have force and effect from and after the first day of	1902.


David Henderson: April.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Chairman


Fletcher Bath Wade: Mr. Chairman


Haughton Lennox: Who has the floor ?


Peter Macdonald: I was reading the amendment and did not see which of the hon. gentlemen rose first. The last speaker was on that side. The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) has the floor.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Mr. Chairman


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I am bound to assume that these hon. gentlemen are merely standing up and that there is nobody to speak, and therefore-


Peter Macdonald: The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) has the floor.


Haughton Lennox: I wish to call your attention to a point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Haughton Lennox: But I rise to a point of order.


Peter Macdonald: When a point of' order is raised, both hon. members take their seats until it is decided.


Haughton Lennox: But, I cannot state my point of order if I take my seat. The point of order is that I had undoubtedly risen and addressed the Chair, Mr. Chairman, and you asked me to resume my seat until you had read the amendment. I was bound to allow you to read the amendment, and I submit
I had the right-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Haughton Lennox: Allow me to state the point, and if I am wrong 1 will sit down. Mr. COWAN. What is the point ?


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Chairman, I submit that having called that to your attention It is my right-


Peter Macdonald: The hon. member (Mr. Lennox) is perfectly right, and I recall the case now that he has reminded me of it. The hon. member for South Sim-coe (Mr. Lennox) was on his feet when I asked him to sit down.


Haughton Lennox: I wish to call your attention and the attention of the committee to the fact that the amendment read from the Chair was not the amendment as read by the hon. gentleman who moved it, and, therefore, I submit, it is not under discussion. While X have the floor, which seems to be a desirable position to-night, I will make a few remarks, with the permission of the committee. If the amendment of the hon. member for Halton had remained in the form in which he read it. I would be prepared, although it is not exactly what I would like, to support something along that line. Although I do not entirely agree with his view, I think there ought to be some sort of compromise in a matter of that kind.
I do not understand the farmers of this country to ask any more than what is reasonable. and they seldom, in my opinion, ask as much as they are entitled to. Therefore, I think X have the concurrence of the committee in saying that when the farmers do come and ask for something that they really need to redress a grievance, the matter should receive ready consideration at the hands of this committee. That there is a great grievance we need not argue. I think that is admitted on all sides. I wish to say one thing and say it very distinctly, and that is that I repudiate as strongly as I can the accusation made against the farmers by the argument that they want to sell their cattle by driving them or permitting them to go on the track. That argument has been advanced many times, but I think that any hon. member who says that does not understand the farming community in this Dominion. 1 need not say that they are an honest class and that in coming before the committee they are seeking redress for a grievance under which they have laboured for fourteen years-a great deal longer I am bound to say, than they ought to have submitted to it. The question whether there can be any instance in which a farmer could have redress in case his cattle are killed by going on the railway track at a point where there should be a cattle-guard, lias been suggested by the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) I hear every opinion of that hon. gentleman with great deference ; and would have been glad to hear him state any instance where a farmer could recover. But, in the absence of such a statement from the hon. gentleman it will not be deemed presumptuous in me to express my own opinion. From the study I have given the matter, I understand that as the law now is, if there are no cattle-guards and the cattle go down along the track and are killed, the farmer can not possibly recover. And for this reason, which is very plain-that, by the fact of the cattle going down the highway unattended tne law was broken. Therefore, there is no lawyer who would for a moment advise the farmer in such a case to bring action.
We do not need to speculate upon the law in that regard, because the law lias been so decided in more than one case in the province of Ontario, and also in Manitoba. So then we have this fact, that we have a law upon the statute-book which says that the railway company shall have suitable and sufficient cattle-guards, and yet if they do not have them, as they have not had them, they can snap their fingers at the public as well as at the farmers, that they can openly violate the law, and there is no possible redress in case of cattle straying upon the highway and thence upon the railway track. Now that is a matter which I submit cries for immediate redress.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend speaks with a great deal of authority, as coming from Ontario, because these rul-

ings do not apply in the province of Quebec, where we have not the doctrine of contributory negligence. But he says, assuming that the railway company is in default and that the farmer is not, and an animal gets on to the track and is killed-there is no recourse against the railway company. Now let us assume that the farmer is in default, that the railway company has got a suitable cattle-guard, and that the animal gets on the track and is killed, what would be the result in that case ? As I understand the kon. gentleman, he says the farmer is out of court because of contributory negligence. Is that not his opinion ?


Haughton Lennox: Yes, not because of contributory negligence.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: On the doctrine that he has not properly taken care of his animals.


Haughton Lennox: Because it is contrary to the statute, as I understand it. It amounts to the same thing.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Practically the same thing. Now if the railway company meets with an accident and their cars are thrown into the ditch, where is their recourse ?


Mr. BROCK.: None whatever.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It seems to me there are two sides to this question.


Haughton Lennox: My hon. friend has put two or three questions to me.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Take the converse of my hon. friend's case.


Haughton Lennox: In the last case, you say, supposing there is damage to the railway, in what condition do the company stand ?
I may say that if my hon. friend thinks that is a matter for eonsideraaion, it should be attended to. But my hon. friend from Lincoln is dealing with a matter which is specific and clear in itself. But I may tell my hon. friend that if my recollection of the statute is correct, if a farmer through negligence allows his cattle to get upon the railway, he is liable in case damage is done to the company. But coming back to what is more important, the farmer cannot recover at the present time in case cattle go from the highway upon the railway, notwithstanding that the company have been guilty of a direct breach of the statutes. That is the position of the law to-day.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is where both parties are in default.


Haughton Lennox: I am stating what is the fact, I am not inquiring into the cause. The fact and the law are that to-day if a farmer's cattle go upon the highway, whether by accident or design, unattended, and are killed upon the railway, the farmer cannot get any redress.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Nor the railway company either.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Haughton Lennox: One moment. What I say is this, there is a penalty in case the farmer's cattle get upon the highway, that is, he runs a risk of having them killed at the place of intersection, and when they are killed there he has no redress. Now my horn friend says there are two wrongs, and there is a great deal in that argument, but not enough to stop this Bill. The farmer is wrong in having his cattle upon the highway at all, and the railway company are wrong in not having a proper cattle-guard there. Now the question is, what is the proximate and immediate cause ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Apply the doctrine of civil law and you have got an answer.


Haughton Lennox: I am going to apply the doctrine of civil law to my hon. friend if he will wait. Now we have these two wrongs and I submit that the doctrine of the immediate and proximate cause is the one which should govern in a case of this kind. The farmer's cattle getting upon the highway may or may not meet with an accident. If there was a cattle-guard there they certainly would not meet with an accident at the point where they are killed-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If they were not straying they would not be there.


Haughton Lennox: Excuse me, if it were not for the absence of a cattle-guard they would not be killed between the two crossings upon the railway. It is plainly laid down that if a person is negligently crossing a railway track and is not acting with reasonable diligence the railway may not be liable ; yet, if the company couid have averted the consequence of the plaintiff's negligence and did not, the company is liable. Now. if the railway company had done what the law prescribes it would not have been guilty of statutory negligence, and this accident between the two highways never would have occurred. Therefore I say you should compel the railway company to comply with the law, you should say to them, ' We will compel you to comply with the law, and if you do not, then you will be liable in ease cattle are killed between the highway crossings.'


Fletcher Bath Wade: I think this measure is one of the most important that has been brought before parliament this session. It involves not only damage that may be done to cattle struck by a railway train, but damage that may be done to the train itself, and it involves the life of the travelling public and of railway employees. These are matters we must consider when we approach this question. For three days this matter was discussed before the Railway Committee. Upon the last day the Minister of Railways and Canals made a statement, which to my mind seemed most reasonable : it was that the government would undertake during recess to find out what was the best cattle-guard or cattle-guards, and then at the next

session to enact a law compelling all railway companies to put in one or other of these guards. I think that in the discussion of this question one very important provision of the railway law has been entirely overlooked. Section 194 of the Railway Act says :
Fences should be erected and maintained on each side of the railway through such township, of the height and strength of an ordinary division fence, with openings or gates or bars or sliding or hurdle gates of such width for the purpose thereof, with proper fastenings at farm crossings of the railway, and also cattle-guards at all highway crossings suitable and sufficient to prevent cattle and other animals from getting on the railway.
1 mean to say that there is no gentleman who can tell us, that there Is no railway man who can tell us of a cattle-guard which is sufficient to answer the requirements of that section. It is admitted to-day that no cattle-guard has been devised which is sufficient. The nearest approach to it is the old pit-guard and everybody is unanimous in admitting that that guard causes dangers which are far greater than the compensation of the safety to the animal.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Are the words ' suitable ' and - sufficient.'


Fletcher Bath Wade: ' Suitable ' and ' sufficient.' A cattle-guard Is not sufficient that permits an animal to get over it. Under section 271, If cattle are imporperly on the highway and not properly attended and the railway kills them at the point of intersection, the owner has no action. That is where the highway crosses the railway, and experience has shown that if cattle are at large, if they are loose, and if they are upon the point of intersection and the train approaches, in nine cases out of ten, they will not turn to the right or the left, but they will rush madly over whatever obstruction there may be in the shape of a cattle-guard, and upon the line, and it is there that they will be killed. The first thing we have to consider about this statute is that it lays ail impossible burden on the railway company, and whenever an Act lays an impossible burden on an individual or a company, that Act, to a certain extent, becomes nugatory. I submit that the root of the whole evil is in the impossibility of the railway company to comply with the provisions of the law as it stands to-day, and if you are to remedy that evil the Governor in Council, or the Minister of Railways and Canals, or the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, must lay down exactly what shall be a suffcient cattle-guard, giving its dimensions and specifications. Then, in case the company shall put in one of these guards or any such guard as may be prescribed by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, and as it will then be possible for the railway company to comply with the Act, the disposition of parliament would be to force them to do it. There, I submit, is
the root of the whole evil. I submit that the railway law as it stands to-day is nothing more than the common law of England. Here is the obligation resting upon the farmer on the one side to take care of his cattle, here is the obligation resting on tlie railway company to see that reasonable precautions are taken not to let these cattle get upon the line of their railway. If one of these parties neglects the obligation that rests upon him that party is liable for any damages which may result, but if both parties are negligent, then, surely, neither party should have an action against the other. This section is a section which has been in the Act since we have had a railway law. It is true that the phraseology of subsection 3 has been altered, but the only effect of the alteration is to lay a little heavier burden on the railway company. Subsection 3 as it stood formerly was as follows :
Until such fences and cattle-guards are duly made and completed, and if after they are so made and completed they are not duly maintained, the company shall he liable for all damages done by its trains and engines to cattle, horses and other animals, not wrongfully on the railway.
The amendment of 1890 makes use of different phraseology and says that :
If the company omits to erect and complete, as aforesaid, any fence or cattle-guard, or if, after it is completed, the company neglects to maintain the same as aforesaid, and if, in consequence of such omission or neglect any animal gets upon the railway from an adjoining place where, under the circumstances, it might properly be

That is the only difference, and I submit a careful consideration of that amendment shows that it lays a heavier burden on the railway company. Now, the amendment which has been proposed here by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) proposes, in effect, to say that in so far as railway crossings are concerned-he does not deal with fences, or any neglect so far as fences are concerned-but so far as cattle-guards are concerned, cattle shall not be considered improperly in an adjoining place simply because they are at large upon the highway. In other words, it would leave the law in the position that there is a provision which the company cannot perform. The company cannot put a cattle-guard there which would be a sufficient obstruction to cattle going upon their line. Then, if cattle going along the highway pass over this guard which is not sufficient to keep them away and they are killed, the company is liable in every case, no matter whether the cattle of the fanner were upon the highway by the grossest negligence on his part or not. I say that as between the company and the farmer it is not a fair or just provision, and it is proposed to change one of the safest principles of common as well as railway law. Then, there is the trainman upon the engine, or on the car. Has he anything

to do with this cattle-guard ? Has he anything to do with these cattle that are running at large, and yet his life is jeopardized, as are also the lives of the travelling public, because there are all manner of disasters which may overtake them. I read in the newspapers the other day of a cow which strayed near a station in the vicinity of Toronto, was struck by a locomotive, hurled against a carpenter who was at work nearby, breaking Ills back and killing him. Although that cow was at large through the gross negligence of the owner, we would have this state of affairs that here is a man killed by this cow being at large through negligence, yet the owner can recover damages against the railway company. I think I am in a position to speak with some slight authority upon this question. In the first place, I was born and bred on a farm, and in the next place, I have the honour to represent a county which is largely agricultural, through which, from one end of it to the other, a railway passes, another railway crosses within nine miles of its entire breadth, and still a third railway is being built. I have had some experience in operating a railway, having operated a railway for some six or seven years under an order of the court, and I make the statement with all deference to lion, gentlemen who have expressed contrary opinions that it would be a matter of the greatest misfortune. not only to the travelling public but to the farmers themselves, if we were to adopt this amendment to the Railway Act. I am sure that the farmers in my county and that the farmers in Nova Scotia do not demand anything of the sort. They are reasonable enough to see that the only way you can have safety is by keeping the burden on both sides. Hold the farmers to their duty, hold the farmers to the exercise of ordinary care and diligence in keeping cattle off the track, and hold the railway company to its duty in maintaining cattle-guards.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman (Mr. AA'ade) says : Hold the railway company to its duty. How are the railways bound by any obligation ? How are the railway companies liable if they do not put in cattle-guards ?
Mr. AA'ADE. I have read the section and the hon. gentleman has seen it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I read the section also, but I asked the hon. gentleman (Mr. AA'ade) to state a case if he can where the railway would be liable if they had not a cattle-guard.	[DOT]


Fletcher Bath Wade: I could state many such cases. In any municipality where there is no (by-law prohibiting cattle! running at large, the owner of the cattle would have an action against the company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: At common law they could not run at large.


Fletcher Bath Wade: 


Fletcher Bath Wade: The principle of the common law in most of the provinces is, that the owner of the cattle must fence them in. The opposite, however, prevails in my province, and cattle are allowed to run at large unless there is a by-law of the municipality against it. I think, by their civil code, the province of Quebec is iu the same position as under the common law in England in that regard. But mark you; we are making a law here not only for Ontario and Quebec and the maritime provinces, but for the whole Dominion, and for that vast section of country where cattle roam at large month after month. If you pass this law, then if a railway company had not cattle-guards over the prairie sections, the owner of a herd of cattle which is allowed to roam at large, could recover from the railway company if his cattle were killed. A railway company cannot fence along its line in the prairie sections, and so if you pass this law it will be absolutely unworkable in some parts of the Dominion, and it would land the farmers of the country in chaos, confusion and litigation.


Mr. AVERY.: If a farmer .is driving liis cattle along a road taking them to market, and they get on a railway track and they are killed because there is no cattle-guard; what recourse has the farmer under the present law ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: Under section 271; if he is driving cattle along a road he is required to have them in charge of some person who is reasonably capable of managing them, and if be does that and his cattle are killed on the railway track through the waut of a cattle-guard, the railway company is liable under the law as it stands to-day. That is a fair provision. The owner should have his cattle in charge of one reasonably capable of managing them, and if through his negligence in not complying with that provision his cattle are killed, he should be responsible for the damages that he sustains. One of the first cases that I have to try at the approaching session of court is an action brought by myself for a client against a railway company, for the value of a herd of cattle which were killed on a line of railway. 1 have advised my client that he is able to recover against the railway company. I say that every protection is here in the Act if we eliminate the word ' sufficient ' from the section we are now considering. If the government prescribed one or more cattle-guards and said that these cattle-guards would be ' sufficient,' then I say that we will have met the whole difficulty.
Now, we come to this question of a sufficient cattle-guard. I listened with great attention to the very excellent speech made by my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson). He discarded the pit-guard, and I believe we all agree that the day of the old piDguard is gone, but we have to search around to ascertain what is the best guard.

31S6


Edward Frederick Clarke: What kind of guard is now most largely used in the maritime provinces V


Fletcher Bath Wade: The old pit-guards are used on the old lines of railway, but the guard which is in most general use on the new lines, and which is deemed to be the best for all practical purposes, is what is called the gridiron.


Mr.   CLARICE@: What is used on the main line of the Intercolonial Railway ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: They have the old pit-guards which were originally put in, but I understand these have been changed wherever a new one is required and the gridiron is substituted.


Mr. SCHELL.: Is this gridiron guard made of iron or wood ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: It Is made of wood. There is a large gridiron guard with spikes in it, but that lias been found to injure the cattle, and the gridiron which has been found to work fairly well is made of wood, but it is not a sufficient guard because it does not keep the cattle off the track in all cases. Let me tell my hon. friend that the man who to-day would invent a sufficient cattle-guard which would comply with the provisions of section 94. would be a millionaire to-morrow, because I have not the slightest doubt that every railway in the Dominion would be anxious to adopt it. It is not fair to say that railway companies do not care whether the guards are there or not. To assume that, we would have to assume that the companies are utterly regardless as to whether they destroy the property of others or not; we would have to assume that they are callous as to whether they destroy life or not, and we would also have to assume that they are regardless of the destruction of their own property. The amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has a great deal in it to commend itself to my judgment. After all, it is only the proposition that was put by the Minister of Railways before the committee the other day, when he said he would undertake on behalf of the government to ascertain by commission or otherwise the examination of all cattle-guards in use on the continent of 'America if necessary, and when one or more of the best guards were selected ha would undertake to introduce an Act next session requiring the railway companies to put in the prescribed guard. Some hon. gentlemen may say :	How are you to compel the railway companies to put in that guard. That is the easiest thing in the world. You can provide, that if they do not put the guard in within a certain time after the passage of the Act they shall be liable to a penalty for every day of such neglect, and the penalty can be made so high that they must put in the required guard. You could make them liable for damages if you will, but I hate interfering
with the well known principle of common law. We could accomplish the result by making the railway companies liable for heavy penalties to be recovered by any person suing. If that be done we will remedy the wrong complained of by the farmers.
I will take the responsibility that such a provision will be absolutely satisfactory to the farmers I represent. If we do that we will be compelling the railway companies to do what they should do. We will have then dealt fairly between the railway company and the farmers, and in dealing fairly between the two we will have had due regard for the safety and interests of the travelling public and the men who are employed upon the trains.


Haughton Lennox: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) explain to the committee what he means by saying that he will take the responsibility that it will be satisfactory .


Fletcher Bath Wade: I said :	Before my constituents in my own county. I suppose almost any gentleman would understand what I meant by that, gome hon. MEMBERS. Almost.


Mr. GILMOTJR.: In view of the fact that I represent a rural constituency and that I have had petitions sent to me with regard to this matter which I presented to this House, I wish to say a few words on this question. A lot of energy has been wasted to-night in trying to show that the law as it stands with regard to protection at railway crossings is not sufficient. I think it is generally conceded that the law at present is not sufficient, and that it is against the interests of the farmers of Canada. But it is needless for us to say that the law as it stands is not sufficient and that it should be amended as proposed by the hon. member for Lincoln, becuse if we amended it in that way we would just be putting it as far wrong the other way. The railway company should be placed in the same position as an individual. I do not think there is an hon. gentleman here who would say that they ought to be put in a worse position than an individual. Under our present municipal law. it enables individuals to establish what is called a lawful fence ; and if an individual puts up a lawful fence, he is absolved from any consequences that may come from that, and he can collect damages should his neighbours' cattle get over such. So with a railway company. They ought to be given the opportunity of putting up a lawful fence, and if they do that, they should be absolved from any consequences. But, under the proposal of the hon. member for Lincoln, no matter what kind of a fence the railway company should put up, if anything should happen they would perhaps be held liable. I do not think any hon. member of this House would say that is fair. I go further and say I do not think there is a farmer in the country would say that is fair. The farmers of this

country do not wish to put even a railway company in a worse position than they would desire to be put themselves. That is my position clearly in this matter. I do think the government ought to take this subject in hand, and declare what would be a lawful fence, so that the company would be put on a fair footing with other individuals. The hon. member for Lincoln deserves credit for bringing this matter forward, and I understand that the government next session are prepared to take it up and deal with it, and I think he ought to accept the statement that they will do something to put it in that position. I think his Bill might be so amended as to provide that a legal fence would be declared by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, and a certain date might be fixed when the law would come in force and by which time the railway company would be absolved from blame if they put up such a fence.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I occupy a somewhat similar position to that of the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat. I have not any doubt that there exists a grievance and that by reason of the law as it at present stands. But I also think that by reason of an agitation which has been propagated throughout the province of Ontario by a newspaper, and by reason of the fact that certain hon. members of this House have been given by that newspaper a certain prominence and have obtained a certain kudos, the question has been unduly pressed, and they have apparently been afraid lest they would lose that kudos if they would accept any fair or reasonable compromise which might be suggested. It may be charged that, because I was referred to in terms anything but flattering by that newspaper last week, I speak as I do now. But I repudiate the charge before it is made. Perhaps it will be said that is because I have an uneasy conscience ; but I repudiate this because I took the same position at the time it was proposed that this question should be disposed of in the House, and not referred to the Railway Committee, which was before the newspaper article appeared, that I would not stigmatize myself as a member of that Committee by saying that that body was not capable of dealing, or would not properly deal with the question. When the measure first came before the Railway Committee, I feared I would not be able to be present when it would be disposed of, and I spoke on that occasion saying that if an amicable arrangement could not be arrived at, and the railway companies would not accept any compromise, I would be prepared to support the hon. member for Lincoln's Bill ; and I still occupy that position. The newspaper to which I refer did not give me credit for saying that; but said that the member for North Simcoe was a runaway. Therefore I feel it necessary to state now the position which I occupy. I agree entirely Mr. GILMOUR.
with the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour) that there is a grievance, but that by legislating as the hon. member for Lincoln suggests, we would make the law go as far in the opposite direction as it does in favour of the railways at present. If that is_ the case, and if after three days' discussion in the Railway Committee and two or three hours' discussion here. hon. members cannot reach a fair and reasonable compromise, though both sides agree that a fair and reasonable compromise is possible, the difficulty must be to put it into proper words. What is the grievance ? Only that a certain standard cattle guard is not maintained. If a standard cattle guard can be got, which is capable of keeping cattle off the railways, and that cattle guard is maintained, then the grievance is obviated and the difficulty is removed. Now, it is said that the Act as it stands at present does not arrive at that result, and in that I entirely agree, because unless the cattle, when on the highway, are in charge of an individual, it is held that they are not properly there. Consequently, the railways have in no way kept up their cattle guards. But as the Minister of Justice puts it, if the cattle, through the negligence of the.farmer, being the first step of negligence, get upon the highway, and stray further, and then get upon the railway, then it is said that the farmer should profit by his negligence. I do not think he should ; and in this I entirely agree with the hon. member for East Middlesex, who himself is a farmer, and who knows the feeling of the farmers. I have also had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the farmers of my constituency, and they entirely agree with what he says, that no farmer desires that farmers as a community should be allowed to take advantage of their own negligence. Nor do the railway companies I should hope, desire to take advantage of their negligence. If they do it is our duty to legislate so that they should not. But surely it is possible to arrive at a compromise whereby the farmer and the railway company should be on the same basis as individuals, and the law should be as fair towards the one as it is towards the other. If we agree in that, why should not some fair compromise on these lines be drafted ?
It seems to me that the English language is not so barren that a fair compromise cannot be framed ; and I am informed-the hon. member for Lincoln will correct me if I am wrong-that when his Bill was under discussion before the Railway Committee on the third occasion, on which occasion unfortunately I was not present, it was suggested that the matter should be referred to a sub-committee, composed of seven on one side nominated by himself, and five on the other side. Seven members to be appointed by himself and five members representing the opposite view, and he would not accept that proposition.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is not correct I have never heard of it before.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Then I must have been misinformed. At all events, amendments [DOT]were submitted along the lines of the suggestion made by myself on the first occasion the Bill was before the committee, and the hon. member would not agree to anything of the kind. Am 1 correct in. that ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: An amendment was suggested by .one of the members from Essex-I think the hon. member for South Essex. I argued, as I have done to-night, that the fact that the animal was unattended should be no presumption of negligence, and I did so with regard to the clause suggested, namely, that a farmer could only recover when there was no negligence on his part. If it were provided that the fact of an animal being unattended was no presumption of negligence, I was willing to accept the clause proposed, but I did not know that the hon. member for North Simcoe had anything to do with it, and I have not seen any proposition of the kind to-night.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The information that came to me was that tile hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) had either conveyed or was asked to have conveyed a message to my hon. friend from Lincoln to the effect that a sub-committee should be appointed to be composed of seven members, selected by my hon. friend himself, and five holding the contrary view, to deal with the measure. He would then have the thing in his own hands, and the sub-committee would be bound to report. But of course, if that message did not reach him, I have nothing more to say on that point. But it seemed to me that this difficulty must be worked out on the basis of compromise, and I thought it unreasonable on the part of my hon. friend not to have accepted the offer which I supposed was made. X come now to the other suggestion, to which my hon. friend from Lincoln has referred, and for whicli I 'do not claim any credit. It was that if the cattle got on the road by reason of the negligence of its owner, he could not recover ; and I admit that the further suggestion of my hon. friend was a good one, and I think that if those holding opposite views could be got together, a compromise could be arrived at to the effect that if in the opinion of a court or a court and jury, if the case is tried by a judge and jury, the owner of the animal was found guilty of negligence, he should not recover, but that the fact of an animal being unattended on the highway should not be taken as a presumption of negligence. If such an amendment as that meets with the approval of the hon. gentleman, it seems to me the difficulty is removed. That I think would be a solution of thef difficulty, satisfactory to both sides, but should it be impossible to arrive amicably at a reasonable arrangement and no compromise be arrived at, I am prepared to support the Bill of my hon. friend from Lincoln.


Andrew B. Ingram: In view of the number of amendments put forth to-night and the statement made by the hon. Minister of Railways in the committee, I think that we ought to have some statement from some member of the cabinet, in the absence of the Minister of Railways, as to whether or not the government are prepared to carry out the promise made by that hon. minister in the committee. In my judgment, it would be in the interest, not only of the farming community but of the travelling public, that this matter should be seriously considered before any legislation be passed affecting it. It is not fair to say that hon. gentlemen who may take a different view from those who slip-port this measure is opposed to any legislation that will remove the difficulty. I do not think that there is an hon. gentleman in this House who is opposed to legislation on this matter that will relieve or remedy the grievaupe. We are all agreed on that point, but where we disagree is as to what is the best way to remedy the grievance and do away with the complaints of the farmers. It has been stated here that this is to be an amendment to the General Railway Act of Canada and is to apply to the different provinces throughout the Dominion. But when we hear men from Manitoba and the North-west Territories and the other provinces outside of Ontario say that this Bill does not meet their views, it seems to me that it is the duty of the government and especially of the Minister of Railways to make a thorough investigation and so amend the Act that it will meet the requirements of all concerned. No doubt the railway companies have been more or less negligent in the matter, and where they have been negligent the head of the Railway Department should see as far as possible that they carry out the law. The fact of cattle roaming at large and causing accidents on lines of railway has been pointed out, and no doubt in such cases the farmers cannot claim any damage for the loss of their cattle. But, on the other hand, are not the consequences far more serious than the loss of cattle, when, in consequence of cattle thus roaming at lai'ge, they are struck by railway trains, and damage is done to the property of railway companies and the lives of travellers imperilled and injured and sometimes lost ? All the cattle-guards from here to the Pacific coast will not prevent accidents of that kind. The animals are on the highway, through the negligence of their owners, and by reason of that negligence loss of life occurs and great damage to railway property, so that the actual plafcing of a cattle-guard would not prevent accidents in that way. But the great difficulty of passing legislation in this House is that you may possibly, if you are not very careful, frame it of such a character that it will make the farmer more negligent than he is, and thereby cause great danger to the travelling public as well as the property of the railway company. I can speak from my railway experience, and

1 have known of many incidents, in which, by reason of the negligence of those who own stock throughout the country, serious accidents have occurred, and therefore I look upon this question as a very important one which should be seriously considered by the head of the Railway Department before any action can be taken. If the first minister will say that they are prepared to thoroughly investigate this matter and bring down legislation next session that vvill remedy the grievance, 1 am prepared to support the government in that course. But if they are not prepared to make any such declaration, I will have to be guided on other lines entirely, but until I have their declaration I am not prepared to state what course I shall take now.


Mr. PRINGLE.: 1 was on the sub-committee last year that was appointed to consider this Bill. 1 took the view then that it was not one which should become law. One of the reasons I gave has been pretty well gone into, and that is that while it holds the railway corporation liable for negligence, it relieves the other party, no matter what negligence he may be guilty of. When tills Bill came up this year, I proposed an amendment on these lines, namely, that we should insert the words ' Without any negligence on the part of the owner or person in charge of the cattle.' That amendment did not seem acceptable to the promoter of the Bill, and after considerable discussion, the hou. Minister of Railways and Canals said that if it were allowed to stand over until the next year, some steps would be taken to see that sufficient cattle-guards were placed, where necessary, by the railway companies. Now I take the view that what we all desire is not only the safety of the cattle but the safety of the public, and that safety we will best provide by having the most efficient cattle-guards that can be procured.
In the year 1900 on some 18,000 miles of railway in the Dominion of Canada upon which there were 21,500,000 passengers carried, there were only seven persons killed through accident-less than one for every three millions of passengers carried. That is creditable not only to the railway corporations of this country, but also to the farmers, that they, on their part, have observed the law and kept their cattle from running at large on the highway. For, on looking at the statistics for the United States of America, I find that there were 530 accidents through cattle getting on the railway track. I say we should legislate in the interests of the great public Of which the farmers form very much the largest portion; and we should not put upon the statute-book any measure which would be a retrograde measure and open the door, if I may use that word, for accident. For, as this Bill is framed, it would induce men to be careless and. perhaps, to permit their cattle to run at large, knowing that no matter how care-Mr. INGRAM.
less they had been, if the judge or jury say the cattle-guard is not sufficient they would recover damages. I am very sorry the Minister of Railways is not here to-night, for I would like him to make the statement in the House which lie made in the committee. It was upon that statement that I voted to let the matter stand over until next session, because I believe that what we want is a proper cattle-guard, the best possible cattle-guard that we can obtain. And we want it left to the Minister of Railways or the committee to say what is a proper and sufficient guard. We find that, in the United States of America, the railway commissions of the different states inspect the cattle-guards and decide what is, or is not sufficient guard. If they pronounce the cattle-guards sufficient, that is the end of it. But, if this Bill were to become law, we should be in a difficulty as to whether a cattle-guard was sufficient or insufficient, judges or juries in different places taking different views. Therefore, I take it that it is in the interest of the public and in the interest of the farmers themselves that this Bill should be left in the hands of the government, that is, if the government assure us that they will take it up and give it every consideration, and come down next session with a Bill that will give the relief that is looked for.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: When I hear the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour) and tlie lion, member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), for whom I have the very highest respect, and who understands the position of the farmers in Ontario mucli better than others who are speaking more strongly for them, I am bound to say that it is evident opinion is not all one way. There is no cyclone in this matter; there is no reason why we should not take time to consider what we are doing. As both these hon. members said, we must look at the case fairly. The difficulty with a number of gentlemen who have spoken is that, under the fearful pressure of a number of people clamouring for a change in the law, they have forgotten that they were going to pass an Act of parliament, and have substituted this clamour and their own feelings in response to it, for the legal words and the legal facts


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where is the clamour in this Bill ? If it is not in proper legal phraseology, will the hon. gentleman point out where it fails ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The clamour is from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) and he is substituting his clamour


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Let me ask the hon. gentleman if he did not say that we had introduced mere clamour into this legal document ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I said they were substituting this clamour to give an appearance

of strength to tlieir speeches instead of considering the cold words of an Act of parliament. You could not put clamour into an Act of parliament.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I thought the hon. gentleman said we had.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I was about to refer to what the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) said. He called upon the members from the lower provinces, because this was an Ontario matter, to join him. Does he want us to do violence to the principles of common law because there are people in Ontario who wish it ? If the hon. gentleman wants that, he should provide that this Act shall apply only to Ontario; and, then, if Ontario is unanimously for it, I will not say a word against it. Now, we in the lower provinces have a fair number of miles of railway. Yet I have not received a single letter in support of this Bill, nor have I seen a single word about it from my own portion of the country. I have no doubt the difficulty arises In Ontario, and perhaps elsewhere. But we should never forget, as the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) has so well said, that it would be idiotic for us to remedy one difficulty merely by creating another. Legislation" should be designed to remove difficulties, not to create new ones, that, perhaps, would be worse than the others. Wise men will seek to lessen a difficulty, or do away with it if possible, but will not pass legislation that will merely irritate the other side and create a difficulty greater than the cure. So, as one member from the lower provinces, I cannot accept the flattering invitation of the hon. member for Haldimand that, because he and others want it we should support this amendment to the law. We must consider what the effects of the change would be, not in Ontario only, but elsewhere. It seems to me that this would put the farmer in a position of unfair advantage, and as the hon. member for East Middlesex said, there is no farmer in Canada who wants that. It is not necessary for us to talk about the farmers being honest; the farmers of Canada need no defenders here or elsewhere. Under the wording of this Act, it would be possible for any man to recover whose cattle were killed. Even the present law is mixed up with this phrase of ' suitable and sufficient,' but if you will read the words as they appear in this Bill :
And no animal not allowed by law to run at large shall be held for the purpose cf such liability to bo improperly on a place adjoining the railway if such animals get upon the railway from the highway by reason of such omission or neglect to maintain such cattle-guards or fences at the highway crossing.
In connection with this, you must read ' by reason of neglect to maintain such suitable cattle-guards or fences.' That, it appears to me. would make it almost impossible to defend any action, and I do not
think any hon. gentleman would want that.
I think we should accept what the Minister of Railways has said. But, if that is not accepted, i will vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Halton, for that is the next best thing in my opinion. I would not have taken up time but that I wished the committee to understand that we who come from the lower provinces can look at this question not only from the point of view of our own provinces, but from the point of view of the general effect of this statute.


Jacob Thomas Schell: I come from a county through which three railroads run the fastest trains probably in the Dominion of Canada. Upon this question of cattle-guards there has been a good deal of feeling' amongst the farmers on account of the number of cattle killed. I have a number of letters which I could read from farmers who have had cattle killed, and are unable to get any recompense from the companies. The discussion this evening has turned largely on the question of negligence. Now I will cite a case to show how far the farmers are justified .in complaining of the law as it stands at present. Mr. W. D. McCrim-mon, of Glenroy, on the Canadian Pacific Railway line, writes that one stormy night liis fences were blown down, the cattle came from the rear of the farm, passed down the road, and got on the track, and laid down on the track, and six thoroughbred cattle were killed toy a train before morning ; and he could get no recompense for those cattle because they were illegally on the track.


Andrew B. Ingram: Supposing the train was thrown from the track and several lives lost, who would he liable then ?


Jacob Thomas Schell: I am merely discussing the question of negligence. Was that a case of negligence ? I think that was a case where the railroad were clearly liable under the law, because if they had had a sufficient cattle-guard those cattle would not have got on the track and would not have been killed. I believe that in 90 percent of the cases where cattle are killed it is in the night time when they have -strayed upon the track in that way. There are very few cases indeed where cattle get upon the track in broad daylight. The root of the matter, as the member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) says, is the question of the sufficiency of the cattle-guard. So far as the farmers are concerned it is usually in the might time that their cattle get upon the track, and through no negligence of their own. Railroad men will almost invariably tell you that very few cattle get upon the track in the day time. They do not feed upon the track, but upon the side of the track. In the night time, if they get on the track, they lie on it because it is a warm place. I think the law should be made to protect the farmer whose cattle, by no negligence of his own, break out of the field and stray upon the track. Another

question we have to consider is the sufficiency of the cattle-guard. The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) read extracts from the railroad people to show that they used efficient cattle-guards. Some railroads claim they have sufficient cattle-guards when they have only a few wooden slats laid upon the track. The member for Annapolis spoke about a gridiron cattle-guard. That gridiron cattle-guard is used in the United States to-day, and is recognized as sufficient by the law, but it is made of steel. The Canadian Pacific Kailway had a large number of thse steel gridiron cattle-guards upon their track, and *so did other roads in this country, but they were expensive, ami so they substituted for the steel gridiron cattle-guards a few six inch boards put down upon the track which would allow any animal to walk over. The law said the company was not obliged to pay for animals that went upon the track so long as they had a semblance of a cattle-guard, so long as they had a few boards there. That was considered sufficient under the law to .protect the company from liability if cattle strayed upon the track and got killed. These facts are well known to every railroad man. The gridiron cattle-guard made of steel is to-day practically an effective cattle-guard, but it is an expensive one, and it was dispensed with because the law admitted as sufficient a few cheap boards put down as a cattle-guard which would cost 75 cents, whereas the other kind would cost $20. That is the kernel of the whole matter. If the railroads had these gridiron steel cattle-guards in use we would not have this discussion to-night.


Melzar Avery: A good deal has been said *on both sides with regard to what eonsti-tutes a sufficient cattle-guard. I think it is high time we should amend the law and put it in such a shape that the people will know when they have a sufficient cattle-guard. It has been said that if a- man is driving cattle over the road and they get killed, the owner can recover from the company. That is not the case. There was a case where the judge decided that if a man was in charge of the cattle, that was sufficient to protect the owner, and there being no cattle-guard on the railway and the cattle being killed, the owner had no recourse I think the motion of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) should be adopted, as I think that will protect the farmers of this country.


David Henderson: Exception has been taken to the amendment which I introduced, because I failed to read the latter portion of it. I was under the impression that in committee it was not necessary for a member to read his amendment, but that 'it was the Chair who read the amendment in putting it. Therefore in my opinion the amendment is properly before the House even though I failed to read the last Tew words.. My intention was :to fill in the
date with the 1st day of April, 1903, and when motion is put from the Chair. I would like those words to go in, in order to allow tlie railway companies time to comply with the requirements of the Act. 1 am sure the committee will be reasonable in a matter ot that kind. No hon. member would expect the railway companies to be prepared to-morrow, or in two weeks, to put in the guards which the Railway Committee of the Privy Council might decide upon. They must have reasonable time, and we must as reasonable men, deal in a reasonable way with the companies. It was suggested by the member for Annapolis that my amendment was along the line of what was suggested by the Minister of Railways and Canals in the committee. 1 think it is somewhat different. In the Railway Committee I had my amendment prepared, but I did not catch the eye of the Chairman soon enough, and another suggestion was made before I could read my amendment. My amendment was different from that suggested by the Minister of Railways and Canals, in that I proposed immediate legislation. 1 favoured that, because the petitions that were sent in this year asked for legislation this session, and my desire was to comply with the prayer of those petitions. Consequently I moved an amendment in the Railway Committee, but it was held that I was not in order at the time. Perhaps X was not, I did not find fault with that ruling. Rut I take the opportunity of moving it here. Now I desire to say here that impolicy is a standard guard. 1 am not so particular how that standard is obtained. I would call that a solution of this difficulty.
I would prefer that it should be obtained along the line I have suggested. I thiuk that would be .the better and the more acceptable way. I think this the more speedy way, because, before parliament could be able to pass an Act next year, we would have these guards put in by the railway companies, and if the railway companies did not put them in, they would become liable under the Bill of the hon. member for Lincoln. If I cannot secure a standard guard in that way I am not going to oppose the policy of securing a standard guard in any way as soon as possible.


Jacob Thomas Schell: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Under the circumstances and in view of the opinion of a good many hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, I think it perhaps would be the best I could do in the interests of the country, as I understand the country's interests to accept the amendment of .the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson). It seems to me, that if not quite the same thing that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon Mr. Blair) has suggested, it is almost the same thing and the difference is that we get a certainty now instead of an uncertainty, not meaning to impute for >a moment that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals would not carry out next year what

he intends to, bnt there is, as the hon. member for Halton has said, a great demand at present for a certainty in regard to this question, and I think the country will not be satisfied with any promise that may mean anything or nothing as far as practical results are concerned. Having in view the fact that the hon. member for Halton, as it seems to be understood by members on both sides of the House, adopted the main part, or the gist of the contention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals when he provides that if there is a standard guard provided the company shall not be liable under the amendment which I am asking the House to pass, I think the House will say that I have accepted as reasonable a compromise as I could be asked to accept understanding the rights of the parties to be as I have understood them to be. The effect will be that a company will be liable until that standard guard is put in and not liable afterwards if the standard guard is put in and maintained. The Act will not go Into force until April next; that is practically what the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals undertook to do next year. I can see no objection that he can make to putting that in this year provided that it does not go into force until next year. We get practical legislation through and are really carrying out what a great majority of hon. members want. It will suit the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour), it will suit the hon member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) and I think it will suit the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser), although he did not go so far as these other hon. gentlemen in saying what would suit him, while he was arguing for a compromise. I hope it will suit the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), because he says that we are compromising in the sense that we let the railway company off if they provide what the Railway Committee of the Privy Council has said is a proper guard. Provided that they do that I think it is fair that they should be let off if the guard is .sufficient. I think therefore they all ought to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Halton and be unanimous for once this session.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: It is admitted on all sides .that there is an evil from which the farming community is suffering at this moment, an evil which the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) is trying to remedy by the Bill to which he has called the attention of the committee. But, at the same time, it seems to me to be admitted on all hands, also, that the remedy provided by this Bill is not adequate and will not meet the object which it is intended to serve. This proposition has been made to me very clear by the speeches of my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), my hon. friend from Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour) and my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Fraser),
gentlemen for whom I have the highest respect and who can speak with authority upon such questions. It has been made clear that the farming community do not want to have one-sided legislation. They want legislation which will work both ways and which provides that the company shall perform their duties and that the farming community should perform their duties also. Such being the case, I may call the attention of the House further to the fact that it seems to me, that, at this moment, my hon. friend from Lincoln is scarcely in order in the proceeding which he asks the committee to adopt. I will call the attention of the committee to the rules of the House upon this subject. This is a private Bill introduced by the hon. member for Lincoln.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, a public Bill.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is a public Bill, but to serve an object as to which the procedure applied is the procedure of a private Bill. Certainly, it is a public Bill. It has been referred to the Railway Committee of the House. That Bill was read a second time with the distinct reservation that the House would not commit itself to the principle of the Bill, but that the principle of the Bill should be discussed by the Railway Committee, and that we should receive the report of the Railway Committee before we committed ourselves to the principle of the Bill. Now, I find that this Bill was not reported on favourably by the Standing Committee on Railways :
Your committee have had under consideration Bill No. 2, an Act respecting telephone companies, Bill No. 3, an Act to amend the Railway Act, and Bill No. 28, an Act respecting telegraph and telephone companies, and recommend that the said Bills be not further proceeded with during the present session.
That is the report which we have before us, and my hon. friend altogether ignores this report. He has not even, so far as 1 have been able to follow the discussion, and I have followed it with a great deal of care, and I do not recollect that the hon. gentleman has referred to this report.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In moving the House into committee I did.


The PRIME MINISTER.: In a very casual way, but he has not moved to have the report set aside. While he stated that the report of the committee made certain recommendations the recommendation was that the Bill should not be proceeded with this session. He has ignored this, has put it aside and has asked the committee to proceed with the Bill as if the Bill had been reported upon favourably by the Standing Committee on Railways and Canals. I suppose if the Railway Committee had reported favourably be would have said that the Bill should have been taken clause by clause and section by section by this com-

mittee and that the Bill should be accepted. Now, my hon. friend proposes that we should do the same thing. There is no difference whatever in his procedure to day. If the report of the Railway Committee had been favourable to his Bill he would have proceeded just as he is proceeding now, he would have asked that the Bill be taken section by section and approved by the House. But, the report has been against him. The Railway Committee have not reported the Bill, but have recommended to the House that the Bill should not be proceeded with this session. He puts that aside altogether, he does not take it into account and he asks the committee to pass the Bill as if the Bill had been reported favourably by the committee. What shall we do with this report ? What is the object of it ? Why did we refer this Bill to the Railway Committee ? We referred it to the Railway Committee to have the opinion of the Railway Committee upon the subject. The opinion of the committee is that we should not proceed with the Bill this session. For my part I have always maintained that the best course for the House, is to support its committee unless very strong reasons can be shown to the contrary. I am informed that the reason why the committee would not entertain the Bill this year was because of the statement made by my colleague the Minister of Railways : that in his opinion the best way to deal with the question was not to support the legislation presented by the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) but to decide first what proper cattle-guards are and then to say that they shall be adopted. The Minister of Railways reported to me that he had stated to the committee that during the recess he would take means to collect information as to the best cattle-guards in existence; that he would appoint experts to ascertain that, and that next session he would introduce legislation dealing with the matter. In fact that matter was arranged between us beforehand and the Minister of Railways spoke by authority of the government. The pledge which the Minister of Railways took before the committee, I now take on behalf of the government before the House. We shall during the recess employ experts and collect information to find out what is the best cattle-guard that can be devised, and we shall then undertake to deal with the question. 1 think that is the best course which can be followed under the circumstances, and I would submit it to the approval of my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson). This is a very important question, and a question which should be carefully considered. For my part, I am strongly of the opinion that the legislation now before us, will fail of its object, and I agree with my hon. friend from Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour) that the best way is to provide that the railway companies shall have the best cattle-guards. I submit to hon. gentle-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
men, and particularly to the hon. gentleman from Halton, that we will serve best the ends which all of us have in view by following the course that has been suggested by the Minister of Railways, and allow the matter to stand until information is collected during the recess, when the question can be dealt with next session.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the right hon. gentleman considered that if the amendment of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) is adopted now, the law will be ready at hand next year. The amendment will not in any way prevent the government from putting into execution its resolution of examining into which is the best cattle-guard during the recess, but on the contrary it will facilitate the government in doing so. The amendment will thus give us a law coming into force next parliament, and will allow us to put the results of the inquiries of the government into force without legislating again. In the province of Quebec it is a very serious matter for us. I will not say that it has been agitated as vigorously as in the province of Ontario, but there is no doubt that we have suffered a great deal from this defect in the legislation. This grievance has been mentioned very often in the House. We have petitions asking for immediate legislation, and in my opinion the proper course for the House to pursue now is to adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Halton.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am aware that this grievance is not confined to the province of Ontario. We have suffered in the province of Quebec perhaps as much as in other provinces, but at the same time I would suggest that there would be more security, if, since we have to wait under any circumstances, we should wait a little longer and have before ns the result of the inquiries which will be made. In the meantime we will try to find an adequate remedy for the wrong, and if we incorporate that remedy in the statute-book next session, no harm will be done. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) has suggested that he would be quite satisfied to leave the selection of the cattle-guard to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. That may be. but I think we can leave it with greater safety ito parliament itself. Next year we will be able to prescribe the nature of the cattle-guard in the law, and it will occur to everybody that that would be still more satisfactory than if we now adopt the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson).


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not think that the right hon. gentleman has gone so far as the Minister of Railways in his statement. I understood the Minister of Railways to say that he would carefully weigh the law as it affected the different provinces, and that he would be prepared at the next session to come down with legislation that would

remedy the evil in so far as it affected the wliole Dominion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I cannot say that I have discussed that point with the Minister of Railways and Canals, but I did discuss with him the question of the cattle-guard. If we provide a safe cattle-guard then we can very well adopt the reasoning of my hon. friend from Halton, that if there is an animal who jumps over a proper cattle-guard he should bear the consequence.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The right lion, gentleman would greatly reassure me if he would tell me that next April we will have a law in force remedying this evil.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think I can answer that. If the hon. gentleman will not delay the session then we will possibly have such a law in force next April. That matter rests with the hon. gentleman himself. If he delays the session of course the law may not be in force in April.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It would be in force at once, if I had the power.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand the government is ready to remedy this evil and bring down legislation next session. Otherwise I should be compelled to vote on the question now, but if the right hon. gentleman gives that promise I will stand by the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Ob.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think I said that. With the object of securing the approval of my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) I will not hesitate to say so.


Mr. BRODER.: I think there was a promise like that made two years ago, made by the Minister of Railways and Canals.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Give*us a trial now.


Andrew Broder: Our experience does not lead us to much hope. The Minister of Railways and Canals has now a Bill before the House proposing to do away with the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, and what is the use of referring this matter to a body which is going to be dead and buried in a few months.
Amendment to amendment (Mr. Henderson) negatived : Yeas, 28 ; nays, 75.
Mr. DAVIS, I move, seconded by Mr. Scott, that the committee rise.
Motion agreed to : Yeas, 67 ; nays, 35 ; and the committee rose.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.

Tuesday, April 22, 1902.