Mr. G. H. PERLEY (Argenteuil).: Before the orders of the day are called, I desire to ask a question with regard to Bill (No. 105), from the Senate, relating to the water carriage of goods. This appears in the list of public Bills and Orders, and it cannot be reached this session unless the government decides to take it up. This is a very important Bill. As I understand, it was drafted after a great deal of discussion in the Senate committee, and practically by arrangement between shippers and steamboat owners. It refers to the shipment of goods by ocean steamers. It is a measure which has been required by the trade for a good many years, and I think if the government could see their way to take this Bill up it would be in the public interest. I bring it to the attention of the government, and ask if they will give it consideration.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: This subject has been brought to our attention, and I shall be able to give an answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Perley) within a day or two.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 106) to amend the Railway Act. He said:	I wish only to
make explanations of three amendments to the Bill as printed, which I intend to propose in Committee of the Whole, in addition to some minor amendments. There are three additional sections. Section 11 is to provide that the Railway Act shall apply to railway companies incorporated outside of Canada and owning or controlling or running their trains upon any through lines in Canada, owned or controlled or operated by such company, also railway companies running railway trains from any point in the United States to any point in Canada-that is, the Canadian paTt. Section 12 refers to the time of making the report by the Board of Railway Commissioners. The present Act provides that the report shall be made within three months of the end of the year and placed on the table within fifteen days of the opening of the session of parliament. I propose to amend it so that they shall have two months in which to make a report, and, if the House is then in session, the report should be placed on the table at once and not wait for the following

year. In that way, we shall have the information fresh. Section 13 is practically the Bill sent back to us by the Senate, the foundation of which was the Bill of my hon. friend from Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster). Besides adding this Bill as a section, I shall propose two additional stringent provisions. One of these is to the effect that at any crossing where an accident has occurred through which life has been lost or serious injury inflicted, no train shall run over such crossing at a greater speed than ten miles an hour until protection has been afforded according to the direction of the board. In addition, I shall	propose another
clause providing that when the board has given an order for the protection of a crossing, trains shall not run over that crossing at a greater speed than ten miles an hour until such an order has been complied with. These are the only important amendments I am proposing to the Bill as printed.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: As I discussed the most important question involved in this Bill, the protection of railway crossings, on the 17th of February last, it will not be necessary for me to go very fully into the matter on this occasion. At the same time, having for many years taken a very great interest in this subject, and having placed before the House an outline of certain propositions which I think will be in the interest of the public, I hope I shall have the indulgence of the House while I refer to a few of the salient features of this Bill. In reference to the provision of a certain fund by the country to assist the railways in affording better protection for the public at crossings now in existence, I have already said that I quite approve of the country doing something in that direction. We have to look back to the time when this country was new, when the necessity for immediate development by means of railways was very urgent and when we were obliged therefore to have our railways built under conditions that we could not be expected to tolerate now. Therefore, I think it is reasonable that the government should do something towards assisting the railway companies in getting rid of the dangers that exist at these grade crossings. What amount the country should contribute is a more difficult question. Let me point out to the minister that I think the provision made now is exceedingly moderate, and probably too moderate, having regard to the system adopted in the adjoining republic. In the state of Massachusetts the amount set apart for the elimination of grade crossings not for protection by gates, or bells or any other device is $5,000,000, to be expended within a period of ten years. A Mr. GRAHAM.
great deal of that has already been expended. Now we propose to set apart $1,000,000 to be expended within a period of five years. I do not think it is contemplated that that will be the end of our contribution, and it is not necessary for me to discuss at present whether that is a sufficient amount or not. But as regards the manner in which it is proposed to be expended, I think the wisest provision has not been made. I do not know why we should have a lingering death in this matter, and, for instance, I cannot realize why, by the provisions just read by the minister, he should wait until we have evidence of a death at a crossing before we make provision for protecting that crossing.


Mr. GRAHAM.: It won't bear that construction.


Haughton Lennox: It does in one respect, it makes provision that if a death has occurred at any crossing then the company shall slow down until the Board makes an order. In regard to this million dollars we are voting, I do not know why we should spread it over five years. I think we should set to work and expend this $1,000,000 just as rapidly as we can, and as soon as the conditions can be ascertained, and so prevent the sacrifice of life that has been going on with such alarming rapidity. As regards the feature of the Bill that the Railway Board shall not only have power to make an assessment upon the municipalities but that they should have an unlimited power, that is a provision of the Bill that I am altogether opposed to. As regards the assessment on rural municipalities for anything in the way of protecting highways by gates or bells, I submit it is not just that they should pay one dollar as long as the grade of the railway and the grade of the highway are maintained upon the same level; in other words, as long as the railway company take up a portion of the King's highway for their convenience, nothing should be asked from the rural municipality. Then as regards the elimination, I am just as rigidly opposed to the rural municipality contributing anything for the separation of grades unless there is a definite provision that the Railway Board shall not be at liberty to exceed a certain amount. I have said before that I have a reasonable measure of respect for the Railway Board, they are a competent set of men; but I have not that confidence in the Railway Board, nor in any other two or three, or half a dozen men, selected from any portion of our community, that I am willing to give them an absolutely free hand as to what they shall charge municipalities for the elimination of grade crossings, and all the more when we adopt the policy that as regards this $1,000,000 the minister is asking for, he will not allow the same liberty to

that board. Even it the minister were prepared to go to the length of saying that he would give them an absolutely free hand as regards the money of the Dominion. I would not be prepared to give the Kailway Board an absolutely free hand as regards the municipalities. I would not, in fact, be in favour of giving them an unlimited right to assess the people either through the Dominion government or through the municipalities.
In reference to that we are not without example in the United States, furnished by the action of several states. In the state of Massachusetts they have passed a law leaving it to the Railway Board, as we propose, to regulate this matter; but they have distinctly provided that the assessment to be made by the Railway Board shall be within certain limits and controlled by the action of the state legislature. They say that in the case of the separation of grades the railway is to pay sixty-five per cent of the expense, and the municipality can be assessed to an amount not exceeding ten per cent, and it may be less, and the state can be assessed to an amount to make up the difference of the thirty-five per cent, which will be twenty-five per cent or more. In the state of New York the companies are bound to pay fifty per cent, the state cannot be assessed beyond thirty-five per cent, and the municipality cannot be assessed beyond twenty-five per cent. In Ohio there is a definite provision that the railway shall be assessed sixty-five per cent. In Connecticut the company is to be assessed seventy-five per cent and the state is to be assessed twenty-five per cent. There are other important provisions. For instance, the railway company is bound to eliminate one grade crossing every year for every sixty miles of railway, and that has had a very significant effect upon the protection of level crossings in that state already. In Maine there is a definite provision that the utmost the municipality can be assessed is ten per cent. There the state pays twenty-five per cent and the railway company sixty-five per cent. In Michigan it matters not whether it is a new road or an old road, the board can make whatever order it thinks fit, and the expense must be borne by the railway company. There is no range given to the Board as regards expense but absolute control is given as regards what order they shall make for the separation of grades, the building of bridges, or protection in any other way. Under these circumstances, and under the circumstances existing in Canada to-day, I submit to the minister that his Bill fails in the main essential of anything approaching to a valuable measure unless he makes a definite provision that if a municipality is bound to pay at all, the extent
of their contribution shall be limited by the Act.
I repeat that as regards the crossings which are left at grade in rural municipalities they should not be called upon to pay one cent. The railway companies are occupying highways, and they are occupying them" on terms of increased danger as the speed of trains and the amount of traffic increases. But, as regards the separation of grades there should be a distinct _ limitation. A gentleman who is of considerable prominence as an engineer, Mr. G. L. Somerville, recently issued a pamphlet which, I think, was published in the ' Canadian Engineer' first. He was a consulting engineer in connection with the viaduct scheme in Toronto, and I want to read a line or two of what he published in reference to the question of cost. He said:
There are strong arguments in favour of the public in cities and towns bearing a portion of the cost. However, there are many crossings in the rural districts which were comparatively safe when the railways had but one track with infrequent train service which have been rendered dangerous by the increased quantity and speed of the railway traffic and the multiplication of tracks. On many such crossings the highway traffic has remained nearly stationary, and on some, by reason of the construction of the railways, it has decreased. In such cases, it appears to the writer that, as the increased danger has been caused wholly by the radway, it would be unfair to make the users of the highway bear any portion of the cost of the increased protection.
I have not overlooked the difficulty of fixing a limit, keeping in mind the different conditions that exist as between rural municipalities and city municipalities. But it does not appear to have been regarded as a difficulty in the states of the union that I have referred to, with the exception of the state of Massachusetts, and in that state a special Act was passed with reference to certain cities. I can give the minister a reference to that if he desires it. I will not take time to repeat the figures which I quoted when last I spoke, but definite figures are laid down which are to cover the liability of each of the parties to the undertaking, a small amount being put upon the municipality, a much larger amount upon the railways and an intermediate amount upon the state. I am not prepared to dis-. cuss the question as to the amount to be contributed by rural and city municipalities. 1 am inclined to think, however, that it is not a difficulty that the minister need be prepared to shirk. This is one of those matters of detail that, after proper investigation, he can work out satisfactorily. As regards the disposal of - the money that the country is to contribute towards the removal *f grade

crossings, I expressed the opinion when this matter was up for discussion before, that is when the Railway Act amendment was introduced, that the contribution of the country should be confined to cases where there is a separation of grades, and should not be applied to cases where there is merely protection by gates or the like and the crossing is maintained- at rail level. In that opinion I am more confirmed upon further thought and a little further investigation. There is much reason for the argument that if the railway sees fit to maintain its crossings upon a level with streets or highways it should not have this fund available to assist it. Aside from all other considerations you will demonstrate to the railway companies the desirability of separating the grades if you adopt a law providing that there shall be no contribution in reference to grade crossings. As a matter of fact, I made' a rough calculation as to how the matter would work out, and, taking the figures the minister has furnished as to the cost of erecting and maintaining gates and employing watchmen, I find, taking into account the 'Contribution which will be made by the country towards the elimination of grade crossings, that it would pay the company, if we provide in the law that they shall get no contribution in the case of a crossing on the level or for the erection and maintenance of gates or bells, to separate the grades at an expenditure of $20,000 or $25,000 rather than to put up a set of gates and have men employed from year to year to watch them. This is an important feature of the matter and I would urge upon the minister-and I have reason to believe that he is inclined to ac-eede to that proposition now-to confine the payment by the country to cases of separation of the railway from the highway. It is amazing in a great many cases how a little judicious management and a reasonable expenditure of money throughout the country would bring about a separation of the highway from the railway either by the highway being carried above the railway or by the railway being carried over the highway. Speakirig of that, there is a little phamplet issued by Mr. Robert Larmour, a gentleman who my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) says is an employee of the Grand Trunk Railway.


Mr. LANCASTER.: He was until lately.


Haughton Lennox: I noticed by a careful perusal of this document that he says that he has been closely identified with railway matters; and that he is holding a brief for the; railway companies as against the people s interests, hon. gentlemen who read this pamphlet will realize. We talk about the Mr. LENNOX.
scare lines in newspapers, but there is a scare picture on the front page of this little document and he points, in the language of Mr. Hays, to the number of crossings on the Grand Trunk Railway system and makes a sympathetic plea for the farmer saying that if you build a bridge over the railway according to this picture the farmers will not be able to make the grade, that it will cause such an embankment that they will not be able to haul their loads up over it. I want to say to that gentleman, but particularly to the minister, that no sane man ever proposed that in Canada, we would have separation in the rural districts where all is upon the level, where there is an open country and the train may be seen approaching and the people managing the train may see the people approaching on the highway. All we want provided for is that in every case where there is something in the nature of a trap, where the railway is screened off by an embankment or buildings or the like, from the highway, so that the person driving through the country on the highway has no reasonable means of seeing the danger that he is entering upon, protection shall be provided. We do not pretend that you would ever put highways on a high embankment where all is open and where all is upon a plane. But where the topographical features of the country lend themselves to easy carriage of the railway above the highway or the highway above the railway, this shall be taken advantage of, and in every other case of danger that there shall be gates or 'such reasonable protection as will prevent the frequently occurring disasters we have witnessed of late years. I shall not at this late stage of the session delay the committee by speaking at greater length, but I wish to quote further from Somerville:
Other states have followed the example of Massachusetts by placing part of the cost of the elimination of grade crossings on the public, but some have forced the railways to bear the whole cost without any public contribution whatever.
The Pennsylvania railroad, while invariably avoiding grade crossings on new work, has in the last six years been eliminating many old grade crossings. On January the 1st, 1902, on the lines of heaviest traffic between New York and Washington and between Philadelphia and Pittsburg, there were 994 grade crossings, while up to January 1, 1908, 568, or more than 50 per cent were abolished.
The completion of the new Washington terminals marks the consummation of the plans of the late President Cossatt, viz., to eliminate all grade crossings in the important cities between New York and Washington. This has involved the elevation or depression of tracks in Jersey city, Newark, Elizabeth, New Brunswick, Trenton, Philadelphia, Chester, Wilmington, Baltimore and Washington.
Of the 101 grade crossings between Altoona

and Harrisburg on January the 1st, 1902, only
51 remained on January the 1st, 1908, another 50 per cent reduction.
What the United States find it necessary to do it is in our interest to set seriously to work to do, and I am glad the Minister of Railways realizes that there is a necessity for doing something. There are features of the Bill I would like to see changed, and one which I pointed out before the minister introduced his Bill is, that I would like to see the onus thrown upon some one who represents the government of looking into these matters. There is provision in the amendment given notice of this morning by the minister that the board of Railway Commissioners shall from year to year obtain certain information. I believe that the railway companies should be compelled to submit to the railway board a statement as to the necessity or the absence of necessity for protection in every case. I do not think we should wait for the municipalities or individuals to take action, but that the country should charge itself with the duty of finding out what should be remedied, and on a report from its inspector the railway board should assume the duty of initiating proceedings. If you leave it to the initiation of municipalities deterred by the liability of being taxed to an unlimited amount as this Bill leaves it, the municipal representatives will be handicapped by the fear that on election day they will be met with the cry that they have increased the taxes. I think this is a matter of national importance, and it is the duty of the government to see to it that the initiative in every case shall be taken by the state. It is not that I am wedded to the form of resolution I introduced on the 17th of February. It is not that I fail to realize that in many features it could be greatly improved, but inasmuch as it expresses in somewhat concise language many of the views I entertain, 1 shall take the liberty of reading the resolution and I shall urge that the government take into serious consideration whether or not the suggestions therein contained, in addition to those already adopted, should not be incorporated in this Bill. The resolution says:
That in the opinion of this House, the appalling number of accidents at level crossings demand that the matter of railway crossings throughout the whole of Canada should at once engage the earnest consideration of the people's municipal and parliamentary representatives.
2.	This imminent, and increasing peril incident to the present method of railway construction and operation may, by slow degrees, and in isolated instances, be mitigated by the exercise *f powers vested in the Railway Board, hut they can never reach the thousands and thousands of cases crying out for
safeguards, and cannot reach even a tithe of them within any reasonable time.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: What does that mean; you say that the peril cannot reach the thousands of cases.


Haughton Lennox: I do not think I say that.


William Pugsley: You do, just analyze it.


Haughton Lennox: I do not analyze it a_s the minister does. I say the peril may be mitigated by powers vested in the railway board. I will not quibble with the minister because he is more astute than I am. My meaning can be appreciated by every member of the House and what is more important to me it will be appreciated by the people of the Dominion who realize that there is a duty cast upon the government, and it is not a question of quibbling in the face of an effort to remove grave dangers which the people are now exposed to. I point out that I desire that the government should ascertain the actual position of the crossings by having inspectors to make reports to the railway board and that the railway board should take action of its own initiative:
3.	The question of railway crossings from ocean to ocean is a matter of supreme importance and urgent to the last degree. The toll of sacrifice increases with the multiplications of lines and the increase of speed and traffic, and no sensible improvement can be hoped for so long as the initiative for redress is left to casual and individual action.
4.	The rule, and the presumption from the acceptance of a charter, should be separated, or protected crossings elsewhere, with the onus upon the company of establishing a justi-'fication for exceptional treatment in exceptional cases.
5.	It is the duty of the government early this session to deal with the whole question of railway crossings in a thorough and comprehensive way and with a view of eliminating, as far as reasonably possible, the level crossings from our system of railways, and where this cannot be done, the adoption of such other methods and devices as will secure, in as great a degree as is possible, the safety of the people using the highways.
I introduced this resolution with no party feeling. When the minister afterwards introduced his Bill I gave it my earnest support. I shall support as far as I possibly can the measure introduced by the minister, believing it is a step in the direction we want to travel. I urge upon/ the minister the serious consideration of such additional safeguards as will be suggested by some of the members of the House, and I am prepared to believe that the minister is anxious to bring about a remedy as speedily and as effectually as possible.


Mr. FOSTER.: Is any portion of this one million dollars applicable to any other use than the permanent elimination of the danger; is it provided that it may not be de-
=6195

voted to employing watchmen or erecting gates or things of that kind?


George Perry Graham: I purpose adding a clause to section 3 which makes it clear that none of this money shall be used for the purposes of operation or anything of that kind.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In view of the fact that with regard to what might be fairly considered the main questions of this Bill, I have for six years past been advocating in this parliament protection for the people, perhaps a few words from me may be appreciated. I am bound to say that in my opinion the Bill brought in by the minister is retrograde as far as the rights of the people are concerned. To a certain 'extent it nas the effect of causing dangers to be more or less guarded against, but under the Bill that will be done more at the expense of the people than the railways, and I do not think that is fair. Six years ago I began to try to remedy this evil, and after three years discussion in this House and in its committees we passed legislation, which every year since we have passed unanimously, providing that in cities, towns and vilages where the railway is running on the level of the highway where the most danger exists, the principle shall be recognized that whatever protection is necessary should be provided at the expense of the railway company. We sent that Bill to the Senate four times; thrice they rejected it, and this session they have sent it back with an amendment which does not in any way meet the needs of the country, and which, without any disrespect I say is not sensible legislation. The minister has sent me a copy of the amendment which he proposes to substitute for the Bill which we have sent to the Senate 'on these four occasions. I do not object to the matter being dealt with in that way; I care not how it is dealt with as long as the resultant legislation is proper; although I should have thought that the better way would be to have this House concur or reject the Senate amendment to my Bill as the House might deem fit. In my opinion, the legislation which provided that the railways should at their own expense, as might be decided by the Railway Board in each case, protect level crossings in the thickly populated areas through which they run, was fair legislation. I do not see how the railways can possibly object to protecting the King's highway which they use without toll and which they are increasing the use of and danger on every day by the increased number and speed of their trains. I impress upon the House that the congested parts of the country where the buildings obscure the view and the noises deaden the sound is where there is the greatest danger and where, as the records show, nine out of ten accidents occur. For four years, as I have said, Mr. FOSTER.
this House unanimously has declared for the principle that the Railway Commission should decide where that protection was necessary, what it should be, and that the expense should be borne by the railway for such protection as the Board in its judgment might direct. The amendment proposed by the Minister of Railways eliminates the principle of protection and requires that an order must be specially made in each of these cases for the protection of the public. Well, that is the present law and it is because it is the present law that we amended it four years ago. Without this section all that protection can be obtained under the general jurisdiction of the Board. A special order is made where the danger is special, and if protection is put in, the municipalities must contribute * portion of the cost; if they do not, protection is not put in. The proposed subsection 3 of section 275 does not change the present law at all. It simply provides that the railways must protect those portions of crossings in cities, towns and villages which are on the rail level, as specially ordered by the Board. That is the law to-day, and has been ever since the Railway Act was passed in 1903, and long before that. If the Board makes a special ordeT, we say, apparently wisely, but I think very carelessly, that the railway company must do what the Board orders them to do; but we do this much worse; we say that if they do not, they may still run their trains if they reduce their speed to ten miles an hour. That I call retrograde legislation. We enact the present law, which the whole country says is not sufficient. We say the present law is good enough for the people, but we will allow the railways to evade even the present law. Then the minister proposes this morning to add a rider, which is a new thing, that protection of a crossing is to be ordered by the Board after some one has been injured or killed at that crossing. With all due deference, that is not a good principle to enact. A most dangerous crossing might be used by people without an accident if they were extremely alert and careful; but are they to be in that trouble all the time, and is no protection to be afforded until seme accident happens or life is lost?


George Perry Graham: It does not intimate that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As it reads the board will not have the conditions precedent until an accident or death has happened.


George Perry Graham: What the Bill proposes to do is to take the fact that an accident has occurred at a particular crossing, not at some time to come, but in years gone by, as prima facie evidence that the crossing is dangerous.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If that is what the hon. gentleman means, he will have to

amend the proposed section by inserting the word 'heretofore,' because as it reads it carries the construction I put upon it. If an accident has not happened, it practically says that the provisions of the Bill do not apply. What is the effect of that?


George Perry Graham: The effect is just this. This provision will not interfere with the Board dealing with any dangerous crossing; but it starts with the positive assertion that it proposes to take as prima facie evidence that any crossing where an accident has happened is a dangerous crossing. There are many of these which if they are not protected at the present time ought to be protected immediately. It does not interfere with the working of the Act with regard to other crossings which are dangerous.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Let me point out how it will interfere. The administrators of this law will say:	'We have an Act that
indicates to us clearly that unless these conditions apply, unless an accident or death has happened at a crossing, we aTe not to bother the railways.'


George Perry Graham: Not at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is the effect of it. When the Board is asked to protect a crossing, the first thing it will ask is: 'Has an accident or death ever happened at this crossing?'


George Perry Graham: If this were the only section in the Act, my hon. friend's argument might be good, but all crossings aro covered by the other sections.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is true; but we are inserting here a subsection which is specially designed to protect dangerous crossings in the congested parts of the cities, towns and villages.


George Perry Graham: No. It does not apply only to cities; towns and villages. One of the objects of the provision is to call attention to the fact that dangerous crossings exist throughout the country where accidents have occurred. This is much broader than the provision applying to cities, towns and villages, because it applies to all crossings where accidents have occurred, whether in city, town or country.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Grant, for the moment, that that is so, what are the administrators going to do? We put principles before them, and we ought to put more principles before them. As a matter of fact, we often give the Board power to make the law as well as to administer it. What we ought to do is to give them the power to administer it and declare the principles that they are to administer? And that is the character of the Bill that was passed here for four sessions. Now, what we put
before the Board is this: unless a death or serious accident has happened at a crossing, whether in a thickly-settled portion of the country or elsewhere, they need not order protection at that point.


George Perry Graham: It does not mean that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We ought not to use words in our legislation here if we do not mean something by them. If the Bill means anything, it means what I say. This provision may be put in to make the people believe that some progress is being made'in their interest when it is not really so. If the minister means that the Board is expected to still make the same order upon the same evidence as before, then this ought to be struck out. I do not wish to delay the House, but as to the question of the municipalities and the provinces contributing, or the Dominion bearing all the public expense for the elimination of level crossings, at an early day in this session I said what I thought about that, and I will repeat it in a few words. I hold that the Dominion exchequer is the only public exchequer that should be called upon to contribute toward the elimination of level crossings, and the creation of the ideal condition we desire to see which will prevent people on the highway being killed or injured by railway trains. I hold that the railwav company ought to bear a portion of that burden, but not the whole of it. These corporations have been given an easement over the highway, and if you were to put upon them the whole expense of establishing the ideal condition under which a traveller on the highway cannot come in contact with a train you would take from them, in effect, that which has been granted. It is reasonable, therefore, that the public should contribute towards the creation of what we desire to see. But I hold that no exchequer but that of the Dominion should contribute to this work. Otherwise you have taxation without representation, you are compelling a city or a province to contribute towards a work which the Dominion has taken under its sole control and which it has handed over to Railway Commissioners appointed and controlled by itself. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it were decided that $30,000 should be contributed toward making safe a certain crossing, of which $5,000 was to be contributed by the province and $5,000 by the municipality, and the remainder by the railway company. I say that that $10,000 contributed by the public should be paid by the Dominion, and. not a cent by either the municipality or the province. For the obvious reason that, otherwise, you are taxing the people with regard to that over which they have no control as a city or a province, and over

which the Dominion has entire control. On this being thought over. I believe it will be found to be the right principle. The Dominion makes this legislation, and the Dominion ought to bear the expense connected with it. Under any other plan, the people might be taxed three times in connection with the one work. Suppose, for instance, a taxpayer in the city of St. Catharines and a work of this kind ordered in that city. The taxpayer would pay first as a Dominion taxpayer, then as a provincial taxpayer, and third as a municipal taxpayer. While these works are declared to be for the general advantage of Canada and are controlled by the Board of Railway Commissioners which is entirely constituted and controlled by this Dominion parliament, it is outside of all principle that they should have a power to tax people three times for a work which, so far as the locality is concerned, they have no control over and about the management of which they have nothing to say.
Then we come down to the cases where we are not eliminating the level crossing, but still allowing the railway to run on the highway, but where we require protection. In such cases, whatever protection is ordered should be at the expense of the railway alone; neither the Dominion, nor the province, nor the municipality should pay anything. We have a Board of Railway Commissioners, business men, who decide what protection is necessary-electric bells in some cases, watchmen in some cases, watchmen and gates in other cases. But there are other inventions and appliances to promote safety at these crossings. I have seen lots of them which do not cost one-third as much as gates, but which, had they been in use, would, I believe have saved nine out of ten of the lives that have been lost at these level cross-mgs. The railways are not trying to find means of protection, and will not do so until the law puts the cost upon them. Then they will very soon find the most inexpensive way of doing it. as I say, I have seen many inven-^is kind. One of them is on exhibition now at the Ottawa Supply Company on Bank street. Any hon. member can go and see it. I do not know the names of the people controlling it, but I went and saw it. In my humble opinion, such an appliance would have saved nine out of ten of the lives that have been lost on these level crossings. It is operated generally the bells that are in use. ^When the engine reaches the rail at a certain distance from the crossing, the electric connection is made, a lamp lights, if it is at night, a sign flies up in day time, and a bell is set ringing-not a tinkling like the bells of a sleigh, but a bell like a school
bell, or the bell on a locomotive engine; so that a man must be blind and deaf to get into trouble at a crossing so protected. I do not advocate that this should be adopted. I say it is one appliance that has been made, and it costs about one-third of what it costs to install gates, and, except for the imposition of a physical barrier to actually prevent the person crossing the track, it affords every protection.
I believe that the people of the country will stand behind the minister, and I in my humble way will back him up if he will decide to contribute from the Dominion exchequer to a reasonable extent to eliminate the level crossings. For, as I say, we have no right to take from the railway this easement over the highways which has been given to them without helping them to create the other condition which we desire to see established. But the railway company should pay a part of Die cost of bringing about this condition. Then, so far as the Board of Railway Commissioners are concerned, in their making of orders for the protection of crossings, the public should not be at the mercy of the opinion of a judge or jury, but we here should decide what will be satisfactory, as was done in the Bill which was sent to the Senate, and which, in my opinion, the Senate should have passed. But where these business men order protection it should be provided that it should be at the expense of the railways where they are using the highway on the rail level. Nothing else will be just to the people, and that alone should be adopted by this House in regard to the protection of level crossings.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.

[DOT]	- GRAHAM. There is no change made
m this except in the wording. The department thought it would be better that the section should be redrafted, and they redrafted it accordingly. It is the old section in a new form.
On section 1,
Haughton Lennox: There was a contention made by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) that this power given to the Board was not wide enough. Has the hon. gentleman considered that? Why was that clause redrafted?


George Perry Graham: The Justice Department have been looking into it, I do not know what their reason was, but they thought it should be worded in a better form. There is no new principle in the section.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Would this section compel a railway either to operate a portion of the road on which they had received a


Edward Arthur Lancaster: bonus from the government, or refund the amount? Take the case that my hon- friend from East Hastings has cited, where a railway received a bonus from the government and from the municipality, and yet it ceased operating the line, and the people are not served in that particular section. Here is an opportunity of compelling the railway either to operate or refund the money.


George Perry Graham: I do not wish to take up the time of the House in discussing a matter that. has been brought up for two or three years by^ the hon. member for East Hastings. It is an old matter, where a bonus was given to one road which was transferred to another company. After full discussion last year, the House declined to entertain the proposition. This clause is not designed to meet that case.


John Dowsley Reid: Then the government do not intend doing anything to compel the Grand Trunk Railway to operate that portion of the road in the county of Hastings?


George Perry Graham: No.


Haughton Lennox: If we pass this section, I think the minister might allow it to stand until the hon. member for East Hastings comes in.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would like to ask the minister why it should be the law, that when a piece of road happens to be transferred from one corporation to another, all the liabilities and responsibilities which were created by the agreement in the first instance are simply to dissolve into thin air, and are to be no longer observed.


George Perry Graham: All that took place under the law as it existed for years. It is really asking us to amend a piece of legislation in a general Act in order to apply it to a particular case, it is asking us to make legislation to cover a case that happened many years ago. While I would not object to that altogether, still my hon. friend will remember that this matter was discussed thoroughly in the House last session between the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for East Hastings, and the weight of argument was strongly against the passing of any special legislation for that particular case.


Robert Laird Borden: What I have to say does not in any way relate to the matter which the hon. member for East Hastings brought before the committee, I am not discussing the advisability or otherwise of passing legislation of a retroactive character. There might be good reasons why that should be done, and there might be cogent reasons against it. What I am discussing is the importance of so amending the law that the thing cannot occur in future, and I see no reason why that should not be done.


John Dowsley Reid: We are still in the same position. If any railway in Canada that has received a subsidy from this government, or from the local government, or from several municipalities through which it passes, chooses to amalgamate with another railway running only a few miles apart through a certain portion of the country, that railway can cease to operate that portion of the line, and there is no way of compelling it to resume. They simply take up the rails and leave them there. From the discussion that took place last year I understand there is no way of compelling them to operate the railway, and if we cannot compel them to operate, we cannot compel them to refund the subsidy. I thought when this Bill was introduced that the minister would put in a clause to meet a case of that kind which might arise in the future, if he did not wish to make it retroactive. I think this is an opportune time to introduce such an amendment. No railway company would object to such a clause, whereas railways do object to retroactive legislation.


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend will find that this clause applies to the case he was speaking of:
Where it is complained by or on behalf of the Crown or any municipal or other corporation or any other person aggrieved, that the company has violated or committed a breach of an agreement between the complainant and the company-or by the company that any such corporation or person has violated or committed a breaoh of an agreement between the company and such corporation or person-for the provision, construction, reconstruction, alteration, installation, operation, use or maintenance by the company, or by such corporation or person, of the railway or of any line of railway-
The only point at issue is the one raised by the leader of the opposition, whether liability would be obviated by the railway company selling out to some other company. I think under this section it would not. As I understood the member for East Hastings, he wanted a section inserted that would cover retroactively the case he had in point, and allow the commission to try that. I think this will cover all such cases in the future.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: This clause as redrafted is very much along the line of the amendment I asked for last session; the only difference between this and the one I asked for is that the present clause is prac tically inoperative, while the one I asked for would compel the railway company to act.


George Perry Graham: That is only a matter of opinion.


William Barton Northrup: I understood the Minister of Railways to say a moment ago that he thought this would cover the case of an agreement made between a railway company and municipalities. I would ask the minister to look at the condition of affairs that exists in the province of Ontario. We have a couple of large railways which have bought up the smaller railways, and the case I wish to meet is not confined to iny own county of Hastings. After I brought that matter before the House last session, different members came to me and spoke of similar conditions existing in their constituencies, where small railways were locally assisted, and people gave their money on a distinct contract that they would receive something in return. Then these smaller railways were absorbed by the larger railways, and consequently the only Temedy the people had was against a railway that had ceased to exist. Now, this present clause will not apply, I take it, practically to any such case in the province of Ontario. Take the case the minister referred to in my own constituency, where money was advanced by the Crown and municipalities. When the Crown advanced money under a statute of this House by which the Belleville and North Hastings Railway was to receive certain assistance, the Belleville and North Hastings had ceased to be in existence. At the very time that statute was passed by the House, on the application of the Grand Trunk Railway, by which the House agreed to give the money to that railway, there was no such railway. The cheque was made out by the government payable to the Belleville and North Hastings Railway, but there was no such corporation to endorse the check. It was endorsed, however, by the law clerk in the office of the Grand Trunk, the cheque was handed over to the Midland Railway, endorsed by Joseph Hickson, vicepresident of the Midland Railway, and deposited to the credit of the Grand Trunk Railway. There we have a concrete case of one great railway coming to parliament and getting assistance in the name of a railroad that did not exist, and endorsing on the back of the cheque the name of a railroad that had ceased to exist.
The company had passed out of existence years before. The municipalities which gave their money in good faith are prevented from having any remedy as the law stands at the present time. If the minister chose to proceed against the Grand Trunk my impression is that he could succeed in an action at law. But it is clear that the Railway Commissioners have no authority over the Grand Trunk at all. It may be said that an amendment to cover this case would be retroactive in one sense but I would point out to the minister that the whole statute is retroactive. This very Mr. GRAHAM.
cause which we are considering is retroactive. If anything has been done that comes within the terms of this Act and if it has been done prior to the passing of the Act it will be affected by the Act. If anything under the bargain made between the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company and the government and betweeen the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company and the municipalities has been done by the Grand Trunk Railway, contrary to the clause, the clause would apply to it and in that sense it would be retroactive. All I ask in my amendment is that if a case arises in which a contract has been made and if one of the large railway companies, the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific Railway, ties up a line of railway so that the people or the Crown are deprived of the rights which they otherwise would have had, the railway company shall be put in the position of the company which received the assistance and be held responsible for the carrying out of its obligations.


Mr. PARDEE.: Does the Railway Act not cover that case?


William Barton Northrup: I do not think there is anything in the Railway Act covering that case. I think it was agreed here last session that there was nothing in the Railway Act which would cover it. It would be a simple matter for the municipalities in the county of Hastings to come before the Railway Board and lay their charge against the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company. There is no doubt the Railway Board would have jurisdiction as against the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company which was the company with which the contract was made but which really ceased to exist fifteen or twenty years ago. At that time it disappeared as an entity and there is no such thing in existence to-day as that railway company. What they have is the doubtful right to proceed against a non-existing company whereas the Grand Trunk came into the field, actually got the $21,000 which the government paid and then ceased to operate the road. The country paid the $21,000 for which it received no return and I am asking the minister now to amend this clause in such a way as will meet a case of that kind. I had an amendment drawn up but this has come up unexpectedly and I have not got it with me, but this afternoon I would be prepared to give the minister half a dozen words to be added to this section which would enable the Railway Board to deal with the company that got the money. If the minister desires to meet the evil and to make the clause really operative he will add a few words so that the company that got the money may be made to disgorge or carry out their contract and not leave the people or the government helpless against [DOT] a non-existing company.


George Perry Graham: I think the section we have here, coupled with sections 362 and 363 of the Railway Act, fully meets every case that could possibly arise. This section that I have referred to here certainly will meet any case of an agreement made by a company with another company. I think sections 362 and 363 will meet the case where companies amalgamate because they provide that the new company taking possession shall carry out the responsibilities of the original company. Section 362 reads as follows:
Upon any agreement for amalgamation coming into effect, as providsd in the last preceding section, the companies, parties to such agreement, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and the special Act authorizing such agreement to be entered into, be deemed to be amalgamated, and shall form one company, under the name, and upon the terms and conditions in such agreement provided; and the amalgamated company shall possess and be vested with all the railways and undertakings, and all other the powers, rights, privileges, franchises, assets, effects, and properties, real, personal and mixed, belonging to, possessed by, or vested in the companies parties to such agreement, or to which they, or any or either of them, may be or become entitled; and shall be liable for all claims, demands, rights, securities, causes of action, complaints, debts, obligations, works, contracts, agreements, or duties, to as full an extent as any or either of such companies was, at or before the time when the amalgamation agreement came into effect.
This certainly covers every liability that the original company had-agreements, duties, obligations. Surely this covers the case of my hon. friend. He said last session that the transfer was fraudulent and that the money of this company was pnid to a company which my hon. friend said at the time did not exist. Still, we should not burden pur statutes with previsions applicable to a special case which happened many years ago. The people interested did not take steps in the courts to enforce their rights, but they let them go until this late date. I think it is clear that the Railway Act does, in the event of an amalgamation, impose on the amalgamating companies every obligation that either or any of the companies had. If I should take the time to read section 363 it would make it still clearer.


William Barton Northrup: There is one very simple answer to what the hon. gentleman has said. Would the minister contend that the Railway Act applies at all to railways that are chartered by the Ontario legislature and which are amalgamated by statutes of the Ontario legislature? This Dominion statute applies only to railways over which this parliament has jurisdiction. This is not an isolated case but there are half a
dozen railways in a similar position. I happen to remember one case that my hon. friend who then represented Perth, Mr. Maclaren, brought to my notice. There were two or three other members who spoke to me about similar cases in their constituencies. Even if we admit that the Act applies to this case it must be evident then that the clause is in the right direction and that we should have the remedy which the minister says we now have in this case. Now, if it turns out that the clause does not materially apply to the matter in question because it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, the roads being incorporated under provincial charters and amalgamated under provincial authority and subsequently taken over by the Grand Trunk, which, of course, would be under Dominion jurisdiction, does the minister not think that a remedy should be provided by this parliament? The original amalgamation was under provincial legislation and therefore the Dominion Railway Act would not apply at all. If the minister admits that an injustice is done, if he agrees with me in my contention, and I think he can hardly dispute it, that tiie clause does not apply to provincial railways, and if I point out to him that all that would be necessary would be to add to this clause two or three words to meet the case, surely the minister would not contend that such a remedy should not be provided. The case would be met by the addition of such words as these: If any such railway had been absorbed or amalgamated or come into the possession of another company then the company which is in possession of the one in question should be considered liable for the obligations of the original company. One word more as to what the minister said. He spoke of the people slumbering on their rights and allowing this state of affairs to continue for years. I would like to ask what action any person on behalf of the county of Hastings could have taken against the Grand Trunk Railway which had obtained the $21,000 to compel the company to do that which it agreed to do? This money was paid by the government-a former administration-and when it paid the money it made a mistake. I think the people of the country have a perfect right to complain to the government when a wrong of this kind has been done. The right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) and the hon. Minister of Railways know, and a year ago they both admitted, that there had been a wrong done, and that a remedy ought to be provided. The Minister of Railways said that he was looking for a remedy and that he hoped he would be able to find one. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways both recognized that an injustice had been done and

that a remedy should be provided. When two ministers frankly admitted that a wrong was done, that the public had been improperly deprived of $21,000 it seems extraordinary that the Minister of Railways and Canals will sit in this House and not allow a few words to be put into this Bill by way of an amendment which would compel the railway company who fraudent-ly obtained this $21,000 to either pay back that money or to carry out the agreement which they entered into.
If the minister will take the trouble to look at the documents he will find that the application was made by Mr. William Wainwright, one of the high officials of the Grand Trunk; he will find an agreement made by the Grand Trunk that they will furnish the rolling stock, and he will find that after all that was done the cheque was made payable to the Belleville and North Hastings Railway, improperly endorsed to that name and deposited to the credit of the Grand Trunk. Surely if the minister cannot dispute the fact that the country was fraudulently deprived of $21,000 it should not require argument to see the impropriety of that, and to take steps to enable the country to get back the money they paid and for which they received nothing.


George Perry Graham: The general Railway Act fully covers the cases referred to by the leader of the opposition. I have full sympathy with the hon. member for Hastings who wishes to] insert a clause in this Act to enable him to proceed on an old case of many years standing, but I think it would be a mistake to include such a provision in the amendment. We have, however, been careful in the Railway Act and in this amendment to provide that the Board of Railway Commissioners shall have power to see that all agreements are carried out and that the amalgamated companies shall assume all the responsibilities that individual companies had before they became amalgamated.


Mr. BLAIN.: I wish' to ask the minister whether the Railway Act or this proposed amendment will cover a case which has arisen in my county? Many years ago the Credit Valley Railway Company procured a charter and constructed a road, part of which Tuns through the county of Peel. Subsequently the Canadian Pacific Railway purchased that road and have been operating it for a great many years. Last year they proposed to close up some of the stations at certain points along the line. I want to ask the minister, will the Railway Act or these amendments give the municipalities that contributed bonuses to the old Credit Valley Railway, the power to enforce the original agreement against the Canadian Mr NORTHRUP.
Pacific Railway who have purchased the road and are now operating it?


George Perry Graham: That is a question of law and probably a case for the courts to decide on a suit for damages. If a case is made out that a station is necessary at such a place, the Railway Commissioners will have full power to compel the railway company to have a station there.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I had occasion recently to make an application for a station and I was surprised to hear the chairman of the Board doubt his jurisdiction to order a station.


George Perry Graham: They have ordered a good many.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think he said they had only ordered one, and his opinion seemed to be that unless the railway is willing to erect a station the Board has not the power to order, which of course is nonsense because if the railway is willing to do a thing you do not want a Railway Board. It would not be quite fair to say much about that case, because the Board has reserved judgment upon the question of jurisdiction and upon the merits.


George Perry Graham: They have ordered a good many stations.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think myself they have jurisdiction.


Mr. SPROULE.: Would it not depend entirely upon the nature of the original agreement made between the company and the municipality. In connection with the Toronto, Grey and Bruce several municipalities had agreements made to the effect that in consideration of granting bonuses to the railway the company would build the road and operate it in perpetuity, and keep stations open for the convenience of the pub-lie. I think the Canadian Pacific Railway tried once to get out of the obligation, but whether or not they found they could not do it legally, they decided to allow the station to remain.


Mr. DANIEL.: Will the level crossings features of this Bill have any effect on the government system of railways?


George Perry Graham: The Intercolonial Railway will not be affected by this Bill. The chairman of the board of managers and myself have discussed the level crossings on the Intercolonial and I am getting a report on the various crossings. I suppose it is natural that these places where accidents have occurred should be attended to at first. We have in the main estimates put through items for the elimination of several crossings on the Intercolonial Railway.


Robert Laird Borden: Upon a hasty reading of sections 361 to 363 I should be inclined to doubt whether they go as far as the minister has suggested. Section 361 deals with agreements of two distinct characters; one for selling, conveying or leasing the railway and undertaking in whole or in part, and the other for amalgamation. Section 362 says:	That upon any
agreement for amalgamation coming into effect the amalgamated companies shall be vested with all the powers and rights and shall be liable for all claims and demands to which both companies would otherwise have been liable. Section 363 subsection 2 seems to be to the same effect, but I do not observe that where there is simply a conveyance or lease in whole or in part, without amalgamation, any such result follows.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Section 363 says:
* Notwithstanding anything in any agreement made or sanctioned.'
Would that not necessarily take you back to subsection 2 of 361 covering any agreement either of lease, or selling, or conveying, or amalgamation?


Robert Laird Borden: I appreciate that, but the difficulty is that it simply makes the company leased or sold subject to the agreement, but it does not make the company to which the road is sold or leased so liable. That is my view of it on a hasty reading. I think it would not make the company receiving the road by means of sale or lease liable for the performance of the conditions, although it is distinctly liable in the case of amalgamation.
On subclause 2,


George Perry Graham: Owing to certain decisions of the courts it seems 'to be now accepted that any securities deposited with a bond as collateral cannot be reissued even after thev are redeemed. They are by the court considered as having been issued once they are deposited as collateral in the bank. That places the large companies in a very awkward position. Before they choose to issue their securities and put them on the market they place them in a bank and obtain loans upon them, with the intention that they shall afterwards redeem them when the price has appreciated and sell them on the market. By decisions recently given in the English courts these bonds are considered as having been issued once they are placed in the banks as collateral security, and this has necessitated legislation in the old country. It has been thought wise that we should pass legislation here to make it clear that these securities, although they have been placed in the bank for collateral, can, on being redeemed by (the bank, be considered as never having been issued at all.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I cannot see how you can by an Act of parliament declare that a security has not been issued when as a matter of fact it has been issued and you have raised money on it. That does not seem to be honest.


George Perry Graham: It has not been issued in the sense that it has been sold to the public. It would be as if my hon. friend took a bundle of notes to the bank, placed them there as security, _ obtained an advance on them, and having afterwards redeemed them collected their value. These bonds are placed in the bank merely as collateral security and they are not issued, distributed or sold.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I do not see how they could have any value as collateral security if they never were issued, because it is the issuing of them that makes them valuable.


Mr. LALOR.: They are issued but not sold. They may be said to issue for the specific purpose of collateral security, but they have not been sold or placed on the market.


Robert Laird Borden: This proposed legis-islation may be harmless in its result but it seems to me to be rather unusual. It would distinctly affect pending proceedings in the courts if the judgment thereon should be pronounced after the 1st day of July 1909 I do not see why legislation of tnia kind should affect pending proceedings in the courts. I have never known it to do so unless the circumstances were extremely unusual.


Mr GRAHAM.: The Minister of Justice points out that if no date were fixed toe parties could delay the decision for months and years and they would never come under this Act.


Robert Laird Borden: The answer to that is that it is the courts and not the parties who control the date at which the judgment shall be given. But my point goes beyond that. It is that legislation of this kind retroactive in its character, should not apply to pending proceedings in the court. Suppose a proceeding is commenced tomorrow, before this legislation is enacted, I do not think it would be wise for us to pass an Act by which that proceeding should be affected.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 2,


George Perry Graham: In order to meet the point raised by the hon. leader of the opposition, -which is I think under the circumstances well taken, I move the following amendment:

That clause ' a ' of subsection 2 be amended by striking out the words before the 1st day of July, 1909, in the second and third lines respectively, and insert in lieu thereof the following:	'in any legal proceeding now
pending.'
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 3,


Mr. GEAHAM.: This is the section to which my hon. friend from Cape Breton referred the other day. Heretofore it has been held that when a railway company files their plans for the construction of a line of railway, it could practically retain the land for which its plans were filed for any number of years. For example, if a railway company filed plans for a line from here to Brockville and had its charter renewed from time to time, in ten years from now, if it wished to build a line, the value of the lands to-day would be their value then, so that the company would not have to pay the increase in the value caused by the construction of the railway. But conditions have arisen, especially in the west, where towns spring up very quickly, which makes this interpretation of the Act very unjust, and the amendment proposed is practically this, that a railway company must, within two years, take possession and acquire title of the land for which it files plans or it will have to begin over again; so that the increased value will go to the owner and not to the railway company.


Mr. MACDONELL.: Does that apply to a transaction that is at the present time incomplete or pending? Take, for instance, an arbirtration for a right of way for a station?


Duncan Graham: I had an amendment made to the preceding clause to cover the point raised by the hon. leader of the opposition, and this amendment is similar, providing that this provision will not interfere with pending litigation.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The effect of that will be that if notice has been given of intention to expropriate land, and plans have been filed and nothing further has been done for perhaps ten years, that would in a sense be pending at the present time. The legislation, which I think is very wise and proper, should apply to an existing state of affairs of that kind.


Duncan Graham: I will read the amendment:
And provided further that the foregoing proviso shall not ^ prejudice the operation of any award of arbitration or of any judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction heretofore made or pending between the parties Mr. GRAHAM.
and any appeal from any such award, order or judgment, shall be decided as if the foregoing proviso had not been enacted.
As I understand, this makes it clear that this provision will not interfere where any award is made or is pending. I am free to say that I do not want the clause to interfere with any existing arbitration or award.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If it read 'award or proceedings for arbitration,' I think it would be better. There might be proceedings pending, but no award.


Mr. McKENZIE.: If this is an amendment of the section, it may possibly be regarded as having been passed when the section itself was passed, in which case it would take effect from the time that law was enacted. If it is regarded as new legislation, it would not be retroactive, unless it specifically said so. If it is not retroactive, I fully sympathize with the views expressed by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) that plans now filed would have right of way, and the remedy sought for would not be accomplished.


Duncan Graham: Would my hon. friend state that that ought to be done, that we ought to go back and open a judgment that took place under the old Act of some years ago? It is to be borne in mind that if they did not proceed they would come under the limitations of this Act; from this time forward if they did not proceed with the construction within the limit placed in this clause, they would fall under the terms of this Act.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The point I desire to ask is this, would not the legislation apply to anything that is pending, that has been commenced, or is in a legal, sense pending? There may be and doubtless are a large number of cases that are standing to-day in which railway companies have given the necessary notice of intention to expropriate, and have filed plans and so forth. Now, these might go back three, five or ten years, but nothing has been done, only the initial notice has been given. Now, if this Act is passed without reference to these cases, all arbitrations that are in that sense initiated will be rushed to a completion by the railway companies, and the value of the land ascertained as of two, years, five years or ten years ago, and that would be a great hardship. I think that with regard to arbitrations that are pending, in which proceedings have been only initiated, this legislation should not interfere with them. Where formal notice has been given, and the railway company has, so to speak, laid down on that notice a notice given years ago, I think that the

section should govern cases of that kind, so as to prevent railway companies from taking advantage of this new law and fixing the value of properties as of ten years ago.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Would it be the idea of the hon. gentleman that where they have been going on for a considerable number of years there should be a limit within which they should be closed?


Angus Claude Macdonell: I would not interfere with existing cases. But where notice has been given-I know of cases where notices have been given six years ago and nothing has been done since. If this legislation passes, the railway companies will rush these arbitrations to a conclusion, and they will ascertain the values of properties as of two, five ot ten years ago when the initial notice was given.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Not under this present amendment. It says that no pending cases shall be affected by the section, therefore, there is no Teason why the inquiry should be closed. If they have been going on beyond a period of two years, then there should be a limit within which they should be closed.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I would not include those pending arbitrations. I do not think a railway company should be entitled to get the benefit of putting a price on the lands of the value of ten years ago.


George Perry Graham: I have explained the situation to the Minister of Justice and he is quite clear that as long as arbitration proceedings have not been begun they will come under the new Act; where arbitration proceedings have been begun they will have to be settled under the old Act.


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: I do not know whether I understand the difficulty the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonell) feels, sufficiently well, to enable me to state my understanding of the law in regard thereto. The new section which this Bill is proposing simply fixes the date with reference to which compensation money is to be assessed, if two years have elapsed between the filing of the plans and the conclusion of the proceedings. In cases in which two years have not elapsed, the proviso which it is proposed to add would not have application. But in a case in which two years have elapsed there might have been nothing done except filing the plans, and no proceedings taken toward an arbitration. In any such case the new section would have application, and the compensation money would be fixed with reference, not to the date of the filing of the plans, but to the date of the acquisition of the property. But there might be a case in which, after the filing of the plans, the com-197J
pany had taken the initial step toward arbitration, that is, the serving upon the land owner of a notice naming their arbitrator, and making him an offer of the amount they think is proper compensation for his lands. The giving of such notice to the land owner would be, I take_ it, the initiation of arbitration proceedings, it would be naming the company's arbitrator, it would need only the action of the land owner in naming his arbitrator to close the matter so far as completing the board is concerned. In case of a delay after the railway company has served its notice, the fault would be that of the land owner himself. In any such case the railway company, having not only filed its plans, but proceeded to serve the land owner with a notice offering him a certain amount of compensation money and naming its own arbitrator, in case he did not see fit to accept that amount, the arbitration proceedings would be on foot, and this new provision would, under the proviso the minister has proposed to add, have no application. And if proceedings should continue under the old law, the compensation money would then have to be fixed as it would have been fixed if this Bill had not been introduced.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I think that explanation is quite satisfactory.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It is proposed in amendment to section 3 to add the following words at the end thereof:
Provided further, that the foregoing proviso shall not prejudice the operation of any award, or of any order, or judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction heretofore made, or any arbitration now pending, and any appeal from any such award, order or judgment, shall tto decided as if the foregoing proviso had not been enacted.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think wc are taking a complicated wav of doing what could be done in a very simple way. I would suggest that the original section of the Act be amended by the insertion of the words 'as of the date that notice is given by the railway.' I never could see any merit in the valuation being fixed at the time that they file their plans. The merit is in the valuation being fixed at the time they tell the man that they are going to take his land. If we were to provide in the original section that in all cases damages shall be assessed as at the time they give the man notice that they are going to take his land we would be doing something of substantial value. Some amendment is required because there is an injustice under the law as it stands to-day in that the railway company can file their plans and then delay, not saying whether they are going to take the lands, and then, a few years afterwards, they decide to take the lands and pay the

owner the price at which the lands were selling for at the time they filed their plans. More substantial justice would be done if instead of this amendment we amended the original section 192 in another way. At the present time that section reads as follows:
The date of such deposit shall be the date with reference to wliioh such compensation or damages shall be ascertained.
Make it read that the date upon which the notice shall be served upon the land owner shall be the date upon which the damage shall be ascertained. Then, the railway company have to pay when they serve their notice on the land owner which is the first time the land owner knows that his land is going to be taken. That seems to be a fair basis of compensation to both parties. The company know if the lands axe going to be taken and the owner should not be affected by the valuation until he knows that his lands are going to be taken. They may lay out a route running across one man's land and afterwards they may take another man's land. They do not necessarily have to adhere strictly to the route as laid down in the plan filed in the registry office. They can vary it a hundred feet or so on either side and they might take a neighbour's land instead of the land originally intended to be taken. Till the owner knows his land is to be taken by the company he should not be affected. This may not prove to be an unmixed blessing. It is possible that a man's land may deteriorate in value. It is possible that the railway company may gain by the amendment which the hon. gentleman is putting in. The land may deteriorate in some localities in Canada just in the same way as it may increase. Perhaps the minister has not considered that aspect of it, but in view of that it does seem to me that the proper way of getting at this matter would be to amend section 192 of the Act by saying that damages shall be assessed as of the date at which the notice is given to the man that his land is going to be taken.


George Perry Graham: I had this matter investigated pretty thoroughly. There are two sides to it. The railway company's interests have not been disturbed for a great many years and there is that side of the question to deal with On the other hand, there is the injustice which has been done to the public particularly owing to the changed conditions in the west where towns spring up in a few weeks or months. The question, to my mind, resolves itself into this: Should we give them two years after filing their plans to acquire title, or should we say one year? At the present time they have as many years as they like. Several cases were brought to my notice. I was led to put two years into the Bill from the fact that in the ordinary railway charter Mr. LANCASTER.
two years is allowed for commencing operations.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is no reason why one year would not be fair because under the statute of limitations you must sue a railway within one year.


George Perry Graham: That has been brought to my attention too. I do not want to be too revolutionary in changing a practice which has been adopted hitherto. I want to be fair to the railways, but I think that if it were made one year instead of two it would not be too stringent a measure.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think one year is plenty if you are going to leave it in its present form.


George Perry Graham: I therefore move:
That in line 25, page 2, clause 3, the words ' two years ' be struck out and * one year ' be inserted in lieu thereof.


Haughton Lennox: How long after they file their 'plans can they keep a man's land tied up? Does the minister know of any provision in the Act in reference to that?


George Perry Graham: This amendment I am making limits the time to one year.


Haughton Lennox: Not in the sense that I mean it. It limits the time for the purpose of ascertaining the value.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: But it does not say at what time these lands are to be freed after the plans have been filed and registered.


George Perry Graham: If the company fails to proceed and get title to the land within one year after filing the plan they have to proceed de novo-I think that is the legal term.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, that would be the legal term, but it does not say so here.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: Suppose a railway company, under their charter, have five years to commence work, and five years to complete it; you oblige them to file their plans and complete the purchase of the land within a year after the filing of the plans. How are you going to deal with the question in view of that?


George Perry Graham: Under our present Railway Act and under the clause that we put into railway charters they must begin within two years and expend fifteen per cent of the capital. That is why I put two years in the original Bill. I thought it was right to give them two years as they are allowed two years in their charter to begin operations. Unless it were a charter with special provisions that clause would be in.


John Graham Haggart: How do you apply this plan to the charter? Their charter gives them power to commence in a certain time?


George Perry Graham: It gives them two years in which to commence, but they would have to commence within two years and expend 15 per cent.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It does not follow that they would have to take that particular man's land. They might begin with other people.


George Perry Graham: If they have to start within two years, and are a bona fide company, they must have a certain time limit, in justice to the man as well as to the railway, in which to proceed. When the railway company files its plans for a man's property, he is virtually tied up. He cannot build on tlhe property, for, under the present law, he will not get anything for his buildings. He cannot sell to any person else, because there is absolutely a blanket on his land. The object of this legislation is to fix a time after' which, if the company does not proceed to get title to his land and make it theirs -because it is theirs so far as increase in value is concerned-it reverts to him and they! must begin their proceedings again.


John Graham Haggart: Suppose a party has a charter to build a road. He complies with that charter, commences within two years, and spends fifteen per cent. He may have ten years within which to complete. How is he to expropriate the land for the purpose of building and fulfilling the remaining conditions of his charter?


George Perry Graham: He would have to begin again after the expiration of the time limit and any increase in the value of the land would go to the owner instead of to the railway.


John Graham Haggart: Does the minister mean he would have to apply again for a charter ?


George Perry Graham: No. The filing of the plans does not make or unmake the charter. But he would have to have the filing of the plans renewed.


Haughton Lennox: That is not in the Act.


George Perry Graham: If the hon. gentleman wants me to make it tighter, I can do so. But I think I have it stringent enough.


Haughton Lennox: He does not have to file the plans again.


George Perry Graham: I did not say he had to file them again.


Haughton Lennox: We understood you did.


George Perry Graham: No.
On section 4, plan of crossing of highway-powers of the board of supervision- details to be improved by the board-regulations by the board.


George Perry Graham: Let me explain this section briefly. It gives the board enlarged powers. This section 237 provides for the granting by the board of applications for leave to construct crossings, the leave of the board being requisite in all such cases. The section gives the board certain scope within which to grant such application. But under the section the board is limited to the diversion of the highway only. The section now proposed gives them power to divert either the railway or the highway. It also makes the further provision that the board can send their engineers and supervise the construction, if they desire. Under the old Act, the construction, of the new crossing or elimination or protection work was done by the company, and approved by the board.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. I think that, in these public Bills, which are of great importance, it would be better to read each clause. Some hon. gentlemen may not have been able to study the Bill very carefully before it comes up in committee. While the debate is going on, it is almost impossible to concentrate one's attention upon the section so as to really understand its meaning. When you, Mr. Chairman, read a clause, there is silence-at least there is supposed to be silence-elsewhere in the Chamber, and so one is able to concentrate his attention on the clause as he could not otherwise do. I know the practice has been followed of passing private Bills by reading side notes instead of the sections, but in important public Bills such as this, it is desirable, if it is not imposing too great a tax upon yourself, to have it read.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (reading):: 4. Section 237 of the said Act, and section 12 of chapter 61 of the statutes of 1908, [DOT] are repealed, and the following is enacted as section 237 of the Railway Act:
237. Upon any application for leave to construct a railway upon, along or across any existing highway, or to construct a highway along or across any existing railway, the applicant shall submit to the Board a plan and profile showing the portion of the railway and highway affected.


George Perry Graham: Allow, me to point out the difference in that section. It is practically a reprint of the existing section, but there is the repetition of the word 'along or across ' so as to make it apply either way.
On section 4, sub-section 2,-
2. The board may, by order, grant such application in wholr or in part and upon

such terms and conditions as to protection, safety and convenience of the public as the board deems expedient, or may order that the railway be carried over, under or along the highway, or that the highway be carried over, under or along the railway, or that the railway or highway be temporarily or permanently diverted, or that such other work be executed, watchmen or other persons employed, or measures taken as under the circumstances appear' to the board best adapted to remove or diminish the danger or obstruction, in the opinion of the board, arising or likely to arise in respect of the granting of the_ application in whole or in part in connection with the crossing applied for, or arising or likely to arise in respect thereof in connection with any existing crossing.


George Perry Graham: The main change there is that we have inserted the words 'in whole or in part' and carried them through the section.
On subsection 4, subsection 3,
3. When the application is for the construction of the railway upon, along or across an existing highway, all the provisions of law at such time applicable to the taking of land by the company, to its valuation and sale and conveyance to the company, and to the compensation therefor, shall apply to the land,' exclusive of the highway crossing, required for the proper carrying out of any order made by he Board.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What does the minister think these words are going to effect- * all the provisions of the law ' ? What does he mean? Does he mean the statute in regard to compensation or for land-owners? If that is what he means, I would advise him to say so. 'All the provisions of the law' would apply whether we say so or not.


George Perry Graham: This is not my wording. This subsection 3 is copied exactly from the existing law.


Haughton Lennox: I call attention to the word ' existing ' before the word ' highway.' The clause says ' existing highway.' I should think this clause should apply to a highway existing in law as well as to a highway actually existing. The word ' existing ' should be left out.


George Perry Graham: I have no fixed conviction on the matter, but the question is whether we should not pay some attention to priority of location. I think there ought be a distinction in the amount to be paid by each where the highway comes after the railway, and where the railway comes after the highway. I notice that a good many of the laws of the different states make a distinction in that regard when it comes to the question of contributing towards the expense.


Haughton Lennox: If a municipality grows and you project a new street ever a rail-Mr. GRAHAM.
way the municipality contributes a larger amount than if the railway crosses an original highway, and I think that is reasonable. But, where a highway has been established according to the original survey of the municipality and the railway company when they cross know it is a highway whether work has been done on it or not, I think it should be regarded as an existing highway.


George Perry Graham: If it is a highway at all is it not existing?


Haughton Lennox: Probably it is, but I do not want any doubt about it. I move to strike out the word ' existing ' wherever it occurs before the word ' highway.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it not be better to say ' existing highway or road allowance,' that would cover what the hon. gentleman wants?


George Perry Graham: If we simply say ' highway ' it may raise a quetsion in the courts as to what is a highway. What is the suggestion?


Haughton Lennox: That the word ' existing ' be struck out.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The courts might hold that if it were not travelled it would not be a highway, and so I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) would accomplish his purpose. I think the hon. member for Grey is more right in saying that it would be better to add the words ' road allowance.' How would it do to say ' established highway or road allowance?


Robert Laird Borden: If any change is to be made in the statute in this respect I think it would be better to do it by widening the definition of highway in the interpretation clause. Highway is defined in the Act to include ' any public road, street, lane, or other public way or communication.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: According to that definition the courts would decide that a highway meant something now being used. I think we should widen the definition.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The definition of highway as it is the Act would seem to be sufficient.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The definition would mean a highway that is now used and existing as such. There may be places intended to be used as highways that are not yet open and we should see that the definition covers them.


George Perry Graham: Without the definition which we have in the Act I could imagine that a highway might not be considered a highway unless it was travelled upon; but if it is an allowance laid out for a
6221	MAY 11, 1909	6222
road surely it comes under the definition of * public road ' and is public property. But if it is a road allowance, then it is a public road and public property.


Robert Laird Borden: What is a road allowance?


George Perry Graham: It is a strip of land 66 feet wide, set apart for a road.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The last words are to be taken in connection with the former ones of the definition, 'or other public way or communication,' as the lawyers call it, ejusdem generis. The minister must see at a glance that it is clearly qualified to mean something used as a way, a means of communication. That is to say it must be a road or a street or a lane which is used as a street or communication.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Suppose it is laid down on a plan in a registry office?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then it is not a way or communication, it is not used as such. We could make it clear what is intended.


Mr. CONGDON.: I would quote from a judgment at page 13 of cases on the Railway Act:	In the township of Gloucester
vs. the Canada Atlantic Railway Company, Judge Lount says:
The defendants say that by this interpretation and the construction to be placed on it by the section of the Act where the word * highway ' is used, the proper meaning to be given is ' a public road opened up and in actual use by the public ' and not an unopened road. I do not see why this restricted meaning should be adopted, more especially as the word 'highway' includes any public road, street, lane or other public way or communication. I think it must te conceded that parliament intended to give and did give, to the word ' highway ' a full and not a limited meaning.
I do not myself quite like the word 'existing,' because a highway must exist or not exist; it is not a highway unless it exists. I think it will be wiser to insert the words used in this judgment, 'a public road opened up and in actual use by the public.' That would confine it to the limited class.


George Perry Graham: We do not want to do that. Suppose we leave it as it is. Whether we strike out the word 'existing' or not I think is immaterial. Then it would apply to a road allowance so long as it was surveyed and laid out, even if it was not in use.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: So I understand from that case.


George Perry Graham: I had rather intended to have it apply in a broader sense, so that if a municipality had a road allowance laid out and intended to construct a road, the railway company in the construction of its line would have to take into consideration the fact that a road was to be built there and build their line accordingly.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the word 'existing' used both in regard to the highway and the road was intended to distinguish a highway actually in use from what is termed a road allowance, and in the other case distinguish a railway actually constructed and in operation from a mere right of way.


George Perry Graham: There would be thi3 difficulty in giving it the broad acceptation there. In the clause both in the old and in the new Bill we have:
When any application or leave to construct a railway upon, along or across any existing railway

&c.,	&c. The Board may by order grant
such application in whole or in part, but it must have a plan, &c., where a railroad does not exist. I think there is a clause further on which meets the point raised by my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: If you struck out the word 'existing' and just said 'highway' and 'railway,' it would cover everything.


George Perry Graham: I would be quite content to strike out the word 'existing.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The word 'highway' would not seem to me to cover the whole thing. In an ordinary township survey there are first the concession lines which are usually a mile and a-quarter apart and then there are blind lines between the two rows of lots. These blind lines are provided as road allowances and may or may not be opened up according to the nature of the country. In the plans and field notes of the surveys, these blind lines are registered as road allowances, but I do not imagine they would be called highways until somebody used them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: While the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Congdon) is quite right that in this case the judge decided that the term 'highway' included that unopened road allowance described by the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Sproule), he also says it does not include a road on a plan owned by a private owner and not opened by a municipality. That is the principle I had in mind. Judges are holding that unless something had been done to show that the intention to use the roads, unless it had been adopted by a municipality or some similar authority representing the Crown as a public highway, it would not become a public highway. The

term 'highway' would include only road allowances originally laid out by the Grown as highways or else those that were actually adopted and used by a municipality. We ought to insert some words which will show that this would include a street or highway or lane which the owners of the land at the time the railway proposed to build across it, had treated as going to be used as a highway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If a lot is laid out for a village the plan is registered in the registry office, but may not be adopted by the municipality. I think that is the reason for adopting that provision. In laying out lots for a village, owners sometimes make the road allowances only three rods wide. The municipal law provides that the road allowance must be four rods wide and that makes it necessary for the municipality to pass a by-law adopting it before it becomes a legal road allowance.


Haughton Lennox: If we use the word 'highway' we are employing the word in the definition, and I do not think we improve it by adding the word 'existing.' I think we weaken it by that and therefore I want to have the word 'existing' removed. I am not at all sure that when we have done that we have done all we ought to do, and I will not take the responsibility of the section, but I think we might do that at present and probably consider it further at another time. I would move to strike out the word 'existing' where it occurs before the word 'highway' and before the word 'railway.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would you not increase the difficulty where you did that? There are surveys made for railways which are never constructed, and in such cases you would compel a railway company that required to cross a surveyed line to go before the board to get permission to cross it, although in all human probability the other railway might never be built.


Duncan Graham: Even where a railway company desires to cross a projected line of railway, the probability is that it will appear before the Board of Eailway Commissioners. Personally I do not think it makes much difference whether the word ' existing ' is there or not. It makes more difference as referring to a railway than it does to a highway.


John Graham Haggart: Where there is no existing highway, a railway company does not require to go before the Eailway Commission for the purpose of getting the privilege to cross. If you leave out the word ' existing,' you do away with all the effect intended by the clause in the Act.


Duncan Graham: A case may occur where a person in speculative days decides to lay Mr. LANCASTEE.
out a town on the prairie, but it never was anything, and never will be anything but prairie. In order to build a railway across that land, a company would have to go before the Eailway Commission and file plans and make application, which it would not have to do if no town or highway existed there.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is all that could happen if the word ' existing ' were left out. But I think we ought to go further and say that if there were a highway laid out and not yet opened. But if you use the word ' highway,' you are only dealing with what is there.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: The word ' existing ' means no more in the case of a highway than in the case of a railway. Eailway means any railway which the company has authority to construct. I do not think the word 'existing' adds anything to the clause, except the difficulty of interpretation, as the board would have to give some meaning to it. When you say a highway, you mean either an actual highway or a highway existing as a legal right, and the same is true with regard to a railway. It seems to me that it is impossible to attribute any special value or meaning to the word ' existing ' with reference either to a highway or to a railway.


Mr. ELSON.: As this Bill repeals certain sections of the Eailway Act, I would like to ask if it will affect in any way farm crossings?
Mr. GEAHAM, I think it does not affect a private farm crossing, as that would not be a public highway. I think the protection of a farm crossing would not be dealt with particularly in this Act.


Mr. WEIGHT.: Inasmuch as there may be some differences in the interpretation of the word * highway,' would the minister have any objection to adding the words ' or road allowance '?


Duncan Graham: I think the conclusion we have arrived at is the only safe one. We have a definition of ' highway,' and if it includes ' road allowance,' the latter will be dealt with. If not, I do not think we should insert it. We would have to put in an interpretation clause to say what is a road allowance.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 5,
Duncan Graham: This amends section 238 of the Act, which provides for the protection of crossings already constructed. The amended section provides for an investigation of any and all railway crossings of the highway at rail level, and when dealing with new crossings or the reconstruction of

existing ones, the board can apportion the cost as it deems advisable.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The objection I see to this section, taking it as a whole, is that the board may put 'part of the cost upon the municipalities. Under section 238a railways not yet built shall provide the protection at their own expense, while railways already constructed shall be assisted by the municipalities. That is a discrimination which I do not think is right. I have spoken of that two or three times, and I repeat my protest. When we come to that section, I shall move to insert words to limit it to cases were they are eliminating crossings, and not the cases where they are still crossing the highway on the level.


George Perry Graham: So far as the municipalities axe concerned, I think that no new power is given to the board, or not to any great extent. Orders have been made before now in which the municipalities are required to do certain things.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They do not do them.


George Perry Graham: They are doing them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Because they agree to; they do not need to do them.


George Perry Graham: It can be made an order of the court


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You cannot tax a municipality.


George Perry Graham: So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, I shall not argue that with my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster). But on this question I have very good advice that we can enact anything here incidental to the carrying out of the Act. And, as a matter of fact, municipalities are paying under these orders.	The municipality of my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) is contributing a certain amount, as I understand it, to the removal of a crossing. Incidentally that case may illustrate the point raised by my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) This is not a city crossing in reality.


Mr. EDWARDS.: It is on the boundary.


George Perry Graham: Yes. If you were to confine this to crossings within cities, towns and villages, you would leave out this crossing, which is a very dangerous one, I believe that three out of five of those in the cities, towns and villages of Canada, though it is in a rural section, legally speaking. But that county is contributing under an order of the Board. So far as that is concerned, I feel sure that no question as to our right will ever be raised. As to the question of advisability, this Act is not based upon the ground of what we are absolutely compelled to do, but what
it is desirable should be done in order to obtain a practical result, and to cure certain evils to the making of which we have all been parties more or less. In that sense, this parliament is contributing money which it is not compelled to contribute. Generally speaking, I believe that the Dominion of Canada will receive a benefit from the elimination of these crossings. The municipalities will receive an extra benefit.
I have heard no contention from municipalities themselves in opposition to this, but I believe that they are willing to contribute fairly to the elimination of these crossings as a matter of their own protection.


Haughton Lennox: This is not confined to elimination.


George Perry Graham: I mean the elimination of the danger. I think the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) will find that if we are to get this through and make it practical we must go along practical lines rather than on the line of considering the niceties of who shall pay for this or that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But you are making what I call a retrograde step. You have never undertaken yet to say that the municipalities shall pay for the protection of dangerous crossings. It is true that the old board, the Railway Committee of the Privy Council which preceded the present board established in 1903, did impose terms before they would order the protection of a municipality in some cases like that of the county of Fontenac. It is possible, even probable, that the municipalities thought it wise to submit to the terms rather than endure the continued evil. But that does not make it just. It is a good deal of the nature of a hold-up. The same proposition may have been put by the Board of Railway Commissioners to a municipality. If you prefer to contribute to this, we will make the order; but if not, we will not make the order. The fact that the board might do it that way would not make it just. But here we are declaring in favour of that as a principle. We realize that, because of the multiplication of trains, the greater speed of trains and other conditions, the danger is greatly increased, and all that for the benefit of the railway. But, notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the opinion of the people that the time had come when a change should be made and that the railways should be ordered to protect these crossings-such protection as the board thought necessary, but entirely at the expense of the railway because the danger had been increased by them-and notwithstanding that this parliament in three separate sessions passed a Bill embodying that principle, now the Minister of Railways comes forward and proposes this retrograde step,

declaring that it shall be the law that municipalities shall pay for the protection of crossings at the rail level. I protest, and I think the municipalities will protest when they understand the matter. This is the time to make the point clear and avoid trouble. The way to do that is to confine this to cases where the level crossings are being eliminated, and the ideal condition is being established under which there is no danger of the train coming in contact with people, so that a man, though blind or deaf, cannot be hit' by the train, and children going to school and playing along the way, as is natural for them to do, cannot be run over by the train and killed. But if a railway will not apply for the elimination of the level crossing, will not assist in establishing the ideal condition, hut will persist in running their trains as cheaply as they can across the King's highway, wherever protection is ordered it should be at the expense of the railway, leaving to the board always to sav what crossings shall be protected and what the nature of the protection at any particular crossing shall be. But when this House has_ declared itself on three separate occasions, for us now to rescind our actions, to stultify ourselves-as I say we are doing -to give up this principle merely because thirty senators against sixteen have declared in favour of a different principle, is a thing against which I protest and shall protest as vigorously as I can both here and in the country.


William Cameron Edwards: As to the municipality contributing towards the elimination of these level crossings, and as to the right of this parliament to assess the municipality of this parliament for the cost, I can only conclude that they have the right. The reason I come to that conclusion is the action that was taken with reference to the crossing referred to by the Minister of Railways and Canals at Kingston Junction. The Railway Committee of the Privy Council passed an order in connection with that crossing and assessed the cost partly on the railway, partly on the county of Fron-tenac and partly on the city of Kingston. The county wanted to have a subway constructed, but the city of Kingston opposed it and signified their intention of carrying it to the courts. Our solicitor for the county of Frontenac took proceedings. I think the mode of procedure was to have the order of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council made a rule of the Exchequer Court-whatever that may be-I do not pretend to be up in these legal technicalities. I was the clerk of the county at the time, and I know that is the proceeding we took. And it was understood not only by our municipality, but by the municipality of the city of Kingston that they would have Mr. LANCASTER.
to obey that order. This House seems to have the power, through the Railway Committee of the Privy Council or through the Railway Commissioners, to give any orders they choose with regard to assessing costs on municipalities.


Mr. S.EXSMITH.: Is it the county municipality or the township municipality that is made responsible?


George Perry Graham: Whichever is affected. If it is a county road, I imagine the county would be responsible. It is also provided that if it were a toll road owned by a corporation they would be the responsible parties.


John Albert Sexsmith: I would like to point out that there are cases where individual municipalities might be asked to contribute for the protection or abolition of a dangerous crossing in which they had no interest. I have in mind a municipality in which the Canadian Pacific Railway runs along the southerly boundary all the way across the municipality, from one to two miles of the boundary. There are a number of very dangerous crossings there, and a number of people have been killed. Now you propose a law under which the municipality would be compelled to bear the expense of protecting those crossings, whereas if it were that municipality alone that furnished the traffic-it furnishes so little that the crossings would not be dangerous-there would probably be no accidents. But there are several leading roads running out into other townships which furnish the bulk of the traffic, and you ask the people of that individual township to pay all the expenses. I think that is very unfair. The Dominion or provincial government, or the county should bear the burden. You cannot justly saddle that individual municipality with the whole expense. It would be unjust to ask those people to provide for five or six dangerous crossings which they use so little, while the other people in adjoining municipalities and who use the crossings would go scott free.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will find that the board has wide powers to make any distribution of the cost they like in a case of that kind. Where the benefit was derived by other municipalities they would be made to bear a portion of the burden, as in a similar case at Kingston. The Board has ample powers, I think, under this new Act to apportion whatever part of the costs they like upon the municipality that is affected or benefited thereby.


William Cameron Edwards: The point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Sexsmith) is a very good one in many respects. Take, for instance, the crossing which the Minister of Railways has referred to; that is on a leading road into the city of Kingston. Many municipalities in the county of Frontenac used that road, and the Board of Railway Commissioners did apportion the cost on the county as a whole. Now a question has been raised in my own county. There are certain municipalities in the extreme north of the county who never use these crossings, and they would protest against paying any portion of the cost that is assessed on the county. It has occurred to me that where the Board of Railway Commissioners assesses a portion of the cost on the county as a whole, that cost might be apportioned amongst the different municipalities by the county judge, in much the same way as the county judge fixes the amount which a municipality or a township should pay in regard to certain bridges known as county bridges. So the municipality in which the crossing exists, or where the immediate necessity exists, should pay a larger proportion of the cost than the municipalities which, from their situation, never use this road and never use the crossing. Perhaps it would be possible for the Board of Railway Commissioners to deal with such matters. But it seems to me that where they put the cost on the county as a whole it might be left to the county judge to divide it equitably amongst the various municipalities according to their interest in the work.


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: I would like to ask whether, under the proposed Bill, the Board of Railway Commissioners will have authority to assess whatever municipality they choose, irrespective of whether the railway is in that municipality, or to assess any municipality according as they think proper.


George Perry Graham: That is the question that has been raised. Section 59 of the Railway Act covers that point. It reads thus:
When the board, in the exercise of any power vested in it by this Act, or the special Act, in and by any order directs any structure, appliances, equipment, works, renewals, or repairs to be provided, constructed, reconstructed, altered, installed, operated, used or maintained, it may order by what company, municipality or person, interested or affected by such order, as the case may be, and when or within what time and upon what terms and conditions as to the payment of compensation or otherwise, and under what supervision, the same should be provided, constructed, reconstructed, altered, installed, operated, used and maintained.
2. The board may order by whom, in what proportion, and when the cost and expenses of providing, constructing, &o.
This is a very broad power, under which the board may order by what county, municipality or person; it can divide the cost as it sees fit amongst those affected, or the railway may be ordered to do it all.


John Graham Haggart: Does the minister think that if a railroad does not touch any municipality, that municipality could be ordered to pay part of the cost?


George Perry Graham: If the municipality uses the road I think it could.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The minister had better be careful in coming to conclusions. This very section of his Act speaks of a highway. Now what highway? The highway of a township ten miles away. The highway surely is the highway that the railway crosses, and that is the highway of the township that the railway runs through. I am strongly of the opinion that the board could not legally order a municipality to pay, which municipality was not crossed by the railway, the highway crossed not being a highway of the municipality in question. That road might be ten, twenty or thirty miles away and running into two or three more townships. The township which is not affected by the railway, the township within whose confines the highway does not run, which highway crosses the railway, surely cannot be assessed by the board. It has nothing to do with the railway.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: It ought to be.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The point raised by the hon. member for Peterborough is an important one and we should be very careful what we do.


George Perry Graham: We are not changing the Act at all hi that respect. Section 59 has been in the Act. The proportion of expense that has been imposed on any municipality has been imposed for some years. To give an illustration which is in my mind, it is a principle of the Drainage Act that you can assess a municipality, affected although it may be miles away from a stream.


Haughton Lennox: Do not go into that.


George Perry Graham: I am not going very deeply; I am pointing to an illustration.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is not an illustration because it is not on all fours.


George Perry Graham: I believe that section 59 of the Act was drawn for the sole purpose of allowing the board to exercise its judg-

ment in imposing part of the cost upon any municipality which, in its opinion, ought to pay a portion of the cost. It is not confined to any particular municipality.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It must be taken to mean the municipality affected by the crossing. The provision must be taken subject to the understanding that the board is exercising one of the powers vested in it by this Act. This particular section which we are passing is limited to where highways cross railways and railways cross highways, and no municipality can be meant except the municipality in which the railway is.


John Albert Sexsmith: I think it would be a mistake to place any more burdens on the municipalities. I think the minister knows that the urban and rural municipalities of the Dominion, or, to speak more particularly of the province in which I live, are heavily taxed at the present time to keep up their schools and highways. To make them liable for another burden, it seems to me, would be unfair.


George Perry Graham: This has been in the Act for years.


John Albert Sexsmith: If there has been no action taken to relieve the municipalities I think the time has come when it should and they should be responsible for removing it. If the government wish to assist I have no objection, but when it is proposed to further tax the municipalities I certainly object. The municipalities are o\er burdened with taxation now.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the minister will not do anything I will move, to test the committee, that the section be amended by inserting after the word 'may' in subsection 3 the words 'when ordering the railway to be removed from the highway crossing at rail level and'. This will make it clear that the board cannot apportion the cost amongst the municipalities unless they are taking the railway off the highway levels. That is something that no railway company ought to object to. They are mighty lucky when we help to place their tracks where they are saved the expenditure of the maintenance of protection. It is a great advantage to a railway company not to be running on the highway with regard to the maintenance and keeping up of the track. It should be to their interest to get into a condition weTe they are beyond the possibility of coming in contact with people on the highway, and when we are willing to assist them to get into that position and to assist to pay for eliminating the danger which they have created by crossing the highvray at Mr GRAHAM.
rail level they ought to be satisfied and they ought not to ask any municipality to contribute while on the highway. Once more I want to say if they are obliged to protect upon the rail level on the highway they will find lots of ways of protecting at very little expense. If they aie not required to do it at their own expense while they remain on the highway, increasing the danger by the accelerated speed and the multiplication of their trains, the board should not have power to make a municipality pay part of the expenditure. That would be in opposition to the Act which this parliament has passed unanimously in regard to the protection of crossings in cities, towns and villages. In order to test the committee I will move:
That after the word ' may ' in subsection 3, as it occurs in the second line of the said subsection, the following words to be inserted, ' when ordering the railway to be removed from the highway crossing at rail level and/


Haughton Lennox: That does not seem to cover the whole range of cases. We have the case where the highway is carried above the railway or where the Tailway is carried above the highway. Or, there may be a diversion. This only speaks of the one case.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It covers! them all.


Haughton Lennox: I suppose the meaning is fairly evident but it is not so worded as to cover them all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The contribution is to be limited to cases in which we eliminate the danger of the level crossing.


George Perry Graham: Where we eliminate the crossing, not the danger.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Let us not quibble; the main danger is if the train runs on the level of the highway and the ideal condition is to remove that danger. The qualification I have inserted would prevent them charging the municipality for any of the cost of protecting the highway while they still run on the level of the highway.
Amendment (Mr. Lancaster) negatived.


Mr. BRISTOL.: Assuming there are certain cases in which it would not be fair to ask the municipality to contribute, the clause as drawn must mean that there are no such cases. If you insert the words 'if any' after the words 'what portion of the cost,' you would attain what is desired. That would give discretion to the Railway Commissioners to order the whole or any part to be borne, as the facts might justify.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Somebody must pay.


Edmund James Bristol: But there are cases in which it may not be just to ask the municipality to pay, and there might even be

cases where it might not be just to ask the railway to pay, and my suggestion would allow the Railway Commissioners to do as they thought proper. If you do not insert those words they would have to order the municipality or the railway in each case to pay something.


George Perry Graham: They can apportion the cost as they see fit; they could order the railway to pay it all if they thought they should do so.


Edmund James Bristol: Not under the section as it is, but if you insert the words 'if any' there will be no doubt.


George Perry Graham: The intention is to leave it absolutely in the hands of the Railway Commissioners, subject to what restrictions we place on our own contributions.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The suggestion of the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Bristol) to insert the words 'if any' should be adopted. As the clause is you are practically directing the Railway Commissioners to apportion the cost on the municipality and you are not leaving it to the direction of the Board as to whether they shall do so or not.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not myself see why the words 'if any' should be inserted. As it is now, it is within the jurisdiction of the Railway Commissioners to apportion say only $1 on the municipality even if a crossing should cost $100,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They are not likely to do that.


William Cameron Edwards: They are not any less likely to do it if you insert the words 'if any.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You should not imply in this clause, as you do, that the Railway Commissioners must in all cases apportion some part of the cost on the municipality.


Edmund James Bristol: You certainly cannot apportion nothing, and when you say 'the apportionment of the cost,' you must mean that a part of the cost shall be put on one party or the other. I am not asking the House to decide whether the Tailway or the municipality should pay all; but I do say it should be left to the board to decide


William Cameron Edwards: I spoke of one dollar, and if that should be the apportionment it is not much more than nothing.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That would not be a reasonable apportionment.


William Cameron Edwards: It might.


Edmund James Bristol: The Minister of Railways, although not a lawyer, has a legal mind, and he must see that if you insert
the words 'if any' it means beyond doubt that the commissioners could apportion the whole, or any part, or none at all. I have heard the minister deliver lectures to this House saying that he wanted the Railway Commission to stand between the railways and the public.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In the next clause, where the minister is dealing with the money of the country, he takes good care to restrict the commissioners to allowing 20 per cent, but in this clause he gives them the widest power to do what they like. I do not think we should give the commissioners any such power. We should give principles to the commissioners and power to administer them; but we should not delegate to them the making of the railway laws of the country.


George Perry Graham: There is no desire to get around the point made by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol). My desire is that the Railway Board shall have full power to order a crossing to be protected and to say that the railway company shall pav for it all, that the railway company shall pay a part and the municipality a part, or that both shall pay a part and a part shall be paid for out of the fund we are making. If the committee think we ought to insert the words ' if any ' after ' apportionment,' I aim willing.


Edmund James Bristol: The same result would be expressed more plainly by putting in the word 'respectively' after the word 'borne.'


George Perry Graham: I move to insert the words 'if any' after the word 'apportionment' and the word 'respectively' after the word 'borne' in line 50.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: I cannot see that the words 'if any' have any significance there at all, as there must be an apportionment or a payment.


Haughton Lennox: I think the word 'apportion' should be changed to 'portion.'


George Perry Graham: I move that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 6,
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like an explanation from the minister about this. The trouble is being created by the railways now constructed, and you are preventing other people constructing railways in opposition to them by putting a burden upon these, which are not doing the harm. The company which is to build a new railway has to do at its own expense what I contend all railways should do. But those which are already constructed and which are actually doing the harm are to be as-

sisted by the municipalities or by the fund raised by the Dominion of Canada as a whole, or by both. I protest against this legislation which is discriminating. It is an obstacle to other railways building. If it is true that existing railways should not be expected to protect their crossings at their own expense, you are putting an unfair and undue burden on the new railways which you are chartering to compete with those existing railways.
To provide that on railways hereafter to be built all crossings must be protected by the railway companies, but that existing railways on whose lines people are to-day being killed and injured there shall be no protection unless the municipality or the state contributes towards the expense, is absolutely nonsensical legislation, not using the word offensively. Any railway that is to be constructed in the future is to protect its crossings entirely at its own expense because as it creates the danger it is fair and reasonable that it should afford protection from that danger. Is it not equally fair and reasonable that existing railways, which have caused the deaths of so many people, should also afford protection against future danger on their lines? The question of vested rights does not arise because the railways had no right to increase the speed and number of their trains, thereby greatly increasing the number of accidents at level crossings. A statement has been attributed to the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners-I do not believe that he made it-that 90 per cent of those killed at level crossings are killed through their own negligence. If he made that statement I am sure he made it without the knowledge of the facts as it is absolutely incorrect. Statistics may have been furnished by the railways that might indicate that to be the case, but the statistics were not true. Men are reported as being killed through their own negligence, without any inquest or inquiry, simply upon the report of men who are interested in the railway side of the case. If the alleged statement of the commissioner is true then it is negligence to send children to school, to come home from church after dark, to drive a wagon to market, and it is negligence to go anywhere where a train may pass at 60 miles an hour without warning to those on the highways. We must stop listening to nonsense of this kind. People are being killed because the trains run at a terrific speed without warning to the people at dangerous crossings. I protest against this section because it is inconsistent to vote here to-day that the railways which are doing the harm shall be permitted to continue doing harm or shall be assisted by the state or the municipality to protect these crossings while the railways required to open up new sec-Mr. LANCASTER.
tions of country are to receive no assistance, are to provide protection entirely at their own expense. The fact that this section is to apply to railways not yet constructed is the very best argument why the House should say that the existing railways should bear the same burden in regard to existing crossings.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Haughton Lennox: I would move to add at the end of the subsection the words:
Or of any crossing of a railway by a highway.
We have always used the double expression.


George Perry Graham: If a highway exists we must cross it.


Haughton Lennox: We provide here that for any protection in respect of any crossing by the railway the railway company shall pay, but all through the Act we use the reverse expression and we ought here to provide that the railway shall pay in respect of any crossing of the railway by a highway.


George Perry Graham: The difficulty there would be that if a highway should be constructed after the building of the railway that is a different position from a railway running over an existing highway. In the case of a new highway it should be left to the board to say what proportion of the expense each party should bear.


Mr LENNOX.: I will not press the point unduly, but I think we are not making the section as full as we should.


John Albert Sexsmith: In the case of a railway running through a great tract of unorganized territory, the public would be responsible for all crossings erected as settlement proceeds.


George Perry Graham: No, that is absolutely left to the commission. My hon. friend will see that this is fair. A railway gets a charter to run through a section of the country where there is no road allo-wance or anything of that kind. Years afterwards highways are constructed over the railway. It is not unfair to leave it to the commission to say wrhat proportion of the cost each shall bear. This section says that in future where a railway is constructed over existing roads, the railway shall bear the cost of providing protection.


Haughton Lennox: I do not see why the minister does not put this subsection as a subsection to section 237 instead of section 238, -where we are dealing with new railways. What is the meaning of the expression 'subject fo the order of the board?'


George Perry Graham: That means that the Pboard shall say what amount of protection they shall provide. The Tailway company might put a bell where the board would think they should have gates. The hoard designates the kind of protection that they think would be sufficient. As to the section to which this subsection shall be attached, we will discuss that later on. I desire that this section shall be as prominent as nossible so that it will not be mixed up with any other.
On section 7, appropriation to aid in providing for safety of public at highway crossings at rail level.


William Cameron Edwards: I desire to move an amendment to add after the word ' April ' the words ' although the construction of the necessary works had been ordered prior to the said date.' There is an old maxim of law, they tell me, that equity considers things done that ought to be done. It just occurs to me that there might be a possibility of the board taking that view of the matter, and considering, where the board had given an order, say, in March, and the subway had not been constructed, that because the order was given the work should be considered as done. I have in mind, of course, the subway which is being constructed at Kingston, at the outer station. The actual work of construction did not start until after April 1, but the order of the board was eiven a few days previous to that. By inserting the words I have proposed, this case will be covered, and perhaps there may not be another case in the country that will be affected by it. I think the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) will agree with me that no possibility should he allowed of shutting out the municipality of the county of Frontenac and the municipality of the city of Kingston from a share of this fund.


George Perry Graham: It will be remembered- I think my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) will bear me out-that this is a pretty old order, one given years ago, but the latest order on the subject I believe was given in March last. The difficulty I see is that if we do not make an exact date but make changes to take in special cases, we may find a large number of cases coming within the exception. It is a dangerous thing, generally speaking, to amend a general Act to meet a special case.


Haughton Lennox: Cannot the minister give the assurance that what the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) asks will be carried out.


George Perry Graham: That will be left to the Board of Railway Commissioners. The amendment proposed by the hon. member leaves an opening for other cases. I do not know that such cases exist, but I should think that there would be a good deal of
danger if we make it as broad as that. I have no antipathy to his project.


William Cameron Edwards: The section is made to apply to ' highway crossings of the railway at rail level, in existence on the said first day of April.' This crossing was in existence on that day. My fear is that the board might take the view-I do not say they would, nor do I say that it would be reasonable for them to do so-that because an ordeT had been given for the elimination of this crossing, therefore the crossing did not exist. The amendment I propose would not affect any level crossings not in existence on April 1, nor any that were partly done away with on that day, but it would avoid the possibility of quibbling over a legal point of the kind I speak of. The object of this grant of money is to assist in removing these dangerous crossings, and this crossing, as the Minister of Railways has said, is more dangerous than three out of five of those in the cities, towns and villages of Canada.


George Perry Graham: I think the board would have the right to deal with this matter without change in the Bill, and I would not be averse to it. If the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) had upon him the responsibility of the Act, he would not want to make changes in this way. In the case he refers to, the level crossing was in existence on April 1, the work not having been begun. That being the case, I think the board will have full power to deal with it.


John Graham Haggart: The minister could add a few words which would include only this particular order. I think there is a good deal in the argument of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) that, once an order is given, this clause would not have retroactive effect and apply to it.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not see how any harm could be done to any person by adding the words I have suggested. It does seem a hardship that if an order were passed on the 31st of March the case would be excluded, and if passed on the following day it would be included.


George Perry Graham: Has the cost been apportioned under the order?


William Cameron Edwards: Yes.


George Perry Graham: Then, the hon. member will see we should need a new order altogether.


William Cameron Edwards: Not necessarily. We shall know what we have to pay as soon as the work is completed, but we hope to get a portion of this $200,000 for the county of Frontenac and the city of Kingston. And I think we are entitled to it. It has been no fault of the county of Frontenac that this

subway was not constructed long ago. But merely because we, unfortunately, happened to meet the board a few days before the first of April-had we known that this date was to be fixed, we might have made it a day or two after the first of April-it seems unreasonable to exclude us from the benefit of this section. Had we known this date was going to be the 1st of April it would have been better for us to wait until the 2nd of April before we got the order from the board. I do not think it is anything unreasonable to ask that we make it plain that where orders had been given and crossings had not been changed, they would get recourse from the board.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will see that we will be passing legislation asking the board to make a new order. The board might vary its order on account of our legislation. I would not be averse to suggesting to the board that it would not be unreasonable to take that into consideration. But they will certainly have to make a new order as to the apportionment if they get any of our funds. If they are going to draw on these funds that we are appropriating, they will have to make a new order and a new appointment.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: I should think the crossing would be considered the one in existence on the 1st day of April, unless the order required the work of change to be completed before that date, and in that case it should receive special consideration.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have an amendment to the earlier portion of the clause to this effect: That in line 20 on page 4, after the word 'providing' there shall be inserted the words:	'By actual
construction work.'


Haughton Lennox: What is the meaning of that?


George Perry Graham: That we are not assisting in the maintenance and operation. But we want to make it clear that any aid given by the government is for actual construction of work for safety and convenience.


Haughton Lennox: Has the minister finally decided to allow this Act to apply to matters such as gates and bells?


George Perry Graham: Yes. I threshed that all out with the chairman of the board.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The chairman of the Railway Commission no doubt likes to get all the power he can. The chairman of the Railway Board is human, as everybody else is, and he doesn't care whose special rights are affected so long as he has charge of a question of right or wrong as to who pays is one for which the parliament Mr. EDWARDS.
is responsible. I think we are giving the board responsibility that we should assume ourselves. We ought to be more careful, lest we be accused _ by the people of shirking our responsibility. We have all through this Railway Act been avoiding responsibility and throwing it holus bolus over to the Railway Commission. They are in fact making the law as well as administering it. The minister is giving power to the Railway Commission to tax a municipality to any extent they like in regard to the cost of protecting railway crossings where the railway is on a highway level, and he is saying that that should apply to the construction of anything they want done. Why, the board is given more power to tax a municipality than the mayor and aldermen of that municipality possess. The mayor and aldermen can only do certain things within the limits prescribed by the municipal Act, but this Board of Railway Commissioners, created by the Dominion, is to have the widest power in the world, and can throw cost on any municipality for the purpose of protecting the lives of people which are endangered by the railway running through that municipality, and without at all eliminating the danger by a reconstruction of the track.


Alfred Henry Clarke: There are a good (many municipalities where it is almost impracticable to build subways on account of the level nature of the ground. I know of cases where grades were ordered to be separated, and it was found afterwards to be absolutely impracticable on account of the level nature of the land, and other expensive apparatus would have to be provided to keep the water out, that would have very considerably increased the expense.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On subsection 2 of section 7, railway grade crossing fund.
Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have an amendment placed in my hands to strike out the words 'as hereinafter set forth' in the last line, and insert the following instead:
Subject to the limitations hereinafter set out and solely towards the cost, not including that of maintenance and operation of actual construction work for the purpose specified in subsection 1 hereof.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the net result of it that while the country's contribution must be applied to actual construction the contributions of the municipality may be applied towards maintenance?


George Perry Graham: We are not altering the law as far as municipalities are concerned.

Practically, in towns and large cities, the Board does make orders, for instance that a man shall be engaged and, owing to the peculiar conditions, that the municipalities shall pay a certain portion of the cost. We are trying not to interfere with any powers the board has as between the municipalities and the railways as they have worked very satisfactorily to both. But, we are trying to put safeguards around our own contribution by saying that our own contribution shall not be applied to maintenance or operation.


Haughton Lennox: Practically it has no effect.


William Cameron Edwards: I would like to ask the minister if it is the intention to leave it to the discretion of the board to apportion that money among the railway companies as well as the municipalities.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: If that is the intention I protest. I think the municipalities have contributed enough towards the railways of this country. I take the ground that this House should move in the direction of relieving the municipalities and that it should not leave it to the discretion of the board to apportion the cost in this way.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The whole effect of this legislation is to give relief to the railways. The people will still be paying what they have paid before. The board will give an order but that will likely impose a heavier tax on the people because we are providing by this legislation that both the municipalities and the federal government are to pay so much money for relieving the railways from the dangers which they have created. If you want to convert the people to the doctrine of public ownership you are passing legislation which will have that effect. The people will take the ground that if they have to pay to eliminate the danger that the railways create they might as well, own the railways. The people are to be taxed through the purse of the province, through the federal exchequer and though the municipalities and the Tail-ways are to go on still running at highway level, still killing people and the effect of this legislation simply is that we carry a greater proportion of the burdens of the railway while they get the profits, and the people are going to pay the expense for the sake of seeing the trains run. _ The only remedy for that will be to acquire these railways and publicly own and operate them.
On subsection 3 of section 7, apportionment of money by board.


George Perry Graham: That subsection 3 be amended by striking out the word ' actual' before the word ' cost ' in the fourth line thereof and inserting the word ' actual ' before the word ' construction in the same line thereof.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does not the minister really think, while he is saying to the board that they shall not take more than 20 per cent from the people of the Dominion, that he should say that they shall not take more than 20 per cent from any municipality. It is all very well to pass legislation and not care -how much you put upon some one else who is not here specially to deal with it. We are not here to deal with anything but federal matters, but when we are called upon to deal with municipal and provincial matters we should not give the board power to tax municipalities as highly as they like. I am not going to move an amendment because I am absolutely op-' posed to municipalities paying anything where the railways are still running on the highway level. But, I appeal to the ministei. He- says that the government should not contribute more than 20 per cent out of the money of the people. Is it fair legislation that to limit to 20 per cent the amount which is contributed from the Dominion exchequer while you place no limitation on the amount that the municipality may be called upon to pay? Suppose the board order a municipality to pay 50 per cent; we pay 20 per cent and the railway company get off with 30 per cent. When the minister finds out that such an order has been made will he not be a little ashamed of his legislation? Why not put in a provision that the municipality shall not be called upon to pay more than the same share of the contribution as the Dominion.


William Cameron Edwards: If we get, for the crossing which I have referred to, any portion of this money, and I still have hopes that we will get it, and if the Board of Railway Commissioners divide the amount of $5,000, we will say, in the same proportion as they apportion the cost of constructing the subway-and it is only reasonable to suppose that they will divide it in the same proportion-the railway company will get about $3 to every $2 received by the municipality of Kingston and the municipality of Frontenac. In that way, as has been' stated by my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), the people of Canada will provide the whole $5,000 which will be contributed for that work. They are getting back $2,000 and contributing $3,000 to help the railway out.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How do they get
back anything?


William Cameron Edwards: If the board sees fit they may give a portion of this money back to them. They are getting part of their money back and they are giving to the railway company $3 when they get $2.
On subclause 5,


George Perry Graham: I move to amend this clause so as to add the word 'county' after the word village, to make it read:
As well as incorporated city, town, village, county, township, or parish.


John Albert Sexsmith: I see nothing in the Bill empowering the commission to place responsibility on any municipality other than that which the railway runs through.


George Perry Graham: That is covered in section 59.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 9,
John Graham Haggart: To what extent does this amendment extend the liability of the railway company?


George Perry Graham: The liability before was confined to certain specified things, and now by adding the word ' property,' if property is destroyed, the railway company will be liable.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have contended that the company ought to be liable for any damage they do, whether it is to property or anything else. Does the minister think that in principle we should not limit this to property? Why should the widow of a man who is burned to death in a fire started by a railway not be able to recover, when if a horse is burned the owner can recover damages?


George Perry Graham: The Railway Committee reported twice in favour of this amendment and I have incorporated it in the Bill.
On section 11,	)


George Perry Graham: I beg to move:
That as section 11 the following he inserted :-
The Railway Act is amended by adding thereto the following sections:-
(5a) The provisions of this Act shall apply to:
(a) Any and all railway companies incorporated elsewhere than in Canada, and owning, controlling, operating, or running trains or rolling stock upon or over any line or lines of railway in Canada either owned, controlled, leased or operated by such railway company or companies, whether in any case such ownership, control or operation is acquired by purchase, lease, agreement, control of stock, or by any other means whatsoever.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 
Haughton Lennox: What is the effect of this?


George Perry Graham: The effect is to enable the board to control rates on roads that come in from the United States. Not a few of the roads that are incorporated in the United States have obtained running rights over lines in Canada which have a provincial charter, and by certain roundabout proceedings known well to railway men they escape the operation of this Act. I am not sure whether this will afford the remedy or not. If it does not, I have something else in view which I think will afford it. But in the meantime I am in hopes that this will do so in cases in which the board has not jurisdiction because the railway companies say that they are not operating in Canada or are operating under a provincial charter.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It seems to me that this amendment deals with the very things part of which are dealt with by section 6, so that these two clauses will be in conflict with each other. I think you should reconstruct the two sections which, as they now read, are rather inconsistent.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: I can point out one instance in which I trust this section may be of some advantage. The White Pass and Yukon Railway Company controls the stock of a number of railways. It embraces, first a railway with a United States' charter; secondly, a railway with a British Columbia charter; thirdly, a railway with a federal charter. The consequence is that the Railway Commission is quite unable to exercise any jurisdiction over the undertakings of this company. That some such jurisdiction should be exercised upon the rates that company charges is pretty well established. The lowest rate from Puget Sound to Dawson is $50 a ton and it varies from that up to $200 a ton. The portion from Puget Sound to Sbagway is only from $5 to $7 a ton, and the portion from Whitehorse to Dawson is only from $10 to $12; so that the difference is appropriated by the railway of only 110 miles running from Skagway to Whitehorse. The Railway Commission investigated this matter and I think was prepared to pronounce the rates exorbitant but for the fact that a portion of the railway being under a British Columbia charter, the Commission had no jurisdiction to give any relief in the matter. In regard to this portion of the railway I communicated with the Hon. Mr. McBride, the Premier of British Columbia, who expressed his concurrence in legislation which would seek



U, 1909

[Stage Direction]
to bring that portion of the road under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission of Canada.
Section 11 agreed to.
On section 12,
George Perry Graham: This merely has reference to the report of the board being placed on the table of the House within two months, if the House js then in session.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13,
Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is a contentious clause, because the House has four times passed legislation contrary to it. This parliament has dealt with the same subject in an entirely different way, and this section is adopting the amendment of the Senate. There will have to be considerable discussion before it can go through as drawn.


George Perry Graham: Of course, we are very anxious to get this Bill on the statute book this session. We discussed the very thing to which my hon. friend refers for at least two hours and a half this afternoon. I want to point out that we have simply taken the old Act with the amendment of the Senate and added to it this clause, which I think goes further than the Bill of my hon. friend did.
If a serious accident has occurred at a crossing, I propose that that shall be taken as prima facie evidence that the crossing is dangerous, and it must be protected. Such crossings therefore do not have to be dealt with by the board. Then we are amending the Act to provide that where the board gives an order that a crossing shall be protected, until that order is complied with the trains must run at a reduced rate of speed. My hon. friend contends that that will enable the company to evade the law by running its trains slowly as long as it likes. But the board may require the company to comply with the order within thirty days or come under the penalty. I think we have met the situation as fairly as possible. The House passed what is known as the Lancaster Bill three or four times, it is true; but we had not then undertaken this larger work of dealing with the whole question of railway crossings. I have tried fairly to meet every case that has been brought to my attention, and prominent men with whom I have discussed this amendment seem to think that it will pretty well cover the ground. The Bill is drawn on broad lines. It may not meet the wishes of every person; no Bill wqs ever drawn which did. I have tried to meet them as far as possible, and if the Bill is to go on the 198}
statute book this session, we cannot delay it for any great length of time, or we will have to drop it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If it comes to that, we had better drop it than enact legislation in a hasty way simply for the sake of getting legislation. This legislation is of no advantage to the people. It is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to the railways, and is really for their protection. This legislation, to begin with, is contradictory. You have three sections, one after the other dealing with the thickly peopled portions of cities, towns and villages which absolutely contradict each other and create confusion. The Senate, instead of leaving the section as we had it, repealing the original clause, added another section and now we add a third and the result is that we secure only what we already had under the Railway Act in much better form. If a railway is bound to do a thing under the Railway Act it is bound to do it when ordered by the board. We now say that unless the railways reduce the speed of their trains to ten miles an hour they must obey the board when they are ordered to protect a crossing.


George Perry Graham: We do not say that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is the effect of the legislation. The amendment made by the Senate was bad enough but now the minister is adding a third amendment; he seems to think that by multiplication of words he is imposing further conditions on the railroads whereas he is simply creating confusion for their benefit.


Mr. EMMERSON.: My objection to the clause as drawn is that a crossing may be a very dangerous one and yet, perchance, through the intervention of Providence, no accident may have occurred, but this Bill only provides for crossings where there have been serious accidents. I prefer the Bill which we passed four years ago, which was called the Lancaster Bill, it is true, but was the work not of my hon. friend from Lincoln alone, but of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) the late Dr. Stockton, Mr. Lennox and myself. We all gave the matter a great deal of thought and study and it does seem to me that there should be some further discussion with respect to this proposed amendment. I certainly would ask that it should stand for further consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: I would ask the minister when we take it up again to direct his attention to the similarity between the first clause of the Senate's amendment and the first section of the paragraph which it amends. The two appear to be the same thing in different forms, and this must lead to some confusion. There may be some dis-

tinction which I have not observed, but it struck me that they were almost precisely similar.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 185) to incorporate the Catholic Church Extension Society of Canada.-Mr. Parent.
Bill (No. 170) respecting the Brockville, Westport & Northwestern Railway Company.-Mr. Geo. Taylor.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Civil Government-Department of the Interior-salaries, $762,473.77 ; contingencies, $32,000.
['I am under the impression that these maps do not include the geodetic survey. The information gathered by the geodetic survey is available to the geographer in the preparation of his maps, which cover the parts of the country which the survey has gone over; but I am not aware that there is a special map issued showing that survey. The maps we have issued are the homestead map, the odd section map, the railway belt map, showing the railway belt of British Columbia, the Peace river map; sheet maps of the eastern provinces, &c.\nSome resolutions reported.']
Mr. MONK.: Is this vote connected at all with the outside service?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: I may explain that there are transfers from the outside service of 504 officers with salaries aggregating $501,951.27.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This has nothing to do with immigration agents' salaries?


Frank Oliver: This has to do with the immigration staff located in the city of Ottawa, but has nothing to do with those outside of Ottawa.


Richard Blain: How many additional clerks were appointed last year?


Frank Oliver: During the calendar year 1908, there were 114 appointments, but, on account of vacancies caused by death, resignation or other causes, the total increase of appointments was 53.


Richard Blain: What is the highest salary?


Frank Oliver: 


Mr. OWEN.: What are the contingencies for?


Frank Oliver: To meet the cost of books of various kinds for the use of the different branches, special paper for patents, typewriters and stationery required for the general use of the inside service. There are ninety typewriters in use in the inside service, and the cost of repairs amounts to a large figure each year.


Mr. LAKE.: I understand the hon. minister (Mr. Oliver) to sav that this large increase of over $500,000 is due to taking in officers from the outside service and pay-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
ing them out of this vote. Would not that involve a decrease in the votes for Dominion lands and immigration?


Frank Oliver: It involves an increase in the Dominion Lands vote on account of that part of the outside service connected with the Dominion Lands which has now become part of the inside service.


Richard Stuart Lake: And the same is true of the Immigration vote?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I think there were a large number of those who were in the inside service that had their salaries increased prior to the 1st of September. Will the minister tell us how many of that 505 that were brought in from the outside, had their salaries increased, before the 1st day of September, and the principle on which this was done?


Frank Oliver: There was a total of 196 increases that is, 196 officers of the outside service had their salaries increased shortly before they came into the inside service. Of that number 52 were from Dominion Lands, 2 from School Lands, 119 from Dominion Lands Capital, 17 from Immigration, and 6 from Boundary Service. The principle on which these increases were given was to meet the necessities of the service, and the condition created by the Civil Service Act which was about to come into force. It will be noticed that by far the larger number of these increases, that is 119 out of the 196, were made in the service which was paid for out of Dominion Lands Capital, in other words, the service of the Topographical Survey. The employees in the topographical service are almost entirely technical men, men who necessarily have, must have, a college education, or what is equal to it. In order to secure and retain the services of such men a special arrangement was made by the Surveyor General by which they were taken in at $900. After two years experience, after they had remained in the service long enough to show their usefulness, they were increased to $1,200. Afterwards they were given increases at the discretion of the minister, together with the statutory increase. When the Civil Service Act was about to come into force we had a number of men who had entered on these conditions. If the Civil Service Act were brought into force with these men working at the $900 salary, they could not then get more than the statutory increase provided in the Act; in that class the maximum increase would be $50. Under those circumstances the conditions upon which those men had entered the service would be broken. Not onlv would we have broken our agreement with them, but we would not have been able to retain them in the service. There-

fore, in order to meet that condition in the case of these 119 members of the topographical service branch, the increase was made and in order to keep faith with the men according to the bargain they made when they entered the service, and so that their services might be retained. The explanation in regard to the other branches is analogous.


George Eulas Foster: The explanation that the minister has given is a very general one, and it might be a very good one with reference to some members of tjse force. But it seems to me that, in looking over the table of increases which was brought down in answer to a question, and with reference to which we have already had some discussion, the explanation cannot hold good for all. The peculiarity seems to be that it is spread over a good many men who axe not technical men, in fact it went beyond the men and distributed itself as well over the other sex in generous proportion. There seems to have been a series of increases made, some of those employees having had a double increase, and at different dates. It does not seem as if the minister's description, which he applied to the members of the Topographical Survey, can apply to all those. I find that the total increases that were given to these outside men amounted to $42,500, ot a little more. There weie a number of those increases which were doubled. How does the minister account for that?


Frank Oliver: Could the hon. gentleman
give a case as an example?


George Eulas Foster: If the minister will refer to the 'Hansard' of February 4, his own return there, he will find four or five pages out of which he can pick a large number. But I will give two or three cases. I find there was one gentleman at a salary of $850 who, on the 27th of August, was increased $50. On the 27th of August, the very same day, he received an increase of $300, bringing his salary up to $1,200. That is a very large increase to give to a clerk who at the time was doing service at $850. The name is Cohoon. I do not know any of these men. Then there is Mr. Featherston, who enjoyed a salary of $850, and on July 2, an increase of $350 was given. On August 27, a further increase of $400 was given, that makes an increase of $750 given to a clerk who at that time was doing work for $850, that is, his salary was practically doubled. Then he was brought up to the 'A' class. Now what is the explanation in those two cases? The increases seem to be enormous, just like appointing two men.


Frank Oliver: In the case of Mr. Featherston, he had been employed in the registration branch at a salary of $850. It was necessary to secure another clerk in
the minister's office, and Mr. Featherston was brought in on trial, to see whether he could fulfil the requirements. We found that he could fulfil the requirements very satisfactorily, and accordingly, it being the desire to keep him in the office, and the work being of a much more responsible character than the ordinary work in the registration branch, it was thought that the work and the service should be recognized by a fair increase. As long as the Civil Service Act was not coming into effect, as long as there was no Act absolutely governing the increases they could get, it was not necessary to make such a sudden increase as this because the power was in the hands of council to make increases from time to time. But, once the Act came into force that power was taken away. The position was that Mr. Featherston was employed in the minister's office in an entirely responsible and confidential capacity, ana unless he were given the sharp increase to which my hon. friend has referred before the coming into force of the Civil Service Act, he could not get it at all or could get it only in a. very long time. I think my hon. friend will agree that service should be paid for according to its value and that when service of a specially important character is rendered it should receive recognition accordingly. It was upon that principle that Mr. Featherston's case was dealt with.


George Eulas Foster: When did Mr. Featherston come into the service and what did he do?


Frank Oliver: He came into the service on the 27th April, 1905, and was employed in the Registrar's branch.


George Eulas Foster: What salary did he come in at?


Frank Oliver: 


George Eulas Foster: It is all very well for the minister to say that when you find the work satisfactorily done you must raise the pay. This is the evolution; see how rapid it is; In the year 1905, three years before the Act came into force, Mr. Featherston was appointed at $500. In the year 1908 he was advanced to $850. On July 2, $350 was added. He improved so much that between the period of July 2, 1908. and August 27, 1908, he proved himself worthy of an increase, within two months of $400 more. Here is a man who comes in in 1905 at $500 and in four years he gets $1,600 and is put in the division which runs up to $2,100. The minister has given no explanation of that except to say that he was removed from the registrar's branch into the minister's office, and that he is doing more responsible work. If he had

been a deputy head you could hardly have given him such immense increases as those. What kind of work is he doing that makes such rapid progress necessary?


Frank Oliver: He is really the private secretary. The health of the gentleman who was private secretary technically broke down and he had to be employed at outside work. He could not remain at all and it was necessary to get some other person to do the work. Mr. Featherston was found to be suitable to the work, and does it quite satisfactorily. It seemed to me, therefore, that he was entitled to consideration.


George Eulas Foster: Is he really the private secretary now, or is the other man the private secretary?


Frank Oliver: The other man is the private secretary, but this man is doing the work during the other man's absence on account of physical breakdown.


George Eulas Foster: The other man, of course, drawing his pay while on leave of absence?


Frank Oliver: He has not leave of absence, but he is doing important outside work, although not the work of a private secretary.


George Eulas Foster: Is he receiving a private secretary's allowance for doing outside work?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: That is a little irregular. It seems to me that if you import a man from the inside and he is not your private secretary and you give him this work outside, it is not proper to pay him the private secretary's salary during the time that he is employed at outside work. However, that does not amount to much. Here you cannot get away from the fact that this man came in in 1905 at $500, that he is now getting $1,600 and that he will go on up to $2,100. I do not think there is any justification for it. Then you have Mr. Reiffenstein, who was paid $1,800. On August 6 you increased him by $100 and on August 27 you added $200 more to his salary, putting him up to $2,100, which is a large increase. Why was Mr. Reiffenstein treated in that way?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Reiffenstein has been in the department since January 1, 1899. He is a Dominion lands surveyor and has been employed in the department as a draftsman. He entered the service at a salary of $730. He is a very satisfactory officer and he has a certain measure of responsibility. Being in the outside service he had not been receiving the increases of salary which he would have received had he been in the inside service. It seemed Mr. FOSTER.
that now that he was being brought into the- inside service his length of service and merit entitled him to the recognition which we gave him.


George Eulas Foster: That is one way to look at it. The minister has in his department, many and many and many faithful servants who came in earlier than 1889 who have given good, square, solid, honest, satisfactory service from that time up to this, who have had to be satisfied with their $50 increases year by year during a certain period, even having had in some eases these refused them, and to-day are not getting as large a salary as you are giving to this gentleman. This gentleman is brought into a grade where he gets $2,100, an increase of $300 added to $1,800. If he had been in the outside service, having come in in 1889, was in the receipt of a salary of $1,800 and had been advanced to the maximum of his class, or if he had got into the next minimum, it would have been considered very good progress indeed. By the minister's selecting one officer, giving him rapid progress, putting him in the service under the new arrangement on the 1st of September so that he gets an incease and thereby gets a position over and above that of hundreds of those who came in under the regular rules, who have conformed to all these rules and who have been regular, honest and faithful servants of the Crown, dissatisfaction is created. There are scores and hundreds of examples of that kind and one effect of that has been to create a sense of injustice and of unfairness on the part of those old and faithful servants of your department. In my hon. friend's department, in the Department of Public Works and in the Department of Agriculture, this thing was carried to the extreme. In the three departments, probably 400 to 600 were increased in that way so that they went into the higher grades, and you have them to-day in the regular service having no more ability, having less service by many years, being not a bit more faithful, and yet they draw salaries above the old and regular employees. That creates a sense of injustice amongst others and the minister would feel it if he suffered in that way himself. I am not saying what is more than true when I say that this kind of work, especially in these three departments, has not been to the benefit of the Civil Service. When did Mr. Umbach come into the service?


Frank Oliver: May 26, 1893, at a salary of $900; he is a draftsman.


George Eulas Foster: He received an increase of $50 in July and then an increase of $250 on the 27th of August, which was sufficient to give him a salary of $1,600 and to put him into the service in the grade running

from $1,600 to $2,100. This is rapid progress and it was brought about by the mechanical means of an addition of $250 to his salary shortly before the Act came into force, and the hundreds of regular employees who have given much longer and equally good service find themselves outranked and outclassed. When was Mr. Turcotte employed and at what rate?


Frank Oliver: October 1, 1906, at a salary of $500, and he was given an increase on the 27th of August of $100, bringing his salary up to $600.


George Eulas Foster: And the minister forgot to mention that on the 26th of August, the day before, he was given an increase of $200. In 1906 he gets the appointment at $500; in 1908 he is getting $600, then on August 26 preparatory to the new Act he is given $200 increase and on August 27, the day afterwards he has proved himself so efficient that he gets an increase of $100, raising him to $900 and putting him in a class which makes it possible for him to run up to $1,200 or $1,600 according to the wish of the minister or the deputy. There is a flagrant example of extraordinarily rapid promotion simply through the will or whim of a sub-officer of the department or of the minister himself. How many men who have come into the service twenty years, or ten years, or fifteen years before Mr. Turcotte ever used a pen in the service of the country, who from that time to this have been steadily and faithfully at work and who to-day are not getting more than Mr. Turcotte gets. What justification *can there be for that extraordinary increase?


Frank Oliver: I can only state that the general principle upon which increases have been given was in the line of recognition of service and of ability to perform the service, with a view to the fact that with the coming into force of the Civil Service Act there was no further opportunity to give that recognition. If service which deserved recognition were not recognized before the Act came into force it could not be recognized afterwards. I am sure that my hon. friend will realize that in a large department where such a large proportion of the employees were in the outside service, and where it was always possible to recognize merit on the recommendation of the deputy, that there were many cases which lay awaiting consideration. When the time came that this condition was going to change, then it was only right and just that there should be a general review of the salaries and the service rendered to the department with a view to placing the different members of the service as fairly and as reasonably as possible in the class to which they should properly belong.


George Eulas Foster: That is all very well as a philosophical disquisition of general principles, but it has no application to this case. This case had not been waiting long. This gentleman was put into office in 1906 and he got $100 increase, in the two years. It is not quite the fact is it, that all gates were barred the moment the new Act came into force and that merit and good work could not thereafter get its reward? The thousand and more who are in the regular Civil Service have to take their chances, under the principles and methods of the Act of rising on their merits, in the classes where increases of salary and promotions are provided for. So it is not lair to say that all the gates were barred to these men when they came in on the 1st of September. They had all the privileges and avenues open to them which the great mass of the Civil Service have. Nor are these avenues few or unimportant. It seems strange that such increases as these should take place in numberless instances where the minister or the deputy had the power and used it, and, as I have always contended, used it unfairly; because the understanding in the House was that these gentlemen in the outside service were to come in on the 1st of September with the salaries they received at that time, with no idea that in a month or two the minister would pick out 196 and advance them arbitrarily as he pleased and add nearly $50,000 to the salaries, so that those gentlemen might be in a position of advantage when they came in. If that had been explained when the Civil Service Bill was going through the House, I am quite sure that there would have been a very strong protest against individual ministers taking advantage of power they possessed to raise the status of those whom they chose to take up without any examination or selection except on their own mere will. No use of my taking up time to discuss it; it has been done. The three ministers have done it. Some of the ministers who did not do it, but stood loyally by the spirit of the Act have had hard work with their employees to justify their seeming lack of adventurous action, while the three ministers have specially signalized themselves by undertaking this form of advancement. What are Mr. Turcotte's duties?


Frank Oliver: I cannot give my hon. friend the details of his employment. I can only say that he is in the secretary's branch of the department.


George Eulas Foster: The minister is very fortunate in bringing in his estimates on the last leg of the session, otherwise we would have to ask him to wait until he could get information as to these. I notice that there have been very large increases in

other cases-$250, $300, $200, and so on. How long has R. B. Matheson been in the service?


Frank Oliver: He entered the service of the Dominion Lands on the 15th of December, 1902, at a salary of $600. He received increases to the 20th of August, 1908, up to $1,300. On the 1st of September, 1908, he was getting $2,000, bringing his present salary up to $2,100.


George Eulas Foster: Where was he employed before he came here?


Frank Oliver: In the outside land offices. He was transferred from one place to another as his services were required. During the past summer he was brought from Calgary, where he was acting agent while the agent was absent through illness. He was brought here as special Assistant Commissioner of Dominion Lands.


George Eulas Foster: I just happened on that remarkable instance. This man had been in the service of this country exactly six years, having entered on a salary of $600, and he is now getting $2,100 and is on the road by regular increases to a very much higher salary. What are the special abilities of Mr. Matheson that have brought him from $600 in 1902 up to $2,100, with a favoured and permanent place in the new schedule?


Frank Oliver: I think Mr. Matheson's case may be taken as a fair sample of the reasons for the increases which my hon. friend criticises. A person entered the outside service under entirely different circumstances from the person who entered the inside service. The latter came in on an examination, entered a certain class and had a certain recognized standing and a certain permanence of position, supposed at any rate to be based upon his abilities and attainments. In the outside service, outside of Ottawa, men were taken in under any circumstances. There might be a very competent man who for the time being was out of employment. An opening occurring in some branch of the government's work, he was glad for the time being to take employment at a very small salary. As time went on it was shown that he had ability and that the department had need of that ability, and it was right and proper that he should receive such increases in salary as would enable the department to retain his services. That is the general statement in regard to these increases. I have not knowledge as to where Mr. Matheson entered the service or as to what office he worked in. My knowledge began with his position as senior assistant at the Humboldt land office when that office was opened. After serving there ' Mr. FOSTER.
for some time, he was transferred to Calgary to take the place of the agent at that very large and important agency during the absence of the agent through illness. He retained that position for about a year and the agent having then recovered we found that our work in the head office had increased to such an extent that it had become a physical impossibility for the commissioner to transact it alone. We had to have some person to assist him and my hon. friend will understand that it was not simply a matter of clerical knowledge or knowledge of the land law that is required, the man who administers the Dominion Lands Act should have a practical working knowledge of settlement conditions throughout the country. This knowledge Mr. Matheson had by reason of his experience in the western land offices, and owing to that, and to his general abilities, we decided that he was the man for the position. He was brought here as assistant Commissioner of Dominion Lands. Mr. Matheson's work has been found entirely satisfactory and my view is that it would have been very unfair to Mr. Matheson, occupying the responsible position and doing the responsible work he does, if he had not been given this classification.


George Eulas Foster: Of course the minister does not mean to say that those who come into the regular service come in as chief clerks at first. He quite understands that the man who is now a chief clerk has had to commence at the bottom of the ladder, to submit to all the rules and requirements of the regular Civil Service, and that many men not devoid of ability, have taken a score or two score of years to arrive at the salary of this gentleman who was picked up in 1902, and was transferred after a year or so to the head office here. Was Mr. Matheson at all recommended by his capacity for party work or anything of that kind?


Frank Oliver: I am satisfied there was nothing of that kind.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. R. E. Young receives an addition of $400. That is a large addition and it certainly could not be contended that he was in want as his salary before that was $3,000. What is the reason for that large increase, just one day before the Act came into force.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Young occupies a very responsible position at the head of an important branch of the work of that department. His responsibility has been increased by the addition of sub-branches and is likely to be further increased. His work has been eminently satisfactory, not only to the department, but I am satisfied to the public with whom he has to do. It is true that he was getting $3,000 a year, but my hon. friend is aware that the report of the
6257	MAY 11, 1909	6258
Civil Service Commission and the sentiment of parliament was that the officers of the department, and especially the higher officers of the various departments were not receiving salaries proportionate to their responsibilities and their work, and it was the purpose, as I understand it to give adequate salaries in the higher branches of the service. At any rate that was the view I held, that we must pay for efficient service and for responsibility. We had the efficient service, we had the discharge of every responsibility by Mr. Young, and we felt it was right and proper that his services should be recognized and his salary placed on a par with those of other officers in our department and other departments whose duties were not more onerous and responsible than his.


George Eulas Foster: When did he come into the service?


Frank Oliver: The first of February, 1904, He is a Dominion land surveyor by profession and therefore has special qualifications for the work he is doing.


George Eulas Foster: What salary did he receive in 1904?
. Mr. OLIVER. $1,800.


George Eulas Foster: He now receives a salary of $3,400, and is on his way onward and upward. I congratulate the minister on being particularly apt in hunting out these men of genius and young men of promise. Every man whom he puts up in this way is a paragon and has some latent abilities which have been wonderfully discovered by the minister on the evening before September 1, when this Act was to come into force. How long has the minister been neglecting these men of ability? They have been in his service for years and he never wakened up to their value until the day before the Act was to come into force. There are two others who receive $400 increases, but it would take a month of Sundays to run through the list. To pick out one example, how was it that Mr. Lesueur was granted an increase on August 31, and is he still in the service?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Lesueur came into the service in June 19, 1907, at a salary of $1,200. He was given an increase up to the 26th of August of $50 and on the 27th of August he was given an increase of $150, making his salary $1,400.


George Eulas Foster: Is he still in the service?


Frank Oliver: No, he is not.


George Eulas Foster: Why?


Frank Oliver: Although Air. Lesueur was an efficient clerk and his efficiency was recognized by the increase that was given him here, there was an occurrence in his
transactions with the department that made it desirable that his connection with the department should cease and it ceased accordingly.


George Eulas Foster: How did he come to be appointed in 1907 at $1,200? What special
influence had he to bring him in?


Frank Oliver: He was employed in the accountant's branch, and was taken into that branch because of some experience that he had had in a bank. He was, I understand, an entirely efficient man in the work he was employed in, and was trusted with some responsibility.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister say that this gentleman's experience in the bank was such as to make him a fit man to come into office here at $1,200 above men whom the minister should have known for years and trusted in? What experience had he in the bank that recommended him for the public service?


Frank Oliver: I am given to understand that he was an accountant at the Smith's Falls branch of one of the banks.


George Eulas Foster: By whom was he recommended?


Frank Oliver: I could not give that offhand.


George Eulas Foster: I do not wish to pry too much into this sort of thing, but it has been a very unhappy experience, has it not? Extending to what amount now?


Frank Oliver: No loss at all to the department-no money loss.


George Eulas Foster: Has Air. Robinson returned to his duty? Has the minister made any thorough investigation into the whole matter to get at the root of it?


Frank Oliver: The matter has been thoroughly investigated, so far as the accounts are concerned.


George Eulas Foster: As I say, I do not wish to pursue the matter. But this, I think, indicates a very good lesson to be learned, -not to take men in without proper credentials and put them over the heads of old and trusted servants, giving them financial responsibilities which afterwards the minister has to Tegret. I am told that if the minister had inquired of the bank he would probably have got some information that would have prevented this appointment. I observe that Mr. Fred Taylor gets an increase of $220 some twelve hours before this eventful 1st of September. What is the reason for that increase?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Taylor was employed in the Railway Lands branch. He entered the service on November 35, 1907, at $500, and was increased to $720 on August 31, 1908.


George Eulas Foster: That, again, is a very generous increase. Was Mr. Lesueur employed simply for his work as accountant or were there other considerations?


Frank Oliver: Only for his work as accountant.


George Eulas Foster: And Mr. Turcotte-was he employed only for his services as clerk of the correspondence branch, or had he other qualifications that were pressed upon the minister?


Frank Oliver: I am not able to answer at the moment. As I say, I am not able to have all these 190 people in mind. But I shall be glad to get any information I can.


George Eulas Foster: Is Mr. F. H. Maynard in the department?


Frank Oliver: No.


George Eulas Foster: He received an increase of $200.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Maynard was draughtsman in the Topographical Survey, entering the service on April 9, 1907, at $900. He was given an increase of $200, but that was not sufficient to retain his services, and he left.


George Eulas Foster: What position does Mr. W. E. Morgan hold?


Frank Oliver: He also is a draughtsman in the Topographical Survey. He entered the service on January 2, 1905, at $720. He received increases up to August 26, 1908, of $100, when he was given an increase of $80, bringing him up to $900.


George Eulas Foster: He is put down here as a 'clerk.' The minister says he is a draughtsman.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. T. S. Nash got a very large increase. Will the minister please explain that?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Nash was given a special increase, as he is chief of a division of draughtsmen in the Topographical Survey. He entered the service in 1902 at $900.


George Eulas Foster: And he is now receiving?


Frank Oliver: Twenty-one hundred dollars.


George Eulas Foster: On August 27 he was given an increase of $550.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Then there is a series of increases running down the page. I see one here of $450 to Mr. N. B. Sheppard. That is a very hearty increase. What is the reason for it?


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: Mr. Sheppard entered the service on November 3, 1883, at $730. He received increases up to August 20, 1908, of $920, and was given an increase of $450 on August 27, 1908, bringing his salary up to $2,100. Mr. Sheppard is chief draughtsman in the Patents Branch and has special and important duties.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know any of these men personally, but I must say with reference to Mr. Sheppard that his length of service is far beyond that of most of the others. Having entered in 1883, as the minister says, he has had twenty-six years of service, and gets at this time $2,100. For a man of parts, and engaged in important work, I should not consider that too much. But there is a wide difference between that length of service and that of some men who have been but a few years in the service, yet receive equal or greater remuneration.


Frank Oliver: This instance bears out what I have already said, that there were cases in the outside service where, by reason of the fact that the salary could be increased at any time, it was not increased, and men who were deserving were allowed to remain at their old salary. It was only when the new condition was impending that attention was drawn to it.


George Eulas Foster: 
Frank Oliver: The question of where the money came from my hon. friend I think has already answered. As he knows and as the committee knows, the money to carry on the work in connection with Dominion land and immigration is voted in bulk, and it is at the discretion of the minister and of the government what special service that money should be used in. It is for this very reason that the money is voted that way, so that when a -special occasion arises it may be met, and that the business of the department should not be tied up by lack of the necessary funds. As a matter of fact, the new Land Act came into force on the 1st of September. It was known before that Act came into force that
it would result in a very large increase of the land business, an immediate increase of the business of Dominion lands, not only in the western country where the lands are located, but in the head office here. It was known that the increase of business must be met, or the government would suffer very serious criticism and the business of the country would suffer serious injury. At the same time it was known that although the Civil Service Act became effective on the 1st September, the commission was not organized, and that it might be weeks or months before it got to work. As a matter of fact, I believe even yet -the commission is not in a position to supply the necessary help to the department, or if it is in that position, it is only very recently. Now clearly it would not have been sound public policy to allow such a condition of affairs to occur, a great rush of business coming in, and by reason of the Act coming into force preventing new appointments, we would be unable to meet that rush of -business, so it was only the part of wisdom to make adequate provision for that business which must necessarily occur. As a matter of fact it did occur. In the month of September there were 7,934 homesteads, 7,374 pre-emptions, -and 445 purchase homestead entries. In the month of October there were 5,221 homestead entries, 2,193 pre-emptions, and 126 purchased homestead -entries. The number decreased somewhat since, but my hon. friend will understand that this enormous rush of business had to be attended to, or the public interest would suffer. We took means to meet the necessity, and I may -say to the committee that we did not take any means that were not necessary. All the help we got we needed to transact the business.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend says that it was the part of wisdom. Now in calm words, all that I can think to say, that would be the least that should be said, would be to say that it was, under all the circumstances an act of absolute usurpation of power by the minister, which power resides in this parliament and nowhere else. There is not the least doubt about that. The Civil Service Act is not an unworkable machine. Instead of making these appointments on the 31st July, and along through the different days to the last day of August the minister could have waited with the knowledge that every legitimate want could have been supplied although the minister would not have had the picking of them, the statement of their salaries or the patronage that he otherwise has had. There is a provision for temporary help, full, free, and permanent, in the Civil Service Act, and that provision could have been availed of just as well as not,

but when the minister, without asking parliament, in the face of a stated condition of things to be brought in under the law passed here on the first day of September, goes to work, two or three days before that makes forty-five new permanent appointments and apportions the salary of each, he usurps the power of this House of Commons and he is not simply doing a work of necessity. It is the strangest thing to me the way some ministers have undertaken to use their powers in the face of what was the clear understanding as to what should be the basis upon which men should come under this new Civil Service arrangement. We had yesterday another example of it, an example which we cannot allow to pass although, I suppose, this is not the place or the time to bring it up. Of all these names I have mentioned I do no... . ?w a single man. I have not been criticising these increases with the idea of criticising the persons except in the one case, I have just been pointing out a few, not one fiftieth of the examples which I could give from the return which was brought down similar to this, and if I had pointed out others I have no doubt that I would have been answered just about in the same way.


Frank Oliver: It may interest the committee if I mention that since the 1st September there have beeen three resignations from the surveyor general's branch even amongst those to whom increases have been given. Mr. T. A. Davies, who had a salary of $1,350 received an increase of $100 on the 27th August, 1908, and resigned. Mr. H. S. Day, who had a salary of $1,100. received an increase of $200 on the 27th August, 1908, and resigned. Mr. F. H. Maynard who had a salary of $1,100 received an increase of $200 on the 27th Aug-use, and resigned. I merely place this before the committee to show that it was necessary to make the increases we did at all events in the Topographical Survey branch to hold the men.
Department of the Interior-scientific institutions and hydrographic surveys, astronomical surveys-investigations and demarcations of the exterior boundaries of Canada, and the astronomical and geodetic work of the Department of the Interior, including expenses of the Dominion Astronomical Observatory, and $1,000 for W. F. King as boundary commissioner, $208,400.


George Eulas Foster: Generally what is being done by the expenditure of a fifth of a million in astronomical work?


Frank Oliver: First, there is the carrying on of the astronomical observatory, the head office of this particular class of work being the observatory at the Experimental Farm.


George Eulas Foster: 


George Eulas Foster: How much does that cost?


Frank Oliver: The cost is largely for salaries, which are included under civil government.


George Eulas Foster: Are there any running expenses included in this vote?


Frank Oliver: Yes, the general expenses of the observatory are included in this vote.


George Eulas Foster: How much for that?


Frank Oliver: $8,000. I will give the details as follows:
International boundary surveys.. .. $132,406 This is made up as follows:
141st meridian between Alaska and
Yukon	$ 50,000
Alaskan Boundary Award between Alaska and British Columbia..	..	25,000
International boundary, 49th parallel, from the Rocky mountains to Lake
Superior	 20,000
St. John river	 12,000
Boundary line in the Gulf of Georgia
and Straits of Fuca	 10,000
St. Croix river and Passamaquoddy
bay	 5,400
Monuments	 5,400
Geodetio survey	 50,000
Field astronomical work	 5,000
Travelling expenses	 1,000
Books, maps, photo material, &c..	..	5,000
Instruments	 6,000
General expenses, observatory	 8,000
W. F. King as boundary commissioner	1,000
Total	$208,400


George Eulas Foster: In reference to these boundaries, how much have you to do before you complete all the different stretches?


Frank Oliver: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. member the information he asks in all the cases.


George Eulas Foster: What is being done and how much remains to be done?


Frank Oliver: The director of the surveys would have to be here to enable me to give as full details as my hon. friend would wish.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have we reports from each of these groups of surveyors on the different works?


Frank Oliver: Yes. The director of the astronomical survey reports and I think his report appears in the blue-book, but the detailed reports from the different parties are not printed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In the United States the officers similarly employed placed before congress a very interesting annual report, and I have often wondered why our officials should not give us a like resume of their

work each year. This is a work of great national importance which costs a great deal of money and we are absolutely informed as to the progress of it. These officials ought to be instructed to send in an annual report which should accompany the report of the minister to parliament.


Frank Oliver: It is only a question of printing the reports they make and as it is a matter of considerable interest we might have that done.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think they make a report of a general character showing the progress of the work during the year.


Frank Oliver: I should think that in the ordinary transaction of their business they would make such a report to the director, and if the report is not made in that form at present there is no doubt it could easily be put in such a form for the information of parliament.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I believe the officers could better realize the importance of their work if they knew that parliament would have under close scrutiny the progress of the work during the year.


George Eulas Foster: Part of this money is for marking the international boundary between the two countries.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Do these officers make maps showing the delimited portion and just where the line runs which they have during the course of the year completed? Of course they must as the work proceeds, prepare maps of the line which divides the two territories, but I do not remember ever having seen one of these. I cannot conceive that scientific men would do this work and not put down the results in permanent form.


Frank Oliver: The work is done in conjunction with the United States survey and the work is not finished until both parties settle between themselves exactly what the boundary is.


George Eulas Foster: Do they agree upon the work which is done for a season or do they go on for a number of years and then come together and settle?


Frank Oliver: They go out together and work conjointly season by season and check each other as they go along and when it is done it is done. The maps are made by the surveyors, but we have not published them separately. The information which is secured is of course available to the geographer when he is getting out the maps of the country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I must say that the maps which have been issued by the Interior Department have alwavs been very well executed.


George Eulas Foster: When a portion of the boundary is delimited, that jrortion should be embodied in the form of a report.


Frank Oliver: If we were getting out a special _ report of the survey work as my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) suggests, it would of course be accompanied by a map showing the work done.


Mr. HERRON.: Are you keeping the international boundary fence between Montana and Alberta in repair?


Frank Oliver: I am not able off hand to answer that question. There may have been a fence built by private parties but I am not aware of any fence having been built by the government, and I am satisfied that none such has been erected since I have been minister.


John Herron: The fence was built by private individuals, but I did not know whether the government had taken it over or not, though there were at one time some negotiations regarding it. It was about 500 miles long.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Were there not negotiations in regard to this fence just about the time
the minister took office?


Frank Oliver: Not that I am aware of.


George Eulas Foster: What is to be done with the $50,000 for geodetic purposes?


Frank Oliver: Triangulation stations have been prepared for carrying the survey for from thirty to fifty miles wide in the province of Ontario. In the province of Quebec the country has been covered between the 45th parallel and the St. Lawrence river as far east as the city of Quebec, and reconnaisances have been had in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia about the Bay of Fundy.


George Eulas Foster: Under whose direction is that done?


Frank Oliver: Under the direction of Dr. King. Mr. Biggar is the gentleman directly in charge of the geodetic survey. .


George Eulas Foster: There are maps published of that work as soon as it is done?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Mr. PORTER.: I would like to inquire of the minister what is the modus operandi of obtaining land for sites for these stations. How is the value of the land fixed? Is it expropriated and the value fixed by arbitration?


Frank Oliver: As a general thing it is not required either to buy or to expropriate. It is only in very isolated instances that any special arran cements has to be made, and in such cases the land is purchased.


Edward Guss Porter: What instructions are given to the officers of the department who are obtaining these lands from the farmers along the route of the survey? In my county and in a couple of the counties adjoining some farmers have represented to me that the officer. would say that he was going to take such and such land for a site for a station, and when he was asked how long he was going to occupy the land or what they were going to pay for it, he refused any information. It seems to me that is a very high-handed way of dealing. I have been consulted in my professional capacity four or five times within the last four months in regard to this very matter, and I have been unable to give any information. I hope the minister will give me a full explanation of the matter so that I may be able to advise these people in regard to it.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman knows that the surveyors have no arbitrary authority to take any man's land or to go on it without his consent. If the surveyors, assume such power they are acting improperly, as they have no such instructions. The amount of land required for the erection of a monument is so trifling that in very few instances does any question of value arise. So far as we are aware, there have been no difficulties in that connection. Occasionally a small amount has been paid for the land. If my hon. friend has reports that there has been uncivil and domineering action on the part of the surveyors, I will look into the matter.


Edward Guss Porter: I have. One station I refer to particularly is a station near Tweed or near Halloway, P.O., where the officers conducting this service or erecting these stations refused to give the farmer whose land they were taking any information whatever, simply telling him that he would find out later on. When a man came to me I have felt reluctant in advis-. ing him not to allow the officers of the government to take the land. I told him he had better let the officers take it an4 I had no doubt the government would treat, him properly. Only a few days afterward, I was consulted by another farmer in the same way. I do not know to what extent, this has gone on. If it is a common practice, it is a very improper one and should be put an end to. I have been advised that in some cases an arrangement is made for the occupation of a piece of land for a station for a period of years without the government acquiring the 'absolute title to the land, while, in other cases the land has been purchased. It has been represented to me by some farmers that as high as $1,000 has been paid for a location. I would like to know whether any such sum Mr. OLIVER.
has been paid or not, and whether there is any rule or procedure in fixing the value or whether it is left to the officer to make the best arrangement he can. It seems tome that there ought to be some regulations in regard to the matter.


Frank Oliver: 
George Eulas Foster: What is the width of base required ?


Frank Oliver: A very few yards The towers are perhaps 20 or 30 feet -high. It is probable that a lease for a term of years would be sufficient. However, as my hon. friend has drawn attention to the matter, I shall certainly deal with it and see that at least no attempt is made to bluff people out of their rights. At the same time I would hope, since as my hon. friend says this is for scientific purposes, there would be no attempt to hold up such a work, as might be done if the farmer absolutely refused to allow the tower to be placed at the point where the survey required. lhat would render that particular work absolutely useless.


Edward Guss Porter: That was very largely my object in bringing the matter to the attention of the minister in order that there [DOT]might not be unnecessary friction or delay. The officers who go to locate the towers should be instructed to inform the farmers of the steps they must take if they desire to secure some remuneration or to make some bargain for the use of their land.
To provide for an inquiry into water rights on the St. Mary's and Milk rivers, $7,500.	*


George Eulas Foster: What is the difficulty with reference to that?


Frank Oliver: The difficulty there is that the St. Mary's river rises in the United States and flows into Canada. In the lower part of its course the water has been diverted by a Canadian enterprise and is used for irrigation over a very considerable area of country. The Milk river rises not far from the St. Mary's, flows into Canada and out of Canada again and finally enters the Missouri. On the lower part of the Milk river in the United States a considerable area of country is irrigated from its waters. The Milk river, however, is a very small stream not having a permanent flow, and the St. Mary's river is a comparatively large stream with a permanent flow. Besides the St. Mary's rises in a large lake on the American side, called St. Mary's lake. It is possible to use this lake as a reservoir to store up water and thereby increase the flow of the river out of the lake. There is much more land capable of irrigation on the Milk river than there is water in the Milk river to irrigate with. The idea has struck the Reclamation Commission in the United States that it would be well to make a storage reservoir of St. Mary's lake and divert the St. Mary's river into the Milk river so that there would be abundance of water for the irrigation of land on the Milk river, leaving the irrigable lands along the St. Mary's river of course without any flow of water.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: On the Canadian side?


Frank Oliver: On the Canadian side. In the exercise of the right of diverting the water of St. Mary's river on their own side of the line to the Milk river, the authorities of the United States would be ignoring any claim that Canada might have to the use of these waters as they would naturally flow down the St. Mary's rtver. But having diverted the water of the St. Mary's river to the Milk river and the Milk river afterwards entering Canada, Canada by the same rule would have exactly the same liberty to divert from the Milk Tiver these diverted waters and to use them on the irrigable lands of Canada, and as a matter of fact there is a canal now dug to do that. Under these circumstances it has seemed best to the United States Reclamation Service to come to some amicable arrangement with the Canadian authorities for 'a diversion of the water of these two streams, both of which Tise on the United States side, both of which derive their water from the United States, but both of which, come into Canada, one remaining in Canada and the other afterwards entering the United States. It is a somewhat complicated situation with reference to which difficulties might be made by one country for the other, and an effort is being made to come to an amicable understanding in regard to this matter. This vote is to meet the expenses of such an effort.


George Eulas Foster: Who are going to conduct the inquiry?


Frank Oliver: Some inquiry has already been made. That was conducted on behalf of Canada under the control of Dr. King, of the astronomical survey. Dr. King was assisted by an irrigation expert from the United States, a Mr. Anderson', who, of course, had to be paid a very considerable salary.


Mr. WRIGHT.: There was a vote of $10,000 last year and this smaller vote this year. How long is it expected that it will be necessary to continue this work, if you do come to an arrangement or agreement with the United States?


Frank Oliver: Last year's work was preliminary and was carried on before the boundary treaty was negotiated. This expenditure is to be provided with the- expectation that the Boundary Waters Treaty will be ratified, and with a view to bringing this question of the St. Mary's river to a conclusion! in the terms of the treaty.


George Eulas Foster: And would this empower the commission to settle the matter, or will the government enter into an arrangement with the government of the United States in regard to it?


Frank Oliver: Under the treaty there will be a commission nominated by both countries who will decide any question arising. This money is asked for the purpose of preparing the Canadian case for submission to a commission.


George Eulas Foster: Is the St. Mary's river a boundary river?


Frank Oliver: No.


George Eulas Foster: Then how does it come in under this treaty?
Mr. OLIVER, The river rises on the United States side and comes into Canada, and, inasmuch as it crosses the boundary" it affects the boundary and is a boundary water.


George Eulas Foster: It does not seem to me that that would follow. As I understand it, the waterways matter is based on the idea of boundary waters, distinct from waters which arise in one country and pass into the other not forming the boundary. The boundary waters come under the treaty and subsequently under the commission appointed by virtue of the treaty. But does the minister contend that a river that rises in Canada, for instance, and goes into the United States straight across the boundary also comes under the commission? Of course, international interests are at stake

in such rivers, but of a different kind from those in the boundary waters. There is no delimitation of boundary, no question of trespass, no need for demarcation. International questions arise from the fact that the water supply begins in one country and gees into the other, and it becomes a question how far the country which raises the water, so to speak, may use it wastefully or divert it wholly or partially from the other country into which it finds its natural course. But I should not have thought that such rivers came under the Waterways Commission.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid the hon. member (Mr. Foster) has been misled by the name of the treaty. Though it is a treaty with regard to boundary waters, it also includes provisions with regard to waters which are not part of the boundary but which bring in questions of international rights. At any rate, whether for good reasons or not, these questions of the St. Mary's and Milk rivers are made a part of the treaty,-there is an article of the treaty dealing with these questions.


John Allister Currie: Is it not a fact that
the commission have already dealt with them in the report they have given, and that they have had engineers examining into the matter? I think the minister is right when he says that there is a clause in the treaty that refers distinctly to the St. Mary's and Milk rivers. But what I do not understand is why, when there is a vote dealing with the Waterways Commission, there should be another vote here. This matter is entirely in the charge of that commission. That commission is voted large sums of money for these purposes by the government. Why should there be a special vote in this case and not a special vote to help the investigation, for instance, in the case of the Niagara or the Sault? The commission have full power to consider these matters, and they have their staff of engineers and have plenty of money to carry on this work. Therefore, I cannot understand the reason for the special vote in one instance only.


Frank Oliver: I tried to explain that the vote last year was to secure information that would enable Canada to place her case properly with a view to securing a fair treaty. Dr. King and Mr. Anderson went un and examined the ground in conjunction with agents of the reclamation surveys of the United States. The treaty having been negotiated-we will assume that it has been, though it has not been ratified-the question of administering the waters under the treaty, of actually dividing the waters according to the terms of *the treaty, comes up. And, while my hon.


George Eulas Foster: friend says the commission have the power to take all measures, it seems to us that as the interests of individual citizens of Canada require protection, and as these come especially within the view of the Department of the Interior, which is responsible for the administration of the lands affected b'r this wrater, it is desirable that the case of Canada and the protection of the rights of its citizens should be placed as fairly as possible before the commission to the end that the interests of those individual citizens should be as fully protected as possible. Of course, the Department of the Interior is not responsible with regard to the Sault or to Niagara.


John Allister Currie: I think the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) did what was right. He lives in the section affected, and, having knowledge of the conditions, took the precaution of having the case in relation to the Milk river and St. Mary s river properly prepared outside the commission. But the question arises why was not a similar course pursued in the case of Canada's rights at the Sault, where_ there is * a division of water and also at Niagara Falls, where there is considerable friction over the way in which this Waterways Commission have decided the question involved? The people of Ontario think it is a case of heads I win at one end of the province, and tails you lose at the other end. Why is there not a vote for the division of the waters at the Sault, and a vote to secure a proper division at Niagara Falls ? I think the minister deserves a good deal of credit foT what he has done, more than do some of the other ministers. I think the matter should have been called to their attention, and that the case of Canada should have been presented in the matter of Niagara Falls and of the Sault, just as well as in the case of St. Mary's riveT.
Government of the Yukon Territory-salaries and expenses connected with the administration of the territory, $170,750.


Frank Oliver: The salary vote is the ssme as last year.


Edward Guss Porter: How many judges are there in the Yukon?


Frank Oliver: Three.


Edward Guss Porter: How many cases are tried in a year?


Frank Oliver: I am not able to answer that, the Justice Department would have control of the work of the judges. But I may say that there are three judges in the Yukon, so that there may be a trial of appeals without the necessity of going outside. No doubt on the basis of the amount of business done, there does not seem to be

a necessity for three judges; at the same time, considering the importance of the cases that are tried there, and the great cost of carrying appeals to the east, there is a necessity for? three judges.


Edward Guss Porter: Have not two of those judges within the past year left their business up there for about six months' each? How do they get along with the appeals when there is only one left?


Frank Oliver: It is customary for judges to allow cases to wait their convenience.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: In the Yukon territory they have four months' vacation in the winter, when it is impossible to do judicial business. The court of appeal sits not later than October nor earlier than April, and I think it has been arranged among the three judges that each winter one of them is entitled to go out and spend his vacation elsewhere.
Grant to local council for maintenance and repairs to roads, $37,500.


George Eulas Foster: Is there anybody travelling on those roads now?


Frank Oliver: A great deal of business is done in the Yukon, a great deal of money is spent, and some money is being taken out. There is a considerable population which, I understand, has not decreased during the last year or two.
Dominion Lands-chargeable to capital- surveys, examinations of survey returns, printing of plans, &c., $555,000.


Richard Stuart Lake: I wish to ask the minister in regard to the South African veterans' land grants. There is one matter which I think has been brought to his attention, that is a request of the imperial service veterans for a grant of land in Canada. Has the minister considered that request, and what conclusion has he come to?


Frank Oliver: The question of a grant to the imperial South African veterans has been brought to the attention of the government, and it has been decided that Canada discharged her full responsibility in providing for the volunteers who went from ' Canada, and it is not the intention to make provision for the volunteers who went from other parts of the empire.


Richard Stuart Lake: Would the minister tell me in regard to the Fenian Raid veterans who sent a deputation to Ottawa on which many of us were present? I would like to know whether the government has taken their petition into consideration, and with what result?


Frank Oliver: I am not able to answer definitely on this subject, but so far no 199



[Stage Direction]
action has been taken looking to the granting of recognition to the Fenian Raid veterans.
John Allister Currie: The Minister of the Interior is reported in the press as saying that the government would not make a grant to the Fenian Raid veterans. fs that correct, or is it just postponed until the next election?


Frank Oliver: No, I do not think that the Minister of the Interior used that language as it is not a matter that is within the gift of the Minister of the Interior.


Richard Stuart Lake: I would also like to ask the minister a question in connection with the land grants which were given to veterans of the Northwest rebellion of 1885. A case came befere me in which the grantee had failed to take advantage of the grant within the period limited by law. That period was extended time and again, but it has finally expired, as I understand. Has the minister any intention of asking parliament to extend that period, and has he had any other cases of a similar nature brought to his notice and, if so, does he propose to come to the rescue of these people? No doubt it is their fault that these land grants have been allowed to stand in abeyance, but at the same time it is rather hard on them that through carelessness or some other cause they have failed to avail themselves qf these grants which they certainly earned in those days.


Frank Oliver: It is not possible for the minister to come to the rescue of people who have been so careless. It would have to be parliament who would have to come to their assistance. Personally, I would not wish to see any man deprived of the reward that is justly his. At the same time there is no reason why a man should require parliament to relieve him from a disability which he placed upon himself by his own inaction. I would rather be inclined to decline to grant an extension of the privilege such as my hon. friend suggests, and for this reason: We have now issued some 7,000 or more similar grants, and it is in every way desirable that the rights arising under them should be exercised as soon as possible. I think it might have a salutary effect in urging people to exercise their rights if it were known that there were two or three holders of previous grants who had lost their rights by failure to exercise them. It might have the effect of the frightful example.


John Herron: Has the government come to any conclusion with regard to the claims of the early settlers of Manitoba
and of the Northwest, those who went


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
into that country in 1836 and 1870. There have been correspondence and negotiations of different kinds, and I would like to know the government has come to any conclusion in regard to it.
Frank Oliver: The government has not decided to take any action in regard to these claims.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Frank Oliver: I think these claims have been brought to the attention of the government _ in one form or another on several occasions, but so far I do not think the government has taken any definite action in regard to them. It seems to me that public sentiment is from day to day becoming more and more adverse to the granting of what is called scrip or rights to land on any consideration whatever. I think there is a feeling that when we made the grant to the South African veterans we made our last grant of public lands in consideration of service of any kind whatever.


Richard Stuart Lake: I trust the Minister of the Interior will reconsider his decision with regard to those who earned their land warrants during the rebellion of 1885 and that he will ask parliament for an extension of time for the location of these grants. I know one man who went to the Yukon when it was first opened and who has remained there ever since. It was due in some degree to his own carelessness that the grant was not located, but he is now most anxious to have it, and I should like to see his rights preserved to him. He was one of French's scouts, gave valuable service during the rebellion, and has done good settlement work ever since. I would call to the attention of the minister the case of the farm instructors and other employees of the Indian Department who were employed on the Indian reserves during the Northwest rebellion and who did very good service in preventing most of the bands of Indians from rising and adding to our difficulty. I ask for them the same consideration which has been so generously given to those who may not have done such good service as they. Can the minister do anything for that class of people?


Frank Oliver: As to the men who earned their rights in the rebellion of 1885 and which have lapsed on account of their not yet having exercised them, I would certainly be inclined to recommend to parliament such measures as would reinstate

them in their rights. While I am inclined to do so, at the same time I do not feel that any obligation rests upon the minister or upon parliament to relieve these men who have lost by their own negligence, and if it is done it will be as a matter of grace and not as a matter of right. I am not at the moment able to voice the opinion of the government with regard to the farm instructors who were in the Northwest during the rebellion, but I have some personal knowledge of the matter and I should think that their claim is not well founded. They would have no more right than any other settler in the Northwest at that time, of whom I was one. I should think that the principle of granting scrip in connection with military service is that it is given to those who have enlisted, and placed themselves under military command and discipline and so have put their lives at the service of their country.


George Eulas Foster: What grounds influenced the government in their refusal or their delay in granting the request of the Fenian Raid veterans and the imperial veterans?


Frank Oliver: I do not think that the request of the Fenian Raid Veterans has been definitely refused.


George Eulas Foster: A deputation waited on the government.


Frank Oliver: The government has heard their representation but has taken no action. As to the Imperial South African Veterans, the position taken by the government is that in recognizing the services of the men who went from Canada, Canada has discharged her full responsibility, and it is not in accordance with the principles upon which that recognition was given that Canada should recognize fee service rendered by men who belonged to other parts of the empire.


George Eulas Foster: The South African volunteers went to active service in defence of the empire and of course Canada is part of the empire, but the Fenian Raid veterans took the field and imperilled their lives in order to save Canada itself. Although at that time there were no broad lands to give them we have since developed the Northwest and there does not seem any reason why you should refuse fee request of those who took up arms for the defence of their country and assumed an equally dangerous service as did the South African volunteers. Of course the case of the other veterans is different, but I understand they were quite willing to go as actual settlers on these lands. Did they not submit some co-operative plan to the government by which they bound themselves to settle upon the lands, not simply asking for the scrip which they could negotiate or sell. I think 199}
the minister has found feat a very large proportion of the scrip which was issued primarily for the South African volunteer with the idea that he would settle in the country, has been a matter of speculation in the market and that the volunteer has got the least end of it.


Frank Oliver: I am not definitely aware of that, but I am very much afraid that the suggestion of the hon. gentleman is correct. In the interview I had with a deputation from the other veterans they made some suggestions with regard to a military settlement but they were not definite so far as I can remember, and of course that was a matter for discussion with the Minister of Militia and not with me. I am rather under the impression that they did not make any definite proposition.


Richard Stuart Lake: Can the minister say how many of the South African veterans have received warrants for land grants up to date, and how many grants have been located?


Frank Oliver: On March 19, over 5,000 had been issued, and up to the end of April about 500 had been located. But locations might not be expected to begin to take place in large numbers before about the middle or end of April.


John Allister Currie: In the Wolseley expedition one or two Canadians enlisted in the British regulars. One I know of, a man of the name of James McNabb, enlisted in Ontario and went west as far as Fort Garry, and the fact that he was enlisted by Lord Wolseley for special service, taking charge of the headquarters staff baggage, militated against his getting a grant of land. He was enlisted like any. of the others and was considered a good soldier when a member of the first battalion of fee Rifle Brigade. He has made representations to me on the subject, and I want to bring his case to the attention of the minister. He is a Canadian by birth and enlisted in this country, but was barred out because he was not in the Canadian line. Under the circumstances I hope the minister will see his way clear to take the matter into consideration.


Mr. BRADBURY.: I would like to ask the minister if he received a deputation to-day from old settlers along the Red river asking that their claims be dealt with. I know a laTge number of these people, and it seems to me that a great injustice has been done to them. The government has been very generous to a large number of people. A few years ago when a grant was made to the half-breeds, it included all the half-breeds, even those living south of the line. In view of that fact, I think the claim of the old settlers should be considered. I understand that a depu-

tation from them interviewed the premier to-day-I do not know whether the hon Minister of the Interior had an opportunity of interviewing them or not-and I was very much surprised to hear that the premier negatived their claim, and I would like to know on what ground this was done. Surely the government cannot refuse to do this act of justice asked for by the petition of the odd settlers. I am strongly of the opinion the government ought to grant the prayer of the petitioners and trust the matter will be reconsidered by the premier, and that justice will even at this late date be done these old timers.


Frank Oliver: I am unable to say. I had not the privilege of being present at the interview with the premier, and I cannot say what caused him to negative their proposition. An effort to satisfy everybody must necessarily fail. There always has to be an almost imperceptible line of division between the man who gets and the man who does not get, and the fact that you advance your line of division a certain distance further does not take away from the ultimate result that somebody is just outside the line. It seemed good to parliament in its wisdom many years ago to say that people who came to Manitoba before 1836 should receive certain consideration, and that people who came after that date should not receive the same consideration. I do not know that at this time it would be wise for us to undertake to revise the decision which was arrived at at that time in a much nearer knowledge of the actual facts and circumstances than we have to-day. I would imagine that until the premier heard the deputation he had an open mind on the subject, but I assume that the deputation was not able to offer sufficient reasons to warrant him in recommending a reversal of the decision arrived at many years ago. There must be a time limit in the recognition of claims.


George Henry Bradbury: I may have been in error in saying that the Prime Minister negatived that, but I understand that to be the case when Mr. Cowie was down here.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is a strange part of this particular case that nobody has ever been able to account for the action of parliament in 1874 in fixing the limit as January 1, 1836. I have seen some correspondence and heard some statements in connection with that case and the only pretext given is that the Selkirk settlers are supposed to have come in between 1813 and 1836. As to that there is no certainty. The statute in 1874 made no distinction between the Selkirk settlers and any other settlers. When you come to the limits of the present province of Manitoba the distinction fixed by Mr. BRADBURY.
the statute of 1873 was obliterated and the rest of the pioneers said: Why can we not obtain similar justice, here is a man who came in on January 12, 1836, another in 1840, another in 1850, another in 1860? They say you should not make any distinction between any of these whites settled in the country (because ample justice was done to the half-breeds) up to the time when this country became Dominion property, that is on the 5th of July, 1870. I understand that the Prime Minister said to Mr. Cowie: Why did you not more earnestly urge your claim? The answer is that until recent years the settlers have not really been represented, there was full representation from Manitoba but not from the Northwest territories, until late years. Another reason is that they were waiting until the provinces were all finally organized. My hon. friend has properly said that the line must be drawn somewhere, but I think this is a special case apart from military service and might be favourably considered.


Mr. STAPLES.: I would call the attention of the minister to a question I asked on March 10, in reference to a section in the municipality of Thompson in regard to the issue of a patent. It appears that this land was given to the city of Brandon in lieu of some town lots that were handed over in the interest of the industrial school at Brandon. The question and answer were as follows:
Has a patent been issued for section No. 6. township 5, range 7, W. 1? If so, to whom has it been issued? If not, why has the patent not been issued?


Frank Oliver: No, this section was granted by order in council of August 9, 1900, to the city of Brandon in exchange for certain lands conveyed to the Crown in connection with the Industrial School at Brandon, but at the request of the secretary-treasurer of the city of Brandon the issue of the patent was stayed.
Some $3,500 of taxes have accumulated against that particular section. This municipality is taxed almost to the limit in order to carry on necessary local improvements and develop educational institutions, and it is a great hardship to that municipality to have this large amount of taxes held back. I would inquire from the minister how it is that the issuing of the patent for this particular section has been held up at the request of the secretary of the city of Brandon. There would appear to be no justification for holding back the patent, and I think the city of Brandon should be compelled to take out the patent in order that this municipality might collect those taxes.


Frank Oliver: I suppose the patent was withheld for the reason stated and without ajiy further consideration on the part of the department here. I am assuming that. Certainly it is not our desire to withhold a patent in order to allow either municipalities or others to avoid paying taxes. 1 shall inquire into the matter and advise my hon. friend as to the conditions existing.


Mr. CROSBY.: I regret to hear that nothing has been done to comply with the demands of the Fenian veterans. We know that large and very important bodies move slowly, and the Feniian veterans are not men who will live veTy long. It is a matter which should have been taken up by the government before and we should know exactly where the government stand with regard to these demands. I was present when these gentlemen stated their case to the Prime Minister and I was struck by the statement of one gentleman that he was in Chicago at ,the time of the Fenian raid and that he and a number of other Canadians had paid their way from the United States into Canada in order to assist in the defence of the country. I thought that was a very strong argument. The veterans of 1885 have also been referred to. But one class of men have not been spoken of, the Canadian volunteers who garrisoned the city of Halifax in order to relieve the imperial troops who -went to South Africa. I think their claim is as strong as the men who went to South Africa because they enlisted, became subject to discipline and were ready, indeed they expected, to be called on at any moment to go to the front. At such a time it was necessary to have our greatest fort manned and those men volunteered for that purpose. While the others have strong and fair claims, and I would be glad if the government would meet their views, still I think the men who garrisoned Halifax have really as strong claims as the men who went to the field. Have these men been considered, and if not will they be considered? I think it is only necessary to bring this to the notice of the government in order to have some grant made to this class of volunteers.


Frank Oliver: I do not think the matter has been brought directly to the attention of the government, There was some mention of it on a previous occasion this session, but I do not think that any definite representation has been made on_ behalf of the men referred to. I should think, however, that there is some difference between the men who enlisted, as I understand it, for garrison duty at Halifax, and the men who enlisted for active service in
South Africa. Of course, my hon. friend (Mr. Crosby) understands that no provision was made in the Act which gives land to the men who went to South Africa to cover the case of the men in garrison at Halifax.


Adam Brown Crosby: I would remind the minister (Mr. Oliver) that when these men enlisted for garrison duty in Halifax the Dominion government had not decided to send troops to South Africa. But the imperial troops had been ordered out for service in South Africa, and those men volunteered for the purpose of garrisoning Halifax. When the Dominion government decided that men should be sent to South Africa, these men had already been enlisted, they were under discipline and were prepared to go-and many of them sought an opportunity to go-into active service in South Africa. Thev were thus the first men to volunteer their services, and their volunteering allowed the men in garrison ht Halifax to go forward. I believe those men have as strong a claim as those who went to the front. I will not discuss the matter fully now, but I would ask the government, if they have not already taken the matter up, to take it up for early consideration.


Frank Oliver: The matter, as I have said, has not been brought to the attention of the government directly, so far as I am aware. But, now my hon. friend (Mr. Crosby) has brought it to our attention here in the House, it will be our duty to take it into consideration and give him the result of that consideration of the question. It may not be possible to do so before the close of this session, but the hon. member will be entitled to an answer from the government on the question.
Mr. McCarthy. Before the item passes I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) what progress has been made in investigating the water supply of the west for irrigation purposes? I have brought this matter up on two previous occasions, last session and the session before. The Minister of the Interior told me, two years ago, that there were three men in the field making investigations bearing on the measurement of streams, the conservation of water supply for irrigation and other purposes. In June last, the minister also told me that they had. not gone into the matter very deeply, that to quote his own words:
At present our staff is employed rather in dealing with applications for the immediate operation of irrigation than in outlining a scheme or system of irrigation applicable to the whole country.

I do not know whether I have been able on previous occasions to impress upon the. jninister the importance of an investigation along these lines. Irrigation is of the greatest importance to that portion of the, country and we are probably now under irrigation claims for far more land than we -have -water to supply. I think that full investigation should be made to ascertain what the supply is and what can be done to preserve and conserve that supply. I think that if the minister will take the matter up with the head of that branch,. Mr. Campbell, he will find that that gentleman realizes the need of this investigation. The minister told me last session; that the staff he had was not sufficient for; this work. I want again to impress upon him the necessity of having a full investigation made, and I would like him to inform the committee if any further efforts, have been made since last session for the conservation of the water supply of the* Northwest provinces?


Frank Oliver: I regret that I am not able to give the bon. gentleman the details of the information he desires. It is evident that without a considerable increase in our vote it will not be possible to cover the very wide extent of ground that it would be necessary to cover in order to reach the results the hon. gentlemen speaks of. During the last year we have been pressed, with the small force at our /disposal, with demands for further irrigation operations. However, we have in contemplation to take measures with a view of finding out how much water there is available, and where it can best be disposed of, and we hope that this year we will be able to take more active measures than we have in the past. We are establishing this year, under the supervision of the chief of the staff at Calgary, a special -system of -measurement of streams as a beginning in caring for the water supplies. Other measures have been proposed to me which I have not yet worked out. But I can assure my hon. friend that we are thoroughly alive to the desirability of conserving the water supply in the southwestern country, and of obtaining the fullest knowledge of what water is available and where it can be used to the best advantage. We propose to use the vote that is now asked for to the /Very best advantage in that direction. We have not asked for a very large increase, not because we did not feel that the service was not necessary, but because there is a general necessity for a reduction of the public expenditure. That is the only reason why we have not pushed the work forward more rapidly.


Mr. McCARTHY.: The minister gave practically the same assurance last session. ' Mr. McCarthy.
I want to urge upon him the necessity of being a little more active this year .than he has been last year. This is a very important question, it was taken up at the convention in southern Alberta two years ago, at which his officer was present. I think the head of that department is thoroughly alive to the necessity of active measures being taken.
Hydrographic survey, $7,500.


George Eulas Foster: What is being done with this ?


Frank Oliver: This work is being carried on in southern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan, There has not yet been any definite and scientific measurement of the volume of water flowing in those streams, so that we may know accurately what is available for distribution. It will be understood that a measurement to be of value must cover a series of years, because a measurement in one season would not afford sufficient knowledge of the average annual flow in a river.


George Eulas Foster: What is the modus oper-andi pursued?


Frank Oliver: It is proposed to measure the daily discharge of the more important streams in the irrigation districts, with -the view of determining the supply available for irrigation purposes. Gauges will be established at the principal points, and arrangements made with the residents in the vicinity to take daily observations of the rise and fall of the water in the rivers. The chief hydrographer will assume charge -of the Calgary district, and general charge of the system in other districts. While operations will first be confined to the more important streams, it is proposed gradually to extend them to cover other streams upon which depends the supply of water fori towns and villages. I think it will require three or four successive years to ascertain /accurately the average flow of water annually.


George Eulas Foster: I think great care ought to be taken in choosing the persons who are to have charge of those gauges. Inaccuracy spoils the whole.


Frank Oliver: We have not a sufficiently large appropriation to appoint -salaried men at every place of measurement. But we shall do the best we can, and cover as much -ground as we can with our appropriation.
Salaries of the outside service, $180,000.


George Eulas Foster: 
Frank Oliver: There is a decrease of $105,000 occasioned by a transfer to the civil government vote of the temporary officials employed at Ottawa who were permanently paid out of this appropriation.
Contingencies, advertising, &c., $112,500.
Mr, FOSTER. Is this advertising business carried on in the same way as formerly? There is a decrease of $40,000.


Frank Oliver: A considerable number of salaries were paid out of contingencies which are now transferred to civil government. Fifty-three clerks are transferred from contingencies to civil government. That accounts for the decrease.


George Eulas Foster: These are clerks that were resident in Ottawa?


Frank Oliver: Yes. They were taken on to meet the requirements of the service and they were paid out of contingencies.


George Eulas Foster: Now I understand no clerks are to be paid out of contingencies?


Frank Oliver: No. We have asked for a vote in the supplementary estimates of $5,000 to pay for extras that we may require to put on.


George Eulas Foster: Under the Civil Service Act?


Frank Oliver: Yes. We contemplate the necessity of having to put on extras, and we are making provision for it in the supplementary estimates.


Richard Blain: May I ask the minister if all the expenditure in the advertising item is for advertising alone or does it take in printing as well?


Frank Oliver: The vote takes in printing as well as advertising.


Richard Blain: What are the chief items?


Frank Oliver: It provides for printing and stationery, $30,000, and, for advertising, $10,000.


Richard Blain: What does the printing include?


Frank Oliver: There are a great many forms used in the land business and the books and forms necessary to be used in the offices of the agents and subagents are included in this item.


Richard Blain: Is the printing all done in Canada?


Frank Oliver: This printing is all done at the Printing Bureau.


George Eulas Foster: You get a lot of printing done outside of Canada?


Frank Oliver: That is immigration printing.
Dominion lands-chargeable to income- protection of timber in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, the Northwest Territories and the railway belt in British Columbia; tree culture in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and inspection and management of forest reserves, $100,000.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: I would like to call the attention of the minister to an item in the newspapers that I referred to last session setting forth a statement made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Kislier) tc the effect that the government had decided to reserve all the east slope of the Rocky mountains and the foothills for a timber reservation. I do not know whether the minister recalls the discussion that took place in the House last June, but I may say that I asked upon that occasion whether or not the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture at the Forestry Convention, held in Montreal in March, 1908, was correct. That statement was made and it was universally printed by the papers in the western part of Canada. At that time the minister was unable to tell me that the government had decided upon such a policy. I would like to know if the minister is in a position now to tell me if they have decided upon any such policy as the setting apart of a section of that country as a timber reservation.


Frank Oliver: The matter was up for discussion last year and was thrashed out very fully.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: I have seen a similar statement in the newspapers in the last week or ten days.


Frank Oliver: The question arises from a misunderstanding of the purport of the word 'reservation' or the purpose expressed by the word 'reservation.' There are already several reservations on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains It would not be sound public policy that these reservations should be extended so as to cover the whole eastern slope of the Rocky mountains for the reason that the eastern slope of the Rockies is valuable not only for its timber but also for its coal. This nessitates a freedom of access, of ingress and egress and the general application of capital and labour, and would not be as satisfactorily practicable if restrictions prevailed such as we have in a park reservations. At the same time it is thoroughly understood by the government that it is desirable to give all possible pro-

tection to timber growth on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains and it is the intention of the government to use every endeavour within reasonable limits of expense, and according to the circumstances and in so far as knowledge is acquired from time to time to give special protection to the timber growth on that slope.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: What provision has been made? Have any further reservations been set apart than those three that the minister has mentioned?


Frank Oliver: No.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Has any step been taken for the reforestration of the reserves that are now made?


Frank Oliver: Part of the vote we are asking is for experiments in reforestration in 'the reservations that are already named.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: In regard to these three reservations what disposition is made of the timber now?


Frank Oliver: So far there has been no disposition whatever. These reservations have been rather park reservations, and it has rather been the policy of the government to discourage the cutting of timber in order that their natural beauties must be preserved. The subject of the economic disposition of the valuable timber in these reserves is one that must necessarily be taken into consideration in due course.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior a question in regard to the squatters who have been ejected from the boundaries of the forest reservation in Dauphin. I put a question on the Order Paper asking the minister if he had given instructions to his rangers to pull down and bum the houses of squatters. His answer was that he had not. I hold in my hand affidavits from men in that locality, men who were brought into this country by this government as immigrants and who were located on what has since been taken into the timber reserve, located in some instances by agents of the government, and whose houses were burned down. One man deposes that when he refused to move out the agent of the government in the person of Mr. Robertson pulled a revolver and threatened to shoot him. I would like to Know from the minister if that is the policy of the government with regard to these squatters.


Frank Oliver: The policy of the government in regard to squatters in the timber : reserve is a policy that is dictated by par- , liament. Parliament has seen fit to declare


Mr.   OUTER@: . that there shall be forest reserves and that i settlement shall not be permitted on the reserves, and in pursuance of the policy of parliament it is necessary to clear the reserves of occupation. In carrying out that policy it certainly is not the desire of parliament to use such measures towards the people who are innocently squatting upon these reserves as my hon. friend has suggested. But there are squatters and squatters, and there is a difference between the squatter who is there innocently and the squatter who is there in defiance of law and authority. Unless I know what were the actual facts connected with the case mentioned I am not prepared to say just what the proper action of the officer should be. I think the committee will admit that if parliament declares that there shall be a certain area of land reserved from settlement and some person sees fit in defiance of the authority of parliament to go upon that land and erect his house, it is a case which would justify somewhat drastic measures. Parliament cannot afford to have its authority defied and parliament looks to officers of the government to see that its authority is not defied. I have never heard that an officer of the government drew a revolver upon one of these squatters, but I would suggest to my hon. friend that the squatter may have been heading in the direction of the government official with an axe in his hand and it would be quite in order under such circumstances that the government official should protect himself with a revolver. Each case would have to be dealt with upon its own merits. Every officer has had the fullest instruction from the department to use every consideration towards the squatter and to treat him with every possible leniency, but at the same time the officer was told that it was his business to see that the squatter was Temoved. Further than that we cannot go in general instructions, and if there is to be blame it must be on the merits of each particular case.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am not questioning
at present the policy of this government with regard to the timber reserve; I am referring to the drastic measures taken by the officials of the government. I will read the following affidavit to show that there is a certain amount of harshness exhibited towards some of these people:
Dominion of Canada, province of Manitoba. In the matter of homesteads, to wit:
I,	Frank D. Crowder, of the town of Dauphin, in the province of Manitoba, do solemnly declare that 1. That in the fall of 1905 I did squat upon the s.w. 1 of 25-23-20, west, in the province of Manitoba.

2.	That I erected on the said quarter a house, stable, granary, hen house and tool shop, all of which said buildings were built of logs with lumber roof.
3.	That I broke six acres and in addition scrubbed six acres.
4.	In July, 1908, Timber Inspector Robertson informed me that I would have to get off the land, and I told him that the late Mr. Young and Mr. Burrows had told me when I went on and squatted on this land that if certain squatters by the name of Wards got their homestead entries that I would get mine.
5.	I subsequently found out that the said Wards had obtained their entries and I considered that I was entitled to my entry.
6.	The said Robertson pulled down all my buildings and afterwards burnt them up.
7.	That the said Robertson offered me $50 as compensation, which sum I consider an absurd offer and one which would in no manner whatsoever compensate me for the work I had done and the time and trouble I had been to in order to make the s.w. 1 of 25 a home for myself.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, chapter 145, section 36.


FRANK D. CROWDER.
[Stage Direction]
Declared before me at the town of Dauphin, in the province of Manitoba, this 29th day of April, A.D. 1909.

[Stage Direction]
A Commissioner, &c.
I have other affidavits of the same character which I shall be very glad to send over to the minister. All I ask is that proper steps be taken for the protection of these people and particularly of the men who were placed on these quarter-sections by agents of the government, and who were assured that they would be protected.
Maps of the Dominion and the Northwest Territories, $54,400.
George Eulas Foster: Is that work done in this country now?


Frank Oliver: Yes, by the Toronto Lithographing Company.


George Eulas Foster: Do these include the geodetic maps?


Frank Oliver: I am under the impression that these maps do not include the geodetic survey. The information gathered by the geodetic survey is available to the geographer in the preparation of his maps, which cover the parts of the country which the survey has gone over; but I am not aware that there is a special map issued showing that survey. The maps we have issued are the homestead map, the odd section map, the railway belt map, showing the railway belt of British Columbia, the Peace river map; sheet maps of the eastern provinces, &c.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT - BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.	'	,
George Eulas Foster: What is the work for tomorrow morning?


Mr. FIELDING.: We will take up the Railway Bill; then, if time permits, the Immigration Bill; and after that the Criminal Code Bill, together with any other Bills on the Order Paper.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose there is no use of asking about the Insurance Bill going on this session?


William Stevens Fielding: The Insurance Bill was reported by the sub-committee on Banking and Commerce to-day, and was almost disposed of, though one or two points were reserved. The committee will meet tomorrow morning, and my impression is that on the following morning the Bill will be reported to this House.


George Eulas Foster: That means it will not be ready for our consideration before Saturday. I have received to-day a sheaf of telegrams with reference to portions of the Bill which are supposed to have received the assent of the sub-committee, and this is supposed to be the Bill that will probably be acted upon by this House. I am afraid that the Finance Minister will find that even if there were no representations from the country, a measure so diversified and so important as this, to be brought down within four or five days of the end of the session, can hardly receive any fair discussion from the small number of members who will be here. Does the minister, think it wise to press it to a conclusion in this House at the end of the session? If it gets through here, is there any possibility of the Senate, if it does its duty, pass-, ing it there? If the Bill does not pass through the Senate, it drops, and we have to commence again next year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to add to what my hon. friend has said-and many members are I am sure in the same situation- that I have received a great number of telegrams to-day. The impression is that, if the Bill is to go through, which my hon. friend knows is impossible, if we are to prorogue next Wednesday, the people interested should be accorded the right to be

heard on certain sections, and that is what the telegrams insist on. I think my hon. friend will consider that under the circumstances there will be a duty 'pressed upon us that would render the passage of the Bill this session impossible.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite realize that if almost any member desires to prevent the Bill getting through, that could be accomplished.	i


George Eulas Foster: I do not like the minister to say that I desire to prevent the Bill getting through.


William Stevens Fielding: ' I mean that if any hon. gentleman feels it his duty to oppose it. But my hope is that when the Bill reaches the House, the field of controversy will be found to be so small, and the House will be so well satisfied with the consideration given to the measure by the sub-committee and by the Banking and Commerce Committee that it will be content to accept the Bill. What objection I have heard, and I presume that it is the same as has come to hon. gentlemen opposite, touches only one clause of the Bill, a very proper subject for a discussion of half an hour; hut I do not think the fact that there is some hostility to that clause is a reason for supposing that the Bill could not get through. I would hope that the Senate would also accept it under the circumstances ; but even if it did not, this House could dispose of it, and would have done its work, and next session the Bill could be introduced in the Senate. When we think of the large field of controversy there was at one stage, and realize that we have harmonized the conflicting interests in nearly all cases, I think it would be a pity that we should not at all events bring the Bill to the House, with the hope that when it comes it will be found to be in a form that will be acceptable.


George Eulas Foster: No person, I am sure wishes that the Bill shall not pass. In fact, it would be a pity if it could not pass this session, because it has been dangling so long that the insurance interests have been injured by the delay. But there is that feeling that before it passes there should be a final hearing on these vital questions.


William Stevens Fielding: I recognize that the Bill has received on all sides the utmost fair play, and I have nothing but thanks to the gentlemen on both sides for the spirit in which they have dealt with it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at twelve o'clock midnight.
Mr MONK.: Wednesday, May 12, 1009.