[Stage Direction]
GOVERNMENT RAILWAY EMPLOYEES. Mr. R. L. BORDEN asked:
Total Amount of Pay Roll.
1908.	I. C. Ry. P.E.I. Ry.
January	
February	
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August	
September	
October	
November	 December

[Stage Direction]
1.	What was the number of (a) permanent employees, and (b) temporary employees respectively in the service or employment of the government upon or in connection -with _ (a) the Intercolonial Railway, and i(b) the Prince Edward Island Railway upon (a) the first day of each month, (b) the 15th day of each month, and (c) the 81st day of December, all in the year 1908?
2.	What iwas the total amount of the pay roll of each of the said railways for each of the said months?
3.	Were salaries or wages raised or lowered for either permanent or temporary employees during the eaid year upon the said railways or either of them?
4.	If so, on what occasions and to what extent on each occasion?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: The only change in salaries, besides those that are provided for in the different schedules and which are made from month to month as the employees become entitled to them by length of service, was an increases granted in May, 1908, to the telegraphers, and which was made to date from April 1; this for nine months from April to December, inclusive, aggregated $22,500.


NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES.
[Stage Direction]
1908.	Intercolonial Railway.	Prince Edward Island Railway.	Perma- nent.	Tempo- rary.	Perma- nent.	Tempo- rary.J aimary	7,467	858	457	61February	7,610	995	459	68March	7,540	767	459	60April	7,577	766	458	91May	7,609	1,685	459	106J une	7,516	2,156	460	148July	7,609	1,953	459	144August	7,545	1,793	461	156September	7,442	1,962	461	242October. 	7,468	2,922	459	247November	7,459	1,881	461	292December	7,192	1,286	461	204

Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	Was Mayes' first tender for dredging at St. John 50 cents a cubic yard, and was it refused because he could not comply with the condition as to Canadian dredges, or why?
2.	Was the condition removed at the instance of Mayes, or parties acting for him?
3.	Was the contract without this condition, awarded to Mayes at 55 cents a cubic yard?
4.	Were tenders called for again, by advertisement, between the time of Mayes' first and second tender?
5.	Having regard to statements made and documents read by Mr. Hazen at a publio meeting at St. John during the last general eloction, the discussion of the Mayes-McAvity incident by the press during and since the month of October last, as well as the alleged connection of the Minister of Public Works with that transaction, and the allegations recently made upon the floor of this House, all to the effect that the condition above mentioned being removed, Mayes was about to repeat his tender at 50 cents a cubic yard, but was induced by George McAvity, not to do so, but, instead, to tender at 55 cents a cubic yard, the extra five cents per yard to go to McAvity as a rake-ofl or reward to him for exerting his influence with the government to increase the number of yards to be dredged and to secure the contract for Mayes, and the allegation that McAvity actually received the extra five cents a yard, amounting to the sum of $35,933, and having regard to the exceptional importance and gravity of the matters charged, will the government take measures to have this matter of the Mayes tenders and contract and the alleged transactions and dealings in connection therewith, fully inquired into and ascertained ? If so, when and how ?
6.	Is the government of opinion that they can and should recover this $35,933, if the facts are substantially as alleged?
7.	Has the government consulted the legal department as to his right to recover this money, and will they do so? If not, why not?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: Mr. Speaker, I would like_ to call your attention, as well as the attention of my hon. friend, to this allegation in the 5th part of the question: ' as well as the alleged connection of the Minister of Public Works with that transaction.' I am not aware that there has been any allegation, that has been persisted in, in any quarter, in regard to any ' alleged connection of the
1X75

Minister of Public Works ' with the Mayes-McAvity transaction. I would say that the question was improper on that ground. I may say that I would not object to the question, though it is irregular, if under your honour's interpretation of the rules of the House I would be permitted to answer it fully.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Would you prefer the question to stand until it can be looked into, to see whether it is properly put ?


William Pugsley: Just as your honour de cides.


Mr. LENNOX.: It has stood now for a long time, and I am prepared to take the Speaker's decision on the matter.


William Pugsley: So am I.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Then, let these words be struck out:	' as well as the alleged connection of the Minister of Public Works with that transaction.'


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	(a) No, it was $8.90 per cubic yard for material described in the specification as class 1 and 49 cents per cubic yard for material of class II, being all other material than was embraced in class I.
(b) Yes.
2.	The information in the department is that the condition was not removed at the instance of Mayes, or parties acting for him, but that it was removed because the next tender, that of M. J. Haney and Roger Miller of Toronto, who were prepared to comply with the condition, named a price of $3.50 per cubic yard for material described as class I and $1.25 per cubic yard for material described as class II, and as mosj, of the material to be excavated was of class II, it was considered that the tender of Messrs. Haney and Miller was too high, and more than the department would be justified in paying for the work. It was made evident by the first call for tenders that there were very few Canadian registered dredges available to do the work, and it was considered most probable that by striking out the restriction and calling again for tenders more competition would be secured.
3.	At $8.60 per cubic yard for material of class I, being 30 cents per cubic yard less than his previous tender, and 55 cents per cubic yard for material of class II, being six cents per cubic yard more than his previous tender, it was so awarded to him as being the lowest tenderer, the other tenderer being again Haney & Miller of Toronto, whose tender was $3.25 per cubic yard for material of class I and $1.00 per cubic yard for material of class II.
4.	Yes.
5.	The government, through the Department of Public Works, has already fully inquired into the awarding of said con-


William Pugsley: tract, with the result that it appears to have been awarded to the lowest tenderer in the usual and proper manner, after public advertisement calling for tenders, Mr. Mayes' tender, being $8.60 per cubic yard for material for class I as against $3.25 per cubic yard by Haney & Miller, and 55 cents per cubic yard for material of class II. consisting of silt, sand, &c., as against $1.00 per cubic yard by Haney & Miller.
It does not appear to the government that there would be any public advantage in making further inquiry into the matter, and the government has no present intention of making further inquiry.
6.	No.
7.	For the reason that if there was no collusion between the then Minister of Public Works, or other officials of the department, and Mayes and McAvity in connection with the tenders, which has not been alleged, and the contract was awarded in good faith to Mayes, as being the lowest tenderer, any person of ordinary business knowledge and without having a legal training, would know no right of action would exist to recover back any portion of the amount paid under the contract so awarded.


MR. THOMAS COSTELLO.
Mr. WORTHINGTON asked:: 
Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 
Mr. EDWARDS asked:: 1.	What quantities of pork, bacon, lard and other animal products were entered at the port of Kingston, Ontario, from the United States for home consumption during the fiscal year ending March 1, 1908?
2.	What were the respective values thereof, and what amount of duty was paid upon the same according to different' classification?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1	and 2-
Quantity. Value. Duty.
Lard, lbs	28,147
Lard compound, lbs. 90
Canned meats	1,000
Extracts of meats.. Preserved meats, N.
O.P., lbs		.	100
2,224 562.94 12	1.80
116	31.90

16	2.00


DRAINAGE OF NATION RIVER.
Mr. BRODER asked:: 1*. 1s R the intention of the government to assist^ the people interested, in the drainage of the Nation river, in the townships of Matilda and Winchester, in the county of Dundas? If so, when ?
2.	Did the engineer who visited the locality
* TiAlse(* 3y suck river during the summer ot 1908 report in favour of such work being undertaken by the government?


Hon.   W@: 1 and 2. Although^ this would seem to be a class of work coming within the province oi the local government, on representations made to the Public Works Department an engineer visited the locality, and, as a result of his examination into existing conditions, reported that until a proper and comprehensive scheme was devised, which would require further careful consideration, there would be no object in proceeding further with the work which would undoubtedly entail a very large expenditure.


PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES.
[Stage Direction]
Total
2,791 714.98
Mr. ARTHURS asked:: AMERICAN HAY, &c., ENTERED AT KINGSTON.


Mr. EDWARDS asked:: 1.	What quantities of bay, oats and other farm and garden produce were entered at the port of Kingston, Ontario, from the United States, for home consumption during the fisJalTJear ending 31st March, 1908?
2	What were the respective values thereof, and what amount of duty was paid upon the &apie according to different classification?
3.	How many horses under- three-years old, horses over three-years old, cattle under three-years old, milch cows, sheep, lambs and piys were brought into Canada by way of Kingston, Ontario, from the United States irn. I fiscal year ending March 31, 1908? j	were the respective values thereof
and the amount of duty paid upon the same according to different classification?


Hon.   W@: 1 and 2-
Quantity. Value.
Oats, bush	
53	$ 41Pease, bush	
1	7Melons, No	
1,270	191Potatoes, bush	
29	28Sweet potatoes, bush	..	60	50Tomatoes, fresh, bush	.	7	15Vegetables, n.o.p	..	363Total	
$608
Duty. $ 5.30 0.15 38.10 5.80 6.00 4.50 108.90

1.	What amount has been expended to date upon each of the following public works for which the following appropriations were voted last session:
Byng Inlet-Improvement	$10,000
Callendar-Extension of wharf.. ..	1,000
Kearney Wharf	 lj000
Magnetawan-Wharf	 j^OO
Parry Sound-Extension of wharf. s'oOO Have contracts been let for any of the aboye works? If so, which and when?
3.	Have any of the above works been com-by day labour? If so, when?
will, tiff the government intend to proceed ^ltu these works this year?


William Pugsley: L Byng Inlet	$ 26.82 for printing
Callendar	1,118.23
Kearney	 482.27
Magnetawan wharf 571.57 for purchase
Do,	nf wharf


Parry Sound ....: 
QUEBRACHO EXTRACT.
[Stage Direction]
3	and 4. Information is not available from Customs Returns as to value and duties on horses and cattle, separately by classes under and over 3 years old.
Mr. ARTHURS asked:: 1.	What quantity of Quebracho extract has been imported into Canada for home consumption in each year from 1900 to 1908, inclusive?

B. Is the government aware that this extract is used as a substitute for hemlock bark?
3.	Has the government been requested by petition or otherwise to place a duty upon Quebracho extract?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	Quebracho extract is not separately enumerated in the Customs classification of imports, so that the answer to this question cannot be given without a special investigation, which would take a long time to comnlete.
2.	The government is aware that Quebracho extract is used for tanning purposes.
3.	The Department of Customs is not aware of any application made to place a duty on this extract since the present tariff came into force.


BILLS OF LADING-RAILWAY COMMISSION.
Mr. ROBB asked:: 1.	What jurisdiction has -the Railway Commission or the government of Canada over the Bills of lading or forms of Bill of lading issued by the vessels plying on Canadian waters ?
2.	Is the government aware that in the unanimous resolution adopted by the Dominion Marine Association which provides that a new Bill of lading for vessels carrying grain out of any Canadian port, there is the following cl "use: ' provided that the vessel shall not be responsible for shortage exceeding one-half bushel for one thousand bushels carried?


George Perry Graham: * 1. It is a legal question, on which it would not be advisable to express an opinion.
2.	The department has not been so informed.


LAND WARRANT AND WARRANTS.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES asked:: 1.	Is it possible for one man to enter for the land upon more than one land warrant, under the South African veterans' land grant ? If so, how many may one man make an en-trv for?
2.	Has a man having bought several such land warrants the privilege of entering all or any (a) in his own name, or (b) in the name or the names of others?
3.	In case one enters for land on a South African land warrant, can the right be disposed of to another during the three years reouired for settlement duties? If so, under what conditions?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	Yes. A settler may acquire and locate two South African land grants, but can only hold them by performing the duties upon each of the two half-sections strictly in accordance with the homestead conditions of the Dominion Lands Act.


Mr. ARTHURS.: 2.	The purchaser of a warrant cannot locate it unless he is the duly appointed substitute of the original warrantee, (a) He cannot otherwise locate it than in his own name, (b) He cannot locate it in the name of others.
3.	A substitute may be appointed either before or after entry is made by the grantee, and if the settlement duties have been partially performed by the grantee they may be completed by the substitute.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: How many can the purchaser of a warrant locate?


Mr. OLIVER.: He can locate as many as he holds assignments for, but he can only prove up on his location on a maximum of two at a time.


Samuel Hughes: I think the minister hardly answered the second part of part 1 which says:
If so, how many may one man make an entry for?
I	wish to know if it is possible for a speculator or a gentleman interested in the purchase of these land warrants to enter for half a dozen or 100 of them in his own name?


Frank Oliver: Yes. There is nothing to prevent any person who chooses from buying as many of these warrants as he pleases and taking assignments of them to himself, which assignments would be registered in the department and the warrants themselves could be located by him. But as the right expires in 1911, that is within three years, and as he would require the full term of three years to prove up on a maximum of two, and as they are not transferable a second time, he would lose all the money he invested in the remainder of the warrants he had purchased.


HOMESTEADS AND PRE-EMPTIONS IN MANITOBA, ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN.
Mr. HUGHES asked:: 1.	How many acres have already been taken up in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively, by homestead and pre-emption, by railway lands, by Hudson bay lands; by other corporations or persons; by waste, swamp or mountainous land unfit for tilling; by lake areas, including Winnipeg, Winnipeg-osis, Manitoba, Big Quill, Brick and Beaver?
2.	What is the area in square miles of each province above named?


Frank Oliver: It would take about a week to prepare this information, and I would ask the hon. gentleman to let this stand as a motion for a return.


Samuel Hughes: Why not adopt it as a motion for a return?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: It will stand as a notice of motion.

,^r- HUGHES. . We Passed a dozen such the other day, which were put as questions and allowed to be adopted as motions for returns.
Sir WILFRID) LAURIER. Those had re lerence to the Civil Service Bill which is m the public interest, but it is not convenient to extend that precedent to other questions.


Samuel Hughes: Some of them had no reference to the Civil Service Bill, and I object to any invidious distinction. I must insist on the precedent being applied to this question or I shall object to its application to any other. The word 'brick' in the question should be birch.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I am informed that the procedure was irregular before, and it can only be taken by the consent of the House. This will stand as a notice of motion.


DREDGING ST. JOHN HARBOUR, N.B.
[Stage Direction]
Mr FOSTER-by Mr. R. L. Borden-asked :
How much money has been paid by the government for dredging the harbour of St John, New Brunswick, for each year since January 1, 1904, the persons or companies to whom payments have been made, the amount to each and the sums, if any, yet due and to whom due, for any work done up to that date?
,. H,on- WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :
Payments.
1905,	paid G. S. Mayes	$	98,600	001906,	paid G. S. Mayes	
111,160 001907,	paid G. S. Mayes..$195,201.30 1907, paid city of St. John 25,000.001907,	paid D o m i n io nDredging Co	
338,521.53
558 722 83
1908,	paid G. S. Mayes.. .$84,782.33	'
1908, paid Dominion
Dredging Co	 35,637.67
-120,420 00
1909, paid Maritime Dredging and Construction Co.. ..
919 50
Total amount paid.. ..$889,822 33 Balances still due.
To G.   S.@: Mayes (contra claim under action)	$ 5,091 80
To Maritime Dredging and Construction Co	 14,285 66
Total amount due	$19,387 46


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-AMOUNT PAID FOR CONSTRUCTION.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN asked:: What was the total amount expended by the government in connection with the construction of the National Transcontinental Railway during the twelve months ending 31st of January, 1909?
2.	What was the amount so expended in each of the twelve months during the said period ?


William Paterson: 1 and 2.
February, 1908	$ 1,562,921 19
March, 1908 (including payments made in April and May
for fiscal year 1907-8)	 4,144,015	46
April, 1908		15,513 62
May, 1908	
1,338,177	29June, 1908	
1,823,511	06July, 1908	
2,272,287	76August, 1908	
2,993,204	62September, 1908	
2,317,944	70October, 1908	
2,712,637	68November, 1908	
2,364,645	31December, 1908	
3,055,237	18January, 1909	
1,501,452	02Total	, . ..$26,101,547 89


Robert Laird Borden: What is the total amount which has been expended by the government up to the present date in the construction of the National Transcontinental Railway ?


William Paterson: $48,265,129.77 up to and including the 15th day of February, 1909.


ESCAPE OF BILL MINER.
Mr. MEIGHEN asked:: 1.	On whose authority were the outside detectives admitted to the cell of or in private conversation with Bill Miner in New Westminster penitentiary prior to his escape on August 8, 1907?
2.	How was such authority conveyed in each case to the warden?
3.	What were the dates of such visits, and who accompanied the detectives into Miner's cell on each visit, if any one did?
4. Were two or more detectives ever permitted to talk to the prisoner at the same time?
5.	Were the objects of the detectives' visits made known to the department prior to said visits? If so, what objects were so made known ?
6.	When did the department first become aware that the purpose of the visits of the detective or detectives was to locate or secure information as to certain bonds and other property believed to be within the knowledge of Miner ?
7.	Did the department get its information as to the said bonds from the detectives or from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, directly or indirectly? If not, from whom?
8.	Was the detective or detectives wholly or partially in the pay of the government in this matter? If so, what were they paid?
9.	What was the amount of said bonds, if known? If not known, what is the best information the department has as to the amount of same?
10.	Since the escape of Miner has the department taken any steps t<? ascertain whether such

bonds have been located, or the disposition of same? If not, does the department purpose doing so?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice):: 
NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-CONSTRUCTION MILEAGE.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN asked:: 1.	How many miles of the western division of the National Transcontinental Railway are completed and in operation? _
2.	What amount has been paid to or received. by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company out of the proceeds of bonds guaranteed by the government in respect of such mileage so completed and now in operation?
3.	What amount has been paid to or received by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company out of the proceeds of bonds guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in respect of such mileage so completed and in operation?
4.	What was the average cost per mile of the mileage so completed and in operation?
5.	What was the net price received for the bonds mentioned in the second and third paragraphs respectively of this question?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1. 667 miles. The other portions of this question relate to the Finance Department.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The portion of the question not answered stands.


COAL AND TIMBER LANDS IN SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA.
Mr. LAKE asked:: 1.	What is the approximate area of coal and timber lands, respectively, in each of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta; (a) owned by private individuals or companies; (b) leased by the government to private individuals or companies; and what is the approximate area in each province on which mining or lumbering operations are actually being carried on?
2.	What was the approximate amount of revenue collected by the government between January 1, 1906, and December 81, 1908, on account of (a) payments for coal lands; (b) coal royalties; (c) bonuses and rentals on timber lands; (d) timber dues; (e) hay lands; (f) grazing lands; and <(g) irrigation areas within each of the above provinces?


Frank Oliver: I am informed it will take about ten days to prepare the matter required for this answer, and I would kindly ask the hon. gentleman to let the question stand as notice of motion for a return.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stands as notice of motion for a return.


CAPTAIN OF DREDGE 'RICHELIEU.'
Mr. MONK asked:: 1.	Was the captain of the dredge ' Richelieu ' removed last autumn? If so, upon what grounds?
2.	By whom has said captain been replaced, and upon whose recommendation?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	All men (including the captain) were paid off when the dredge was laid up for the winter, excepting the caretaker, C. Bis-sonnette.
2.	No appointments will be made until next spring.


CONSTRUCTION OF HOPPER SCOWS.
Mr. MONK asked:: 1.	What is the purpose of the construction of the two centre Hopper dumping scows at St. Johns, province of Quebec, for which tenders have been called by the Department of Public Works, on the 8th February, instant?
2.	At what particular place are the said scows to be constructed?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	To replace worn out scows as tenders for dredge ' Richelieu.'
2.	As the contract has not yet been awarded, it is impossible to say where the scows are to be constructed.


RICHELIEU IMPROVEMENT OFFICE.
Mr. MONK asked:: 1. Has an office been opened at St. Johns, province of Quebec, in connection with what 38
is known as Richelieu river improvements?
2.	What do these improvements consist of?
3.	Under whose supervision locally are said improvements being carried out?
4.	What are the names and salaries of officers employed in and about said office of improvements, and what is the rental of the office?
5.	How much has been expended to date on said improvements?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Dredging, blasting and construction of a movable dam.
3.	Paul Paradis, engineer-in-charge.
4.	Paul Paradis, engineer-in-charge, $1,900 per year; Albert Gosselin, assistant engineer, $3 per day; Edmond Papineau, rodman, $2.50 per day; rent of office, $20 per month.
5.	$18,918.97.


INTERNATIONAL TUBERCULOSIS CONGRESS.
Mr. PERLEY asked:: 1.	Did the government send any delegates to the International Tuberculosis Congress, held in Washington, last fall?
2.	If so, who were the delegates, and what was the total expense connected with the same?


Hon.   CHAS@: MURPHY (for Minister of
Agriculture):
1.	Yes.
2.	F. Montizambert, I.S.O., M.D. Edin.,
F.R.S.C.E., D.C.L., director general of public health.
J. G. Rutherford, H.A.R.C.V.S., veterinary director general and live stock commissioner.


Rev. T. H.: Boyd.
Total expenses $744.95.


POSTMASTER AT BROPHY'S.
Mr. MADDIN asked:: 1.	Who is the postmaster at Brophy's post office, Antigonish county, Nova Scotia?
2.	Has any change been made during the past eighteen months? If so, when did it take place, and what was the reason therefor?
3.	Who is the postmaster at the said post
office at the present time, and when was he appointed?	[DOT]
4.	What are the circumstances in connection with any change which has been made in the postm astership ?
5.	To whom was the last payment of salary made?
6.	Who was postmaster at said post office one year ago?
7.	How long has he been acting as such, why was he dismissed, and when?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX.: The present postmaster at Brophy's is Thomas Brophy, but some time ago the post office, having been placed under quarantine, the mails were delivered at the house of the



mail contractor, who has since been acting as postmaster.


RAILWAY CAPITALIZATION AND RATES.
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, as orders of the day will not be reached, might I ask the indulgence of the House to make one or two inquiries? I would first ask the Minister of Railways whether or not there has been any ruling of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada which would indicate that the amount of stock capitalization of any company, whether excessive or otherwise, is taken into consideration in the regulation or fixing of rates, instead of the actual cost of the road?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend had given me notice of this question and I have the following memorandum from the Board of Railway Commissioners:
_ I know of no case in which the board, in fixing the tolls, has had regard to the capitalization or stock issue of the company rather tha/i to the cost of construction, &c. You will remember that in Klondike Mines Railway Company's application for approval of its proposed standard freight tariff, after a hearing and upon the report and recommendation of the chief traffic officer, the board approved the tariffs of this company up to the distance of thirty miles from Dawson, and directed that the company should be notified that before applying for approval of further standard tariffs, it should furnish the board with returns showing the cost of construction and equipment of the company up to that time, and its running and operating expenses, to enable the board to determine the rates that should be allowed for further distances.


FISHING BOUNTY APPLICATIONS.
Robert Laird Borden: I would ask whether there is any information in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Halifax as to the delay in sending out papers necessary to make application for fishing bounties. As I understand, those which should have been sent out and filled in between April and August last year have not been sent out and the fishermen have therefore not been able to prepare their applications.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say I have no information to give to my hon. friend. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) has been engaged in an important conference with gentlemen from different provinces, but I shall call his attention to that matter.


PUBLICATION OF WATERWAYS TREATY.
Robert Laird Borden: I would ask the Prime Minister whether or not his attention has been called to the publication


Rodolphe Lemieux: of what purports to be a copy of the recent Waterways Treaty between His Majesty and the United States of America in the 'Evening Telegram' of Toronto; my attention has been directed to it in that newspaper. I do not know whether it has been published in any other. I do not know whether the terms of the treaty are correctly set forth, but if they are correctly set forth I would ask the Prime Minister whether or not there is any special reason why the treaty should not be laid upon the table of the House. It seems rather unnecessary to keep up the pretense of secrecy when this treaty, through some means, I do not know what, is being published in the press of the country. If it is being correctly published then there seems no reason why it should not be laid before parliament. If it is not being correctly published, I invite the attention of the Prime Minister to what purports to be an accurate copy of the treaty in terms, and I think it ought to be stated that that is not a correct copy of the treaty if the alleged publication is not founded upon fact. There would seem to be no good reason why the parliament of this country should be kept officially ignorant of the terms of the treaty when it is being published in the press of the United States and Canada and in the press of Great Britain, because a very full summary of it appeared in the London 'Times' of January 28 last.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have seen from time to time in the newspapers of this country reports which pretended to be copies of the Waterways Treaty. Some were fairly accurate and some were not so accurate. I have not seen the publication in the Toronto 'Telegram' to which my hon friend refers. If I understand him aright, the publication purports to be a verbatim copy of the treaty. It may or it may not


Robert Laird Borden: It purports to be a copy of the message of President Roosevelt to the Senate conveying to the Senate the terms of the treaty in absolutely accurate form.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that it is not, but if it is I am quite sure that it has not reached the public by the permission of the United States authorities. It may have come to the newspapers in some surreptitious manner. I can only say to my hon. friend that I quite agree with him and that I see no reason why the treaty should not be made public immediately.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the Prime Minister to suggest to the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee the im-

portance of calling meetings of that committee with a reasonable degree of frequency? We have now entered upon the fifth week of the session and up to the present time there has been no meeting of the Public Accounts Committee for the transaction of business. There was a meeting for organization at which some business was transacted. It is not usual that any business should be transacted at the first meeting. There have been no further meetings. I have asked that a meeting should be called for to-morrow. It may be that the delay in calling a meeting may be due to the absence of the chairman. I would suggest that the chairman of an important committee such as the Public Accounts Committee, whenever he finds it necessary to be absent from his duties in this House, should place matters in the hands of some other member of the committee so that there might not be the slightest delay in the transaction of the business of such an important committee as that. I am doing that in the interest of all of us, because there is a certain amount of business that must be transacted by that committee. The Prime Minister will realize that as well as I do. If that committee is delayed the prorogation of the House will be delayed in order that certain business may be brought to a conclusion. I think it is very important, in the interest of an early prorogation, that we should have more frequent meetings of that committee and a word from the Prime Minister would mean a great deal towards the accomplishment of that very desirable object.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does my hon. friend want a meeting for to-morrow?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes; I think a meeting has been arranged for to-morow.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Clarke, the chairman, is away just now. My hon. friend will agree that he is a very painstaking gentleman and appreciates the importance of the office which he occupies. I will call attention to the remarks of my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no adverse comment to pass upon Mr. Clarke. Indeed, he may have taken the precaution to which I have alluded. But, I merely say this by way of precaution and I hope that no further delays will occur.


ROSS RIFLE.
Mr. WORTHINGTON moved:: For a return, subsequent to the bringing down of similar papers, of all correspondence, reports, memoranda, &c., between any officer, non-commissioned officer or man of the permanent force, Royal Northwest Mounted Police, Militia, Canadian Bisley Team, or Civilian Rifle Club, relating to the Ross rifle,
38i
its merits or demerits, or any accident that may have happened in connection with the same.


To G.   S.@: I have no objection with the understanding that purely confidential papers shall not be brought down. I understand the hon. gentleman wishes papers similar to those which have been laid on the table in continuation of the return of last year. I have no objection to that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all correspondence, reports and papers of every description treating of or in connection with the application of or grant to Francis Percival Aylwin, of the city of Ottawa, of a tract of land in the province of Alberta for irrigation purposes. - Mr. Magrath.
For a return showing what amounts the government has paid property owners in or around Stony lake for damages caused by the rising of water, and who they were. Mr. Sexmith.
For a return showing what amounts the government has paid property owners for damages caused by the holding up of water in the Otonabee river between Hastings and Peterborough, and the names of the parties receiving settlements.-Mr. Sexsmith.
For a copy of all correspondence between J. H. Davis and the Department of Marine and Fisheries referring to the fisheries of Manitoba: and of all petitions and correspondence from the Fisherman's Union, Gimli, Manitoba, to and with the said de-partment.-Mr. Bradbury.
For a return giving detailed items of the sum of $10,646.93, being revenue received from Kingston penitentiary other than from sale cf twine, as shown on page L-36 of the Auditor General's Report, and stating what proportion of such revenue "vas derived from sales to officers of the penitentiary, with the names of such officers, and the amounts and nature of the goods purchased by them.-Mr. Barnard.	[DOT]
For a return showing particulars of the places where the expenditures mentioned in column 365, unrevised ' Hansard,' for wharfs in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia, where made, together with amounts expended in each instance for construction and repairs, respectively.-Mr. Barnard.
For a return giving a list of railway charters granted since January 1, 1900, other than to the Grand Trunk, Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific Railway Companies, showing those whose powers have lapsed, and the length of each of the proposed roads and branches, the date of charters and renewals, if any, the total mileage constructed, the capital stook authorized, subscribed and paid up.-Mr. Magrath.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all correspondence or petitions
received from F. W Oolclaugh, while he was inspector of fisheries for Manitoba, referring to the operations of commercial companies and others.-Mr. Bradbury.
For a return showing the amount of money paid by the government, including all branches of the service, from January 1, 1897 to January 1, 1909, to the Logberg Printing Company, Winnipeg.-Mr. Bradbury.
For a copy of all correspondence respecting the improvements made in the Assiniboine river near Portage la Prairie, in September and October, 1908; and of all papers, vouchers, orders, resolutions, returned cheques, etc., in any way relating to the said work or to carrying out of same.-Mr. Staples.
For a copy of all lists of voters as prepared by the enumerators and completed by the deputy returning officers for the several polling subdivisions in the electoral riding of Qu'-Appelle, and used in the recent general election for the House of Commons; also for a return showing the boundaries of the said polling subdivisions, and the names of the enumerators, deputy returning officers, poll clerks, candidates' agents or scrutineers who acted for each poll.-Mr. Lake.
For a return showing the number and the names of all persons who were entitled to receive patents, and did receive patents, under the treaty made by Mr. H. M. Howell for the surrender of St. Peters' reserve, Manitoba.- Mr. Bradbury.
For a return showing from whom the wood working machinery was purchased for Intercolonial Kailway shops at Moncton or elsewhere since January 1, 1908, how much from each and the prices paid; from whom the iron working machinery was purchased for the Intercolonial Railway shops at Moncton, or elsewhere, since January 1, 1908, how much from each, and the prices paid; the dates, (a) of purchase, and (b) of delivery-Mr. Clare.
For a return showing 1. How many copies of documents were printed for distribution to the public by the Department of Agriculture for the years 1904-5-6-7-8.
2.	How many oopies of such publications were distributed to the public in each of the said years.
3.	The method of distribution adopted.
4.	What mailing list is used, and when revised.
5.	The cost of printing, translation and distribution of such publications for the said years.
6.	The same information as in numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as applied to the distribution of the evidence taken in each of the said years before the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization.-Mr. Sinclair.
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, despatches, memoranda, &c., between the imperial government, or any member thereof, and the Governor General, government or any member thereof, relating to or bearing upon the question of Canada contributing to the support of the British fleet, or purchasing ships of her own, or assisting in any way in maintaining with the mother country ' the supremacy of the seas.-Mr. Worthington.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: 


ESCAPE OF BILL MINER.
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence passing between the Department of Justice and the officers of New Westminster Penitentiary or other persons whatsoever, relating to the visit or proposed visit of detectives to Bill Miner during his incarceration in said penitentiary; also of the report of the Inspector of Penitentiaries after investigating the circumstances connected with Miner's escape, and of the evidence on which such report is based; also a copy of telegram sent from the said penitentiary to the department or its officers respecting Miner's escape, and of such telegrams as received and of telegrams sent and received in answer within two weeks from such escape.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: There is no objection to bringing down the return asked for by this motion, but I think I should take this occasion to state that there are upon our files communications which are of a confidential character and which I think it would not be in the public interest to bring down, relating to the efforts made to recapture Miner after his escape, the reports of various detectives and others who were engaged in the effort to find the escaped prisoner and the details of the information and of the assistance they received from different individuals. I mention that merely in order that there may be no misunderstanding about the matter when the return is laid on the table.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Haughton Lennox: 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 of powers vested in the Railway Board, but 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.
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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move this resolution I realize that it is a very broad and a very difficult question, and that there are many members in the House who would present it in a more efficient way than I may be able to. I realize too-and I hope I shall be understood as expressing that opinion throughout, any argument I may use-the very important services rendered by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) upon one phase of the question, namely, as regards that portion of the railway crossings on highways in Canada situated within the limits of thickly settled portions of cities, towns, and villages. I shall on this occasion endeavour to enlist the sympathy and attention of the representatives of the people on the broad question of the elimination of railway crossings on the level of the highways as far as our circumstances and conditions will permit, having regard to the vast extent of our country and to the enormous expense involved in a complete separation of railway and highway grades. In presenting this motion I hone that I shall perhaps have the satisfaction of having it accepted by the government without opposition, and I may say that last year, of two resolutions which were so accepted by the government I had the honour of presenting one. I do not propose this resolution in any political sense, and consequently I trust that in its support I will have the united action of all members of the House. Last night I obtained a_ return as to the number of accidents on railway crossings during the last five years. That return does not give us complete information ; in fact the scar-citv of information and the delay in obtaining it is not exactly suggestive of energy in devising a remedy which will prevent these accidents. The Minister of Railways has recently indicated that this session he intends to take some action in the matter, and I give him my assurance that I will endeavour so far as I can to co-operate with him in securing the best possible solution of this question. The return of the accidents which have occurred at railway level crossings for the last five years ought to be sufficient to arouse the government to action and to cause them to follow the example of the government of the United States and of other countries in announcing a definite policy.
We have in Canada 15,000 level crossings. Of these it is said that 3,115 are already-protected. The nature of the protection has not been stated, and I think it is very important that we should know whether or not as a matter of fact we have that number of crossings actually and effectively protected. In perusing the returns I would be inclined to think not, for I find that a good many accidents have occurred at crossings said to be protected. Now, no sensible man will imagine that we can have all the railway crossings from one end of Canada to the other-15,000 at the present time, and more being constructed from year to year-made absolutely safe for the people using the highways. I realize that. 1 realize that there are thousands of crossings, on the western prairies and in other parts of the Dominion, where there is an open view of approaching trains from either side, and where the highway is also visible to those operating the trains-which require no artificial devices in order that people may be reasonably safe. On the other hand, I feel that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, which should have some protection in the nature of a gate. There are highway crossings which, however sparsely settled the locality may be, may operate as a trap; for instance, where the railway is cut through an embankment, and where the highway approaches the railway through a cutting, so that a person passing along the highway cannot see an approaching train until it is almost upon him. All these should have protection of some kind, and I believe it will be found that they should be provided with gates. Then there are undoubtedly, not only in the crowded centres but also in the rural parts of the country, scores and perhaps hundreds of cases where, at a reasonable expenditure of money, the highways could be separated from the railway, being placed either above or below the railway.
The returns for five years show that in Canada during that time there have been 270 deaths at level crossings and 350 injuries, making a total of 620 casualties. The returns are from the Railway Board, the Intercolonial Railway and the Controller of Statistics in the Railway Department. It is a peculiar fact that in all the enormous number of crossings there are not a very great many where accidents have occurred, and there are some which have been great offenders. For instance, the Grimsby accident of the other day followed a great disaster of some time ago ; and a little precaution would have prevented both. Dunnville is in the same category. Last fall a Mrs. Miller and her child were run down by a train at this crossing, and perhaps a little precaution on our part would have prevented that accident. Kingston has been the scene of a good many accidents. There, on the 20th

March, 1905, a man was killed; on the 6th of October, 1906, a man was killed at Princess street; again, on the 19th of December, 1907, another person was killed at Montreal street. Toronto, too, has been in a condition which would have suggested a remedy for a long time. There a person was killed on the 16th of January, 1905; another on the 3rd of November, 1905; another on October 16, 1906; on January 7, 1907, one was severely injured; in March, 1907, a person was killed, and at another crossing a person was severely injured. That something should have been done is made plain by the fact that three of these accidents occurred at one crossing, namely, that at Brock avenue.
As I have said, we have not very detailed information in this matter, in connection
with the operation of our railways in Canada, hut we have important statistics with regard to a country very similar to ours, that is, the United States, and! a brief examination of the conditions there may be helpful to us in determining what we should do. In 1888 the State of Massachusetts took the lead and appointed a railway commission. The report of that commission brought out a somewhat startling fact, which has been further demonstrated and emphasized in recent years; that is, that a greater number of people are killed at railway crossings than there are of passengers killed on the trains. The report of the Massachusetts Commission showed that in 1890, of the total number of people killted, 7 per cent were passengers, 33 per cent employees, 47 per cent trespassers, stealing rides or walking along the railway track, &e., and 11 per cent were people killed at highway crossings. This fact is more than borne out by the statistics of the United States since that date. From 1900 to 1906 inclusive, the number of people killed at level crossings exceeded the total number of passengers killed on American railways by 85 per cent. The deaths in each year up to the 30th of June were as follows:
Year.
1900..	..
1901..	..
1902..	..
1903..	..
1904..	..
1905..	..
1900..	..
Total.
Passengers	Killed at
killed.	crossings.
214	558
257	619
305	519
320	624
400	607
502	622
304	667
2,302	4,256
is
The numbers of those injured at crossings enormous as well:
1901
1903
1905
1,093
1,112
1,063
1,239
1,308
1,666
Total	 8,715


Haughton Lennox: Making the total number of victims at railway crossings, during those seven years, 12,971. Take the wonderful contrast we find where there is a separation of the railway from the highway. We have a striking instance of this in the case of the Columbian exhibition. Shortly before the exposition began, the Illinois Central Railway elevated some eight or nine miles of its tracks in Chicago. It did that at its own expense with the assistance of the Columbian exposition. Not a dollar was paid by the State or contributed by the city, although the expenditure was over $3,000,000. During the six months of that exhibition that railway company handled-largely by reason of having the streets and its railway lines separate-19,500,000 people without the loss of a single life. Other countries are doing something, and I ask my right horn friend ' what are you going to do about it.' That we ought to do something, I am sure he will admit. Mr. Borden D. Whiting, a railway commissioner on the New Jersey Board says:
Grade crossings must not be tolerated on crowded public thoroughfares and must be abolished before they are soaked in blood.
In my resolution I speak of ' imminent and increasing peril.' Why? Because the danger increases in proportion to the increasing number of trains and so on. And in the Dominion at present we are increasing in all those matters which go to make up danger. What is it that determines the number of accidents at level crossings? It is the number of trains and tracks, the speed of the trains, the character of the crossings and the extent of the highway traffic. Each one of these elements is an increasing quantity and contributes more and more to the danger as the years advance. I ask the Minister of Railways and the leader of the government what should be our great object in Canada to-day in connection with this railway question. We have had great railway problems to solve, but none so important as the one which now confronts us. Go into the library and you will find a dozen books upon the railway problem, and I venture to say that the heart of that problem for us is the protection of our highways and the providing of reasonable security for those who use them. Our object should be safety, in the first place, and then moderate tolls, speed, frequency of service and comfort. But the paramount object we should have in view is the public safety; and safety to the degree we hope to have it, cannot be obtained until we have grappled with this problem and endeavoured to solve it by eliminating grade crossings, wherever possible with reasonable expenditure; and, as an alternative, in all other cases where the crossings are concealed ot otherwise dangerous, by having gates and other devices for the public protection.

The ideal system is of course to be found in Great Britain. Britain was the first country to grasp the proper way of dealing with this question. In fact, I think I am right in saying that it is the only country which did realize at the outset the folly of sacrificing the highways in order to secure the railways. Germany has at present a magnificent railway system from the point of view of security and otherwise, second only perhaps to that of Great Britain. But the difference is this. Britain began right and preserved her highways while building her railways, whereas Germany sacrificed her highways to build her railways and then had to pay enormously in order to reclaim her highways and obtain the security for highway traffic which she now enjoys. But of course that security has only been obtained at an enormously increased cost and such will be the case in Canada, as it has been in the United States, when we come to reconstruct our system. In that regard we shall have to pay enormously more than we would have had to pay if we could have begun as Britain did.
Speaking on this question, I might say- and it is of interest now when we have the question of government ownership of railways coming up from time to time-that this subject is very closely connected with the question of the nationalization of railways. Germany has been enabled to separate the highways from the railways with greater facility by reason of the nationalization of her railways; and as a cognate proposition, just in proportion as we see to it that the companies afford a reasonable protection for all people having occasion to use the highways, shall we be postponing the day of the nationalization of railways in Canada.
Mr. Seth Low was speaking quite recently on the question of the Hepburn Bill. He pointed out that while the prediction had been made that that Bill would be a failure, one year's operation of it had shown that the vesting of larger powers in the Railway Commission in the United States, had been an eminent success, not only because the measure was operating well by reason of the machinery conferred upon the board, but because the railways had immediately volunteered to carry out the provisions of the Act so that the Board of Commissioners were under no necessity to take action against them. And no doubt whenever you frame adequate laws for the protection of the public, you will have those to whom these laws are to be applied volunteering to carry out the orders of the board without waiting for action to enforce the law. Therefore, we may be encouraged in Canada, if we can form a policy on this great question by the belief that it will not require to be enforced in many instances, by the Board of Railway Commissioners, but that the railway companies will be on the alert to carry out the provisions of the law.
I have referred to the English system, and I wish to read a clause or two of the English statute as being the most concise way of expressing exactly what the law is in Great Britain. I realize that in Canada we cannot expect, except in our cities and large towns, to carry out the English system in anything like its entirely for many long years to come; but there can be no good reason advanced why we should not begin to eliminate the grade crossings. The English statute says:
If a line of railway crosses any turnpike road or public highway, then, except where otherwise provided by the special Act, either such road shall be carried over the railway or the railway shall be carried over such road by means of a bridge, and such bridge with the immediate approaches and all other necessary works connected therewith, shall be executed and at all times thereafter maintained at the expense of the company.
Provided always, that with the consent of two or more justices in petty sessions, as after mentioned, it shall be lawful for the company to carry the railway across any highway, other than a public carriage road, on the level.
Now, we have this condition of things that, even with the enormous railway system in Great Britain, there can be no level crossing, except by special Act of_ parliament, upon any road where driving is done.
The next section provides for the maintenance of gates where the railway crosses a carriage road on the level, which gates are to be kept closed except when in actual use by persons crossing the railway-the exact opposite of what we adopt in Canada, though I am not prepared to say which is the better of the two-and providing that there shall be men in attendance, as we have here. But the lowest order of protection in Great Britain, from one end of it to the other, is gates, with a house in which a man is to be lodged and the other appliances for the safety of the public, such as devices for lighting, the ringing of bells and other means of helping to safeguard the public.
Now, it should be distinctly understood, also, that every dollar of the expense of these works in Great Britain is borne by the railways. In saying that, I do not want to be unreasonable. We have to recognize that the railways are a great factor in the development of Canada. I do not want to be a crank and say we can do the same here as is done in Great Britain. All I say is that the fact is as I have stated, and it is a fact that should be kept in mind as one of the elements in the case. There is another provision in the law of Great Britain, and if we had had that here the Grimsby disaster could not have occurred. It is as follows:
Where the railway crosses any turnpike road on a level adjoining a station, all


Haughton Lennox: In reference to this matter I find an interesting comparison in ' Hazell's Annual,' referring to the year 1904. It shows the proportion of passengers killed and injured
to passengers carried.
Passengers Killed to Passengers Carried-1904.
In England.	In United States.
Killed.. . .1 in 199,758,000.. . ,1 in 1,622 267


Injured.   ..@: 1 in 2,244,472.. ..1 in 78,523
It is only fair to say that the American railways carried their passengers much longer distances on the average. That is an element to be taken into consideration. But when we compare one in practically two hundred millions with one in one and a half millions, the comparison is certainly very startling. In other words, the death rate for railway passengers is 123 times greater in the United States than in England. Then he gives the proportion of employees killed and injured to the total number employed.
Proportion of Employees Killed-1904.
In England. In United States.
Killed	1 in 10,144	1 in 357Injured	1 in 748	1 in 19
And Mr. Frank Dixon, writing in the ' Atlantic Monthly ' in 1907, and carrying the figures down to 1905, said that of the total number employed in United States railways 1 in every J33 was killed and 1 in every 9 injured in that year. Coming to the next great railway country, France, I shall read a clause from their law.
Except in the case of local obstacles sufficiently serious in the opinion of the government, any railway intersecting national highways or depari nu*ntal roads shall pass above or below such highways or roads.
A gentleman dealing with this says:
Level crossings are tolerated only on rural or private cross-roads.
I find on .further research that when a railway passes a highway or public path on a level it must have a gate of specified style, it must have a man in attendance; a cottage is provided at an expense ordinarily of $1,000 and all the expense entailed is borne by the railway company. In that connection we must not lose sight of the fact that in France not only is all the expense borne by the railway companies but the railways revert to the state after a period of ninety-nine years.
To speak briefly of the conditions in the United States, I want the government to follow me in this idea. The governments of many states in the United States have adopted the principle of defining what shall be the prevailing conditions in reference to the construction of railways over highways and this has also been, as you have perceived, the policy of Great Britain, Germany and France, and I think of European countries generally. Be that as it may, the

closest analogy you can get to our conditions is in the United States and they have adopted a definite policy as regards the features of railway construction which I am now discussing. I want to urge upon the government that they should and should now at this session enunciate the policy that we shall have, as far as possible, as to the existing roads a separation of the highway from the railway, that we shall in other cases wherever necessary have a protection by gate or other properly approved device, that that shall be the policy of the law of the country and that its working out only shall be left to the railway board.
. Massachusetts I think was the first state in the field. Their law provides that there shall be no new railway constructed on a grade crossing until the board has investigated the matter and has ordered that it may be so
Then as to the existing roads, the general law provides the policy that shall be adopted for reclaiming the highways by separation of the highway from the railway. The general law is that the railway pays 65 per cent, the state pays 25 per cent or more and the municipality pays 10 per cent or less. That is to say there is 35 per cent of the cost to be borne between the municipality and the state and the board may order any proportion of that 35 per cent to be paid by the state, but cannot order the municipalities to pay more than 10 per cent. Expenditure by the state is limited to $500,000 in any one year and to $5,000,000 in all. Then they have special statutes by which they eliminated a great number of grade crossings at certain points, notably Boston, Brocton and Newton. In reference to these cities the state paid 31| per cent, the cities 135 per cent and the company 55 per cent.
New York attempted to adopt the Massachusetts law with regard to the expenditure. The railways were not exactly opposed to the abolition of the grade crossing in the state but they were opposed to the allotted proportion of the expense. Let me say that I do not understand that the railways will put up any organized hostility to the proposition that we are making but may object to the proportion of the expense they are to pay. The railways realize that in the interests of the traffic which they wish to handle, the desire for rapidity, the desire for safety and the elimination of that, much vexed question of the cattle guard in many instances, it is to their interest as much as possible to separate the highway from the railway crossing, and to have protection at other points. New York therefore was not able by reason of the strong organized opposition of the big railway interests to pass a law as favourable to the people as the Massachusetts law, and the law there is that the company shall pay 50 per cent, the state 25 per cent and the municipality 25 per cent. Their law provides:
All steam surface railroads, hereafter built except additional switches and sidings, must be so constructed as to avoid all public crossings at grade, wherever practicable so to do.
And as regards the division of expense:
Whenever under the provisions of section
60	of this Act new railroads are constructed across existing highways, the expense of crossing above or below the grade of the highway shall be paid entirely by the railroad corporations.
It then goes on to provide for conditions such as the extension of a new street where none before existed, across an existing railway.
Mr, GRAHAM. Where the railway has possession of the territory first does it make any difference as to the cost ?


Haughton Lennox: Yes, it does. The section reads:
Whenever, under the provisions of section
61	of this Act a new street, avenue or highway is constructed across an existing railroad, the railroad corporation shall pay one half and the municipal corporation wherein such street, avenue or highway is located shall pay the remaining one-lialf of the expense of making such crossing, above or below grade; and whenever a change is made as to an existing crossing, in accordance with the provisions of section 62 of this Act, 50 percentum of the expense thereof shall be borne by the railroad corporation, 25 per cent by the municipal corporation and 25 per cent by the state.
In the case of a new railway the railway pays the whole of it; if it is the change of an existing grade, where the highway was in possession first then the railway pays 50 per cent, the state 25 per cent, and the municipality 25 per cent. In Maine they have practically the Massachusetts law where they want to change the grade with regard to an existing highway and an existing railway. Then, the statute provides that for a new railway there shall be a separation of grade unless the Railway Commissioners, after notice, authorize the crossing on the level, the elimination of level crossings being the rule, the cost being borne entirely, I think, by the company, although, as to that, I am not positive. The state of Michigan has pretty drastic laws as to this question. It puts it into_ the power of the Board of Railway Commissioners to order whatever they like as regards the protection of railway crossings. The elimination of level crossings, the separation of grades, the providing of gates, the providing of flagmen or whatever thev think necessary they can order if they think fit and the entire cost is charged to the railway company. In Ohio the company pays 65 ner cent, or more if so ordered.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Who pays the balance in Ohio?


Haughton Lennox: The balance is paid either by the state or by the municipality; I am inclined to think that it is the state that pays the 35 per cent. As regards Connecticut, the commissioner may order of his own motion the separation of grades. In that case the company pays 75 per cent, and the state pays 25 per cent. Then, there may be the case of the application by a railway company for the elimination of a grade crossing. In that case the company pays the entire cost and, in that connection, I may say that they are bound by statute to apply for the elimination of one level crossing every year. Each company must apply for the elimination of at least one level crossing each year for every sixty miles of their railway, and the result has been that in ten years they have cut out 549 level crossings out of a total of 1,526, leaving 977 to be provided for in the state. They have also a provision as to the case where the application is by the municipality and where the railway existed before it was crossed by the highway. Then, as to new railways to be constructed after the passing of the Act, they are to have separate grades constructed at the cost of the company. There are other states, many of which have been referred to in the public press, and it is not necessary for me to deal with further illustrations. They enunciate clearly enough the policy of the United States with regard to this matter. They show clearly that they have come to the conclusion that it is not wise to leave it entirely to the Railway Board, but that the representatives of the people should define, within general limits, what shall be the policy as to this great and important matter.
As to the question of cost, that is, of course, a matter for the government to consider, but they are always anxious to have some idea from us so that they shall not go wrong. I have clear ideas as to some portions of this question and not very clear ideas as to others, but I would like to give the government the benefit of my consideration as far as it has gone. How are we to meet the expense? As to new roads, as to any charter that we shall grant during this session, I submit to the government that we should make it the law that the railway company shall separate the highway from the railway, or that they shall provide gates as a good alternative, unless they show that in particular instances the separation or the gates are not necessary, and (fliat they should pay the entire cost of the work. I would recommend that policy with reference to all new railways, unless, having regard to any peculiar local conditions, such as the extending of the railway through a sparsely settled portion of Canada, we should, for good reasons, see fit to exempt them from that liability by the statute by what they shall be chartered. As to the question of municipalities contributing towards the expense, I shall leave to the city municipali-Mr. LANCASTER.
ties the fighting out of that question for themselves, but as to the rural municipalities I do not feel that there should be no portion of the expense charged up to them.	I might interject just
here, with great respect to the Railway Board, that I am sorry that in the matter of the Grimsby crossing, they did not observe that rule. I claim that in every case where the highway and railway cross upon the level and where the highway was one of the original highways which existed at the time the railway was built, the company should be at the total charge of providing and maintaining all the appliances for safety that may be ordered by the railway board. As to the further question of expense as to existing roads that we have to deal with, that are in existence to-day, reclaiming our highways in that regard, I do not feel that perhaps I am very competent to pronounce a judgment upon that, but as I feel at present, I do not think it would be unreasonable that Canada should contribute something to the expense. The railwavs helped to make Canada. It was absolutely impossible at the time some of these roads were built that the precautions which were taken in Great Britain and the older countries of Europe could be taken here, and T say that to put these railways upon a proper basis as regards these crossings, it does not appear at the present time to be unreasonable that the Dominion government should contribute something towards the change of grade. As to the sources of income available to the country there is this point to be kept in mind by the government and by parliament in dealing with this question: England taxes her railways to the extent of $1,000 a mile and the United States tax theirs to an enormous extent. We nominally are beginning to tax ours through the provinces. This tax is very little and I would not be sorry if I could see an arrangement made between the Dominion and the provinces by which the provinces would forego tbe taxing of railways if the money were diverted to securing a better condition of things as regards railway crossings. In the United States the lowest amount at which any railway was taxed in 1906 in an organized state was $107 per mile, and the highest was $1,683 per mile, an average of $349 per mile ifor all the railways in the United States. Pennsylvania alone paid in 1906, as railway taxation, $6,982,973. The United States collected from all the railways in that year $74,602,171. If Canada collected on her railways at the same rate at which they impose taxes on railways in the United States, a revenue of from $8,000,000 to $9,000,000 a year would be obtained.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: Do you know what the federal taxes on the United States railways amount to?


Haughton Lennox: I have not got that separately. I was suggesting to the govern-

ment that probably some adjustment should be made in reference to the taxation, which obtains in Canada now whereby the burden upon the railways in changing grades would be lightened. It should be borne in mind too, that we have contributed very largely towards railway building, at a much higher rate than the United States have. The United States never have a cash subsidy to a railway and they have not given a land grant since 1871. Mr. Blaine estimates that the total contribution to railway building in the United States by the various municipalities and governments amounted all told to $1,000,000,000, and had they aided railways as liberally as we in Canada have it would amount to three or four billions, instead of one.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any federal taxation on railways in the United States?


Haughton Lennox: I should judge from what I was reading that there was, but I did not ascertain the amount.


Robert Laird Borden: Then there would be federal, and state, and municipal taxation on the railways of the United States.


Haughton Lennox: Yes. I am merely suggesting that we are taxing our railways very little in the first place, and in the second place that probably some distribution could be made in the line of diverting existing taxation to this very desirable work. In conclusion, I may say I have every hope that at last-not much beh'nd the rest of us, but a little behind the rest of us-the government has come to realize the importance of this subject. I am not too sanguine as to what the government may do. Some things would indicate that they are not prepared to do much just at present. It does not look as if the government had considered the question for any length of time; we had no indication of it in the speech from the Throne; we had a very hesitating acceptance of the Lancaster Bill, but we have got it and I hope the government has put the Senate into proper order with regard to it.


Mr. FOSTER.: What, what?


Haughton Lennox: We had no data a month ago and what is now brought down after a month of delay is very meagre. There was a hurry up order by the Minister of Railways a little while ago upon the railway board and there was a response, but that response has not been divulged to us. There was another hurry up order on the board when the Lancaster Bill came on, but that I understand, was not responded to.


George Perry Graham: Would my hon. friend tell me what that was?


Haughton Lennox: When the Lancaster Bill came up for third reading, I understood the minister to say that he had written to
the chairman of the railway board, that he expected an answer from him, and that he would like the matter to stand over. I do not say, however, that it concludes the matter that there was no response to that hurry up order.


George Perry Graham: That is a stretch of imagination.


Haughton Lennox: I only mean to show that the Minister of Railways has awakened to the necessity of there being some protection. He did not think of it until we brought it to his attention, but that is no reflection on him if he does the right thing now. Of course it is for the government to formulate their own policy, but I would suggest to the right hon. the leader of the government that on this question it would be wise to consult the municipal representatives of the people, and I would like to see him bring to Ottawa representatives from all the county councils and municipal councils, and as it is a matter for the general advantage of Canada and for the general advantage of the railway companies and for the unbounded advantage of our people, I would like to see them get the railway companies to transport these gentlemen free of charge to Ottawa. If he did that he would have the benefit of the advice and suggestions of the immediate representatives of the people. I would also urge the great necessity for getting information upon the subject. We know the number of railway crossings there are in Canada, but that is about all we do know. With all respect for the railway board, I believe it is impossible for them to grapple with this question, unless they have greater assistance than they yet have. I believe the first thing to do is to employ competent men to collect material throughout the country and to bring in a general report as to the condition of all railway crossings in Canada, classifying them and saying: at this point the crossings require no protection, at this point certain protection is required and at this point the level crossing shall be abolished. Let the railway companies be heard and let the people locally interested be heard and let a determination be come to as to what remedy shall be adopted in respect to existing railways. I also urge upon the governemnt that they should make a declaration of policy upon this matter and that there should be a law made by parliament to guide us. It is not enough that we have six competent members of the railway board; we have a parliament here of more than 200 members and it is the wisdom of parliament, centered if you like in the government, that should pronounce upon the policy of Canada in this matter. We have been drifting along and in a little while we will have our court made law made by the railway board. I am here to say that I do not think it is wise that we should have that condition of things. It is

for the courts to construe the law and to enforce it, not to make it, and I do not distinguish between the railway board and other courts in that regard. What I suggest is that we should adopt a Canadian policy declaring that all the King's highways shall be safe-I mean reasonably safe, not absolutely safe, but relatively safe-that in future railway construction the safety of the highways should be guarded and that a remedy shall be applied where safety under existing conditions is absent.
Then, as I have said, and as the resolution more concisely indicates, the presumption should be protection everywhere- that every railway company shall prima facie be bound to protect the interests of those who cross the railway on the high-wav, and in order to be exonerated in any particular case, it must show the railway board that there is needed either no protection or only a certain kind of protection.
These views are very inadequately expressed, I know. I feel that this is a very difficult but at the same time an engrossing and all-important matter. I know that 1 have had the very complimentary close attention of the right hon. leader of the government during my imperfect discussion of this matter, and for that I am exceedingly grateful. I recognize just as fully as anybody that the desire of protecting the people does not belong only to one side of the House; I recognize that we are all at one in the desire to do what is in the best interests of the country. But I have urged this matter to some extent also from a knowledge that railway companies have powerful influence, and that they exert this powerful influence upon the government benches, as they will endeavour, I suppose, to exert them upou us at no distant date. And so I have at some length ventured to urge very strongly my views on the government. May I put the matter in another form? I think our primary law should be that the highway and the railway crossing should be separate, the one above the other; that our secondary law should be that where that condition cannot obtain, there shall be the protection of a gate wherever there is anything in the nature of a trap or shut-in crossing and that the railway company can always escape an undue burden bv showing to the railway board that in the particular instance referred to the need of safeguards does not exist. In that way we shall have what will be fair to the people, and, what is of equal importance, just to the railway company.
In concluding, let me refer to what has been said across the floor of the House, on one occasion at least. Some gentleman on this side of the House said to the distinguished leader of the government that he had had some rare opportunities of distinguishing himself during the time of his ad-Mr. LENNOX.
ministration. The right hon. gentleman admitted that he had had some opportunities of distinguishing himself in regard to the great problems that confront us from time to time in this House. Whilst he has had many such opportunities in the past, he has had no better opportunity of distinguishing himself than he has now in dealing, in a large, broad, comprehensive, statesmanlike way, with this great and im-: minent problem now confronting us. He has not only an opportunity of distinguishing himself, but what is far better, an opportunity which I hope he will embrace, of doing lasting good to the people of Canada in the solution of this great question.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the House has listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of my hon. friend. They have shown that he has paid a good deal of attention to this question and has devoted considerable research to ascertaining the conditions that exist in other countries. I may say in the outset, that I think there is not much difference of opinion between us as to the end we all desire to attain. Possibly later on there may appear to be not much difference as to the means necessary for attaining that desired end. My hon. friend, of course, with his usual sense of humour, could not refrain from interjecting a joke concerning what he called my hurry-up order; but he did it with such good nature and so obviously with his usual humourous intent, that i forgive him.


George Eulas Foster: He knew you would appreciate the joke.


George Perry Graham: Yes. I am glad to see that the question of the Railway Commission is one on which there is no difference of opinion. We agree that they have done good work, are doing good work, and will probably do good work where we give them that work to perform. This question of railway crossings opens up the great question of transportation in one or two aspects. We must concede that unless Canada's trade is to stand still and she is to be outstripped in the matter of transportation, fast trains must be run, and run daily, both for passengers and freight. For years we have tried to attain that object; because it must be remembered that in this country the public carriers have not the advantages that they have either in the old land or in the United States. As I have said time and again, it is the density of population that makes traffic. Some of the states referred to by my hon. friend have so much greater traffic than we have in this part ot the world, that the conditions are not similar in so far as the burdens carried by the railways are concerned. I admit with him that the conditions in the old land-in Great Biitain, Germany and France-are ideal

i
conditions. But if he will compare those countries with Canada in regard to density of population, he will see that Canada cannot be compared with them as to the conditions of transportation. Canada is a new country, and it has been our endeavour, both m Dominion, provincial and municipal boundaries, to encourage the improvement of transportation facilities. It may he possible that we have carried this encouragement to a larger extent in all these spheres than some at this date may think we should have done. But we were dealing with the transportation problem in its earlier stages, and I believe the people of Canada,, the people of the provinces and the residents of municipalities would under similar conditions do the same thing again for the improvement of transportation. Now, as I have said, these fast trains must be run. The question of income to the people who work on the farm and in the factory is largely tied up with the transportation problem. The prices they are to obtain depend not wholly on the quantity or quality of the goods they produce. They might produce goods in large quantities or of excellent quality; but unless transportation facilities were, provided to get their goods to the markets of the world quickly and in good condition, they might as well not have produced at all or in as great quantities or of such excellent quality. The price of the goods depends on the quality that exists when they reach the market, and that quality sometimes depends on the speed with which they are taken to market. Now, in whatever is don" or decided to be done in Canada, this must be borne in mind, that the interests of the people and the interests of the railways are one in the matter of bringing the producer as closely as possible to the consumer, or, in other words, to the markets of the world. In Great Britain the conditions are ideal. As my hon. friend has pointed out, in the construction of their railways they provided against level crossings. But, as I have said before, the conditions, even in the construction of these roads, perhaps were not as ours are.
My hon. friend mentions another thing which I think worthy of note. He said that the United States have not in recent years given any aid to railways. That is true, I believe. But this must be remembered in making a comparison between the two countries. The United States had no rival practically in the development of their trade, so far as this continent was concerned, whereas Canada has to build up a commercial position and develop her trade side by side and in competition with a country like the United States whose population is ten times greater than ours. It is like building a main street through a great many of our towns^ and villages. Scattered along it on both sides are inhabited and vacant
lots, but the village or town is not compact, and it costs large amounts of money m many of our municipalities to build such streets and sidewalks which necessarily extend over a large territory. That is exactly the condition in Canada. We have a territory as large as the United States, but a population twelve times smaller. If we had not given any aid to our railways, we would not to-day have the Canada we have. Canada has taken the position she enjoys in the markets of the world because people have been safe in going to any part of our new country in the hope that within a reasonable time they would be furnished with railway facilities to carry their products to market. That has been the principle which has guided the governments of Canada and the provinces and our municipal councils in giving aid to railways.
My hon. friend pointed out that the conditions of the crossings should be examined into. That is true, but in his own remarks lie gave us a fairly accurate answer. He said that, in the experience of the last five years-which is the best experience we can have as it brings us through .the -time when we have had the most rapid transportation-the dangerous crossings in Canada have been practically located and have been confined to a comparatively few localities. Of course I would not pretend to say that there are no dangerous crossings where no one has been killed, but the more dangerous ones would naturally be where accidents have taken place. Some two years ago the Board of Railway Commissioners proceeded to ascertain the location of the various crossings in the Dominion and asked the railway companies to give them schedules or plans of these crossings. There are a great many of these plans in the possession of the board at present and others are constantly coming. Of course, it is a little difficult for the Railway Commissioners, with the engineering staff at their command, to get them all in the order and condition they want, but they are getting them as rapidly as possible. I did urge the board a few weeks ago to make an examination of the dangerous crossings so that we could have some reliable data, and a return has been brought down which gives us a pretty good idea of these crossings and their results. I find, in looking over the return, that there were killed in Canada during the last five years 270 people at ievel crossings. That is a loss of life which is deplorable, though, I admit, not as large as I thought it would be when I asked for the information. My hon. friend quoted one railway on which no loss of life occurred last year at level crossings.
I might say to him-and it may be something in favour of government management of railways-that on Prince Edward Island no fatal level crossing accident has taken

place during the last five years. On the Intercolonial Railway, during the last five years, fifteen fatal accidents have occurred at level crossings, but this may be incidental to the country and location, because, of course, all level crossings are not dangerous.
I now come to a difficulty which does not confront any state in the union in dealing with this question. In Canada as in the United States we have our federal authorities and we have our provincial authorities as they have their state authorities, and we each have our municipal authorities. In the United States the railways are largely under the control of the state unlike Canada where they are under the control of the federal authorities. If my hon. friend will study the question of railway commissions in the United States he will find that the states have_ boards of their own in most cases, while in Canada we have the one board which controls the whole country. A state legislature can say what a municipality must do. These legislatures control the highways^ through the municipalities, but the Dominion of Canada cannot say what a municipality must do, speaking in general terms, as it does not control the municipality and it does not control the highways, the highways being under the control of the municipalities, and the municipalities in their turn being governed by the provincial authorities. So that it is easier for the state authorities to deal with the whole question, municipal and provincial, than it is for the Dominion. And my hon. friend will have noticed that in the division of expenditure, it was not between the United States federal authorities, the municipalities and the railways, but between the state legislatures, the municipalities and the railways. There is that difference, but it is not insurmountable, and I am prepared to say now that while it is more difficult to work out in Canada than in any state in the union, still the difficulties are not such that we need despair of being able to overcome them.


Robert Laird Borden: Did not the Board of Railway Commissioners make a division of the expenditure in connection with the proposed viaduct in Toronto?


Haughton Lennox: And Grimsby?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is a level crossing.


Robert Laird Borden: There must be some way of working that out.


George Perry Graham: I think the distinction is this, that where the municipality has asked to have it done, then the board can impose part of the burden on the municipality, but under the state jurisdiction, the board can impose it no matter who asks. And in the city of Toronto, I think that the


George Perry Graham: city itself asked the board to make a ruling. At Kingston the board did make a ruling, imposing part of the expenditure on the county, part on the county and part on the railway, but that was done at the request of the county if I remember rightly.


Andrew Broder: They make an agreement previously, I think, and that agreement is carried out by an order of the Railway Commission.


George Perry Graham: I think at Kingston there was an order of the board on the application of the county.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentleman is right. Where the municipality makes an application the Railway Commission may grant the application subject to conditions.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Our statute does not say it is a condition precedent that the municipality must make the application. The jurisdiction is general. Under sections 237, 238, 239 the board may act on its own motion without application from any municipality.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will my hon. friend read the section?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Section 237, subsection
2:
The board may, by order, grant such application upon such terms and conditions as to protection, safety and convenience of the public, as it may deem expedient or may order that the highways be carried over or under the railway, or be temporarily or permanently diverted, and that such works 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 arising or likely to arise therefrom.
That is where the railway is originally being constructed. Then comes section 238:
Where the railway is already constructed upon, along or across any highway the board may order the company within a specified time to submit to the board a plan and profile of such portion of the railway, and may upon such submission, make any order in respect thereof, as in the last preceding section provided.
If the board can make an order under section 237, making it impossible for the company to have a level crossing, surely they can, under section 238, order a company already existing to take away its level crossing?


George Perry Graham: I am not sure that that touches the point. They can make the order, but that does not apportion the expense. All the orders, whatever the powers, have been made under the conditions stated. I may be wrong, but that is my recollection. The question has been raised

how far the jurisdiction of the board can extend over a municipality. There is the principle of law which, roughly stated, is that, where parliament has the right to pass a certain Act, it can pass any other law in order to enforce the original one, even if the second Act is not altogether within its jurisdiction. In that relation it has been held that they could impose the amount of costs or even a penalty on the municipality. However the difficulty then arises, as the hon. member will understand, that we in this Dominion parliament have not the control of the municipalities as the states have to which he is referring. But, as I said a moment ago', that does not mean an insuperable difficulty. If there is to be a comprehensive measure dealing with level crossings in a satisfactory way, it cannot be attained by doing anything to make a division among the people, either as to municipalities, provinces or in any other way. We must agree to some measure which, while it may impose burdens that otherwise would not be imposed, will be in accordance with the conditions which exist in Canada. It is a difficult problem to work out. I have spent not minutes, but hours and days in trying to solve it. and have come across difficulties too numerous to be detailed to the House. It is a large problem, and' yet has many small details which are difficult to work out. My hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) touched one. I think, perhaps, he is wrong; but he has touched this side of the question, which, no doubt, is a popular one to touch but mav not be practicable in working out the question that no rural municipality should be asked to pay. He leaves the cities to fight out their own battles. I am afraid we should not succeed if we approached the question in that way. If we are to eradicate the danger of level crossings, somebody must bear some burden: and the people who have helped to create the condition, no matter who they may be, will have to be asked to bear a reasonable share of the burden of removing the condition which they themselves have helped to create. How far that principle ought to be carried I do not know. But let me point out-and I would call my hon. friend's special attention to this point- that in every state he mentioned the principle which he said he would not adopt has been adopted. That is, the municipalities have to pay a share, though a minor share, of the expense.


Haughton Lennox: Many, but not all.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is quoting these states as examples for us to follow, but drawing a line at that point. Perhaps he is right. But I submit that if we are going to make a success of getting rid of the level crossings, we must not say anything that would create lack of harmony, and we must all be ready to bear a fair
share of the burden that must be borne in order to bring about the result. We have all contributed to bring about the present condition. My hon. friend pointed out that a new provision is laid down for railways yet to be built. That is quite true. The Dominion has contributed to the conditions which now exists because, for years and years, we have allowed railways to be built under charters granted wthout any great restraint as to how their crossings should be constructed, or even how their entrance into cities should be made. Of recent years, and as the traffic has grown greater and railways have become the more numerous, the conditions under which railways are to be constructed are made more stringent, and greater care is taken than was thought necessary years ago. I submit that the provinces have contributed their share as to the present conditions. Not a few of the railways now under federal jurisdiction received their charters and powers of construction, and were actually constructed, under provincial authority. 'Some of them are still under provincial control, though comparatively few. I believe I am not putting it too strongly when I say that all railways doing more than a merely local business would better serve the people, and be better controlled, under our jurisdiction. However that may be, the provinces, in granting these charters and allowing the construction of railways under their jurisdiction have assisted in bringing about present conditions in relation to grade crossings. The municipalities have also contributed. I have belonged to at least one municipal council, and have travelled a good deal throughout the province, and am aware that in years gone bv, every municipality that was asked to contribute a bonus, even for the shadow of a railway, was ready to give it. They do not grant these bonuses to the same extent now. But, in years gone by, they have allowed railways to cross even their main thoroughfares on the level and to run through the busiest parts of their towns without let or hindrance. This applies not only to rural municipalities, but also to towns and even cities. So, these conditions have been allowed to arise with the consent of us all, and I submit that we are all more or less bound, if we are going to make a success of the undertaking, to contribute, though possibly in a very small amount, to do something to get . rid of this difficulty which we have helped to create, and in the removal of which we are so deeply interested. The Dominion might grant aid, and the provinces might grant aid. And let me call my hon. friend's attention to another point, which, perhaps, will come up later on, and which is worthy of consideration. Presuming that the board has jurisdiction to fix the amount to be paid by a municipality, how is the municipality to raise the money? Speaking of the pro-

1216
vince of Ontario, it could not, under the provincial laws, pay that money without submitting a by-law to the people.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Or getting provincial legislation. .


George Perry Graham: I am coming to that. They must submit it to the people, or else go to the legislature for a special Act. This brings me back to the idea I have expressed, that, in order to make this a success, it will be necessary for all parties concerned to take concerted action. First, the Dominion ought to consider well what it should do . in this case. We cannot say what any province will do, but in order to be successful the federal authority ought to communicate with the various provinces with an idea of coming to some amicable arrangement by which they would assist, so far as possible, and pass legislation that would enable the municipalities to do their share if they were asked to under an order of the board.
No one would reasonably argue that the great share of this cost should not be borne by the railways themselves. Whatever division might be made among the rest of us would be a minor division. I would not like to enact that the state, municipality or province should be compelled to pay up to a certain limit; there might be cases where they should not pay up to the limit fixed, and if I were drafting a law to-morrow I would ask that they should not be called upon to pay more than a certain amount and it would be in the jurisdiction of the board whether they should pay a less amount or pay anything.
Looking at the accidents that have taken place during the last five years and the reports that have been given of those accidents at level crossings by the officials of the Board of Railway Commissioners, this peculiar fact stares us in the face, that if ordinary care had been exercised by the traveller on the highway, 90 per cent of these accidents would not have taken place.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where do you get the evidence of that? That is the statement of the railways.


George Perry Graham: No, it is the statement of the officials handed to me by the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They get their information from the railways, the railways are the real authorities for that statement.


George Perry Graham: I think that is not correct. * Every accident that has occurred since the board was appointed has been investigated by an officer for that purpose and his report goes to the board and on these reports, I understand, this information has been furnished to me.


George Eulas Foster: That I suppose is a very small proportion.


George Perry Graham: 


George Perry Graham: I think that wherever an accident takes place they send an officer to investigate the cause of the accident.


Haughton Lennox: I think the report shows only 180 of that class out of a total of 270. There are a great many of which no particulars are given.


George Perry Graham: I repeat the statement that from the information I get I think 90 per cent of the accidents would not have occurred if the travellers had exercised due care.


Haughton Lennox: Does that make any difference?


George Perry Graham: It possibly may not, but my hon. friend will understand its bearing when I complete my statement. It may not and does not alter the fact that if the railway crossings had not been there the accidents would not have taken place, nor does it alter the other fact that governments and parliaments have to keen in mind that the public often have to be protected against their own carelessness. This is a case where all are united in agreeing to protect the public against what may be their carelessness, but I submit to the judgment of the House that where the public are to be protected against accidents by public enactment, they ought to be asked to do something to help themselves. I refer my hon. friend to a law or to a practice that has become law through judgment of the courts, in Pennsylvania, that every traveller upon a public highway must stop before he crosses a railway track. A sign is placed at each crossing reading:
' Stop, look, listen.' The railway is compelled to put that sign at every crossing and the public are compelled to stop and read that warning or forfeit any claim to damages if they are injured; but I think the onus of proving that they did not obey that injunction is cast on the railway and my hoii. friend will agree that it is difficult for a railway to prove such a thing so that any burden put upon the people is offset by the onus being placed on the railway. If something could be placed in the law or the regulations which would infuse into the minds of the people obedience to such a mandate, if it did not compel obedience, that they ought for their own safety to stop before approaching a railway crossing, eight out of ten of the fatal accidents would never occur and the danger of level crossings would be reduced to a minimum. You ask how to do that-I do not know. I am not prepared to say and we might come to the point that this parliament had no jurisdiction, that we might be guilty of an interference, as lawyers say. with the civil rights of the individual, if we endeavoured to interfere and say how the individual was to travel along the highway when the highway belongs to the municipality and can only

be regulated by the municipality or the legislature.
In order to make this successful we must have the co-operation of all classes interested. I may frankly say to my hon. friend that I have not been idle on this question, I have been studying it with all the care I could exercise during a busy session and for some months before, and I am impressed as thoroughly as any man in the House can be impressed with the idea that it is time we had some systematic effort to protect, as far as possible, the lives of the people on the highways crossing the railways. It is not a question that can be settled off-hand or in a moment. I am free to take my hon. friend and the House into my confidence and say that I intend to bring this matter to the consideration of my colleagues in a very few days. I might go further and say that but for the absence of the Minister of Finance, I would have discussed it weeks ago. I have been holding it in abeyance in order that there might be a full discussion on it, and I have a policy in mind concerning it which I wish to lay before my colleagues. That having been said and with the full understanding that we are all in sympathy with the idea of eradicating as far as possible the level crossings, I know that my hon. friend will be satisfied not to press his motion until we have discussed it further. The conditions now existing as to railways that we may have helped to create may not have been our fault, but the conditions on railways hereafter created will be our fault. If we allow them to be built as they have been in the past. I take it for granted that this House would be prepared to support a measure which would in principle say that on any railways to be in future chartered by this House, except in the case of extensions for switches, terminals or something of that kind, the greatest care should be taken to avoid this danger. If, when these railways are constructed, it should be found by the Railway Commissioners that level crossings have to be removed or protected in any way the railways should be required, in that case, to bear all the burden of such removal or protection. They would then know what was before them when they construct a railway. They would have it constantly in their minds that if they did not protect these crossings when they were constructing the railway they would only have to go to the expense of protecting them a little later on and that no municipality, province or Dominion would help them. I have detained the House longer than I had any desire to do, but this is a pretty broad question, a question with regard to which we are all of one mind, a question to which there is no political or party side and one in regard to which it ought to be the endeavour of the House to come to some arrangement by which the lives of the people may be protected, and 39
even if in working out that scheme we may not all have our ideas carried out to the fullest extent, I believe the people of Canada will expect parliament to do something in order to bring about the desired result.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Mr. Speaker, I apprehend that the House will not find fault with me for saying a few words upon this important matter. I wish to thank the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) for the valuable statistics he has placed upon 'Hansard' for our information and the information of the whole country in dealing with this question. So far as the object to be served and so far as some of the principles involved in the statement of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) are concerned, in the main I agree with him. But, as to the manner of working out these principles I must diHer to some extent and possibly if, for a few moments, I were to state frankly why I differ from some of the obseravtions of the Minister of Railways and Canals the time may not be entirely wasted. First of all, I would say that we must divide this subject into two subclasses. The elimination of level crossings is one thing, and requiring protection on level crossings is another thing entirely. In so far as the ideal and much hoped for condition of the elimination entirely of level crossings is concerned, I would say, from the knowledge of the subject that I have acquired, that it would not be an unreasonable thing that the state should pay a proportion of the expense. As far as allowing railways to still run upon the highways is concerned, and protecting the crossings because of the rapidly increasing danger, I would say, and I will give a few reasons for my belief, that the whole burden of that should be borne by the railways. The elimination is a condition where you are taking away from the railways something which you permitted them to suppose they had a right to in their charter. In the anxiety to build railways we permitted them to cross highways upon the level. I do not say that we usurped the right of the provinces, but if my hon. friend (the Minister of Railways and Canals) is right in saying that the provinces still control the highways, then we did usurp the jurisdiction of the provinces in so far as we permitted the railways to run across the highways, but we did it in the interest of building railways. We did it because otherwise the expense of building railways would have been prohibitive and we would not have had the transportation facilities in the country that we so much desired. When we permitted a railway to run upon or across a highway we gave it an easement- I do not say a right, but I do



say that their rights in regard to that matter are very much exaggerated. We gave them that permission for the sole purpose of securing the building of a railway outside of the provincial jurisdiction, and that railway, of course, became a work for the general advantage of Canada. It established a connection between one province and another, between one part of Canada and another, and became a national railway in that sense. As far as it was necessary for them to cross highways, we gave then that jurisdiction because otherwise we would not have had power to allow them to cross highways at all. In giving them that jurisdiction we were permitting them, for their own profit, and to encourage them to invest in the hope of the profit they would get, but still for their own profit, to use the King's highway for the purpose of their track, for the purpose of transporting from one part of the country to another. We must not forget also that we must look at the conditions which existed when we gave that easement or right; that is to say that the railways ran not one-half as fast as they run now, that they ran upon a single track and that the number of trains was probably 25 per cent of what it is now. People did not contemplate that within a few years the danger would be very much multiplied, as it has been by their running upon or across the highways in that way. It is only fair when we speak of our having contributed to the condition of danger upon the level crossing to say that when we gave these railways the right to use these level crossings we did it in contemplation of things as they were then, and when nobody supposed that there would be the danger that has arisen since because of the acceleration of speed, the multiplication of trains and double tracking. So that, when the people say that they think the railways which created the danger should pay the cost of removing it they are not unreasonable. When they say that this danger is increased at the instance of the railways because of conditions that were not contemplated when we gave them permission to cross the highways upon the level I say they are not unreasonable. And they are equally not unreasonable when they say that the cost of protecting against this great danger should be borne by the creature which causes the danger. The danger is not in the railway running its trains slowly enough or infrequently enough, but the danger is in the multitude of trains and in the rapidity with which they are run. None of these accidents in which people are killed are caused by slowly running trains. These accidents occur because the train does not stop or slow down either because there is no station at the crossing or because it is an express train which does not stop at Mr. LANCASTER.
that point. It is the rapidity of the train that kills the people. In cities, towns and villages, but more particularly in villages and small towns, are these deaths occurring. Why? Because trains running from city to city, or from city to large town, or large town to city, run through villages and small towns at the rate of sixty miles an hour, and it is these trains that are causing the deaths and injuries. The rapidity is such that people cannot avoid the train in time. That was never contemplated when permission to cross highways was given some years ago. So that when we speak of contributing, I want it distinctly understood that in so far as I am concerned I can see no possible ground or excuse whatever for any contribution being made by the people of the state, municipalities, or provinces to render nugatory the great dangers which our railways cause while they are running upon the level crossings. That is why I say we should divide the question into these two subjects. The danger is entirely the creation of the railway because of the action of the railway in multiplying the number and increasing the rapidity of their trains. They are doing this for their own profit and properly so. We want them to make as much profit as they can, to carry as large a quantity of goods as they can and as many people, but while they are running these trains in the interest of the country they are running them for their own profit. At the same time by virtue of the carrying on of their business they create a danger upon these level crossings which was never contemplated when we gave them permission to cross them.
I have given this matter a good deal of consideration, and speaking for myself, 1 cannot see any just ground for saying that anybody other than the railways should contribute to the expense of protecting the level crossings. Of course the total abolition of level crossings is the ideal condition but as we know that is so expensive as to be prohibitive in many cases. The abolition of the level crossings, that ideal condition, would be more or less interfering with the easement which you gave to these railways when you permitted them originally to cross on the level. You said to them that in order that they might raise capital to build their railways at a moderate cost they might use the King's highways, and therefore in fairness to them-and I want to be fair to the railways-we should, I think, contribute to some extent to the cost of bringing about that ideal condition. But we would not be the only gainers by that ; the railway companies themselves will save thousands of dollars a year because it will then not be possible for them to come in contact with any obstruction on their track which would impede and endanger their trains in operation. Such a condition would

also save them an immense amount of money in maintenance, and before the special committee which some years ago considered that Bill which has now for the third time gone to the Senate, the representatives of the railway companies admitted that if they had the means they would prefer crossing under or over a highway, but the expense made it out of the question. The railways always admit that the expense of maintenance is comparatively trifling once you have the level crossing done away with and the grades separated. Therefore, when we take from them the right or the easement to run upon the level which we gave them in their original incorporation, it is worth something to the people and the people should con tribute. This question is very much allied to wl;o should contribute, and here I differ from the Minister of Railways. Why should the province or municipality pay? Has not this parliament of Canada taken under its wing all the railways of the country that are of any moment and given them to the control of the Dominion Railway Commission to the exclusion of all provincial authority. This question is very much allied to the question of subsidies to railways. We grant a subsidy to a railway to develop the country and to furnish transportation facilities, and if in doing that we find the railway ought to be constructed more expensively by eliminating level crossings, I suppose the subsidy would be increased. I am not saying that we should not in some proportion contribute to the cost of eliminating level crossings, but I can see no reason why it should come out of any other purse than the Dominion exchequer. Why should the small town or village in which these1 accidents occur be made to contribute. It is not they who get the benefit of the fast running trains; it is the larger cities. I would not agree entirely with my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) that the cities should be put on a different plane.


Haughton Lennox: I did not quite say that. When I said I would leave the cities to take care of themselves I meant that the cities having a large number of able representatives in this House, they should deal with that question for themselves.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In view of that explanation I do not differ from my hon friend (Mr. Lennox) as I thought I did, but of course the cities must allow a member of this House who represents a rural constituency to give his ideas on the general question, and I quite agree with the Minister of Railways that we should approach this in a broad and general way and not from any local standpoint. And, if there is going to be any general principle laid down, what better general principle can you have than that thei state should pay. The city pays more taxes to the Dominion than the 391
village does, and why therefore not let the city through thei Dominion exchequer, and the town and the village through the Dominion exchequer contribute their share. The municipality, unless it is a large municipality, gets no benefit from these fast running trains and my contention is that unless you put the burden upon the Dominion entirely you are not going to do substantial justice. I do not think there is any question but that a very great majority of the people of this country while they would be willing to be taxed in some way for the elimination of level crossings, would, 95 per cent of them say, that there is no fairness in taxing either the province or the muni cipality for providing protection upon crossings where the trains are to continue to run upon the level. The hon. Minister of Railways says that the municipality creates the traffic. Is that quite a reason for saying that the municipality should pay the cost of protecting the level crossings? The municipality creates the traffic for the profit of the railway. The more the municipality prospers, the more goods are shipped on the railway and the more it contributes to the profits of the railway; but the municipality gets no part of the profits of the railway. The railway is making that much more profit from the people; the people are that much better customers of the railway. But the people have no opportunity to share in the profits of the railway, and of course cannot have, unless there is government ownership. If the people contribute to increase the traffic of the railway, more people are liable to cross the tracks on the highway, and therefore there is greater liability for accidents. That seems to me to be no argument for saying that the people ought to pay more for the protection of the highway. I would put it the other way, by saying that the railway ought to pay more, because it is creating more danger and because it is getting more traffic.
I wish to say a word or two in regard to what has been done by this House on this matter. I said several years ago in this House that so long as the railways cross the highways on the rail level, they should protect the highways at their own expense. It took this House some years to come to that conclusion. Bills which I had the temerity to introduce for several years, five years ago, four years ago, three years ago, did not pass; but the combined wisdom of this House put the Bill into shape that it passed three years ago unanimously. I did not get all I contended for. I did not get the principle of protection so that the railways would have absolutely to protect and be at the mercy of a court or jury in some particular case. But this House concluded to send up to the Senate a Bill which required the Railway Commission to decide what protection should be necessary in the thickly settled parts of

cities, towns and villages, and provided that this protection should be afforded at the expense of the railway. The decision was not left to the mere whim of any jury, but was submitted to the judgment of the Board of Railway Commissioners, who were to decide what protection should be afforded for any particular crossing or class of crossings, and were to impose on the railway only what expense would be fairly necessary to carry out their order. Of course, that decision of this House in regard to level crossings does not touch the question of contribution to the cost of abolishing level crossings. That question, as the Minister of Railway says, has never really been dealt with by this House. The Act passed three years ago by this House and sent to the Senate would not apply to any case where there is a subway or an overhead bridge, and where the railway goes either under or over the highway. Although I am open to conviction, having no other object than the Minister of Railways, which is to eliminate this terrible evil from the country, I am bound to say that I am more than ever of the opinion that the principle adopted by this House for three years was a salutary principle; that is to say, that while the railways continue to run on the level across highways, they must put in some protection, to be determined by the Board of Railway Commissioners in every instance, and that if they do not do that, they must slow down their trains to ten miles an hour.
If we come to the conclusion that we have to eliminate level crossings, I am with the Minister of Railways that there should be some contribution. So long as we do not eliminate, I am dead against, and I believe the people of this country are dead against, any municipality or the province or the Dominion contributing in any way to the protection of level crossings by the railway, which creates the whole danger and has multiplied it greatly since it got permission to run on the highways. But when we eliminate level crossings and make the railways, as some of the states have done, remove a certain number every year, I am in favour of the people contributing a certain portion of the cost. I am not prepared to say what would be a fair proportion; we would have to go into certain calculations as to what it would cost in different parts of the country. Perhaps a fair contribution would be from 15 to 25 per cent. I am not going to commit myself to any particular proportion; but certainly it should not be over 25 per cent; and I believe the contribution should come out of the Dominion treasury, and not from the provinces or municipalities, because the Dominion has usurped the jurisdiction of the provinces with regard to railways, and has taken away from them the power to put any restrictions upon them or to control them in any way.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In conclusion, I might point out to the Minister of Railways that if these statistics of the number of deaths, which have been given to him, are correct-and I do not doubt that he believes them to be correct- I am very much surprised; 'because I have for five or six years kept track of the accidents at level crossings, and though I may have lost some, my records show fully 25 per cent more than the number of deaths shown by those statistics. My records show that, instead of 270, over 400 people were killed at level crossings during the last five years. But, assuming the figures given by the board to the minister, and no doubt believed by the board to be correct, the board has no knowledge that they represent the actual number of people killed, because it gets the information from the railways. It is true the information has to be sworn to by some officer of the company, but he does not run the trains or see the accidents. He gets his information from the reports sent in to him, and he has not the evidence of the man who knows; he has only hearsay evidence, coming through a lot of sub-officers down to the men on the trains, and the minister will readily understand that if the railways can attribute an accident to anything that will exonerate them, they will do so. Therefore, although the number of deaths may be correctly stated in their reports, the cause of death is not always given correctly. I say this because I know that the Railway Commission wants to serve the people properly, and if they will take the warning that they ought to have the statistics furnished them by the railway companies carefully looked into and not rely on them entirely, it will do no harm. The proportion, even if correctly stated by the Minister of Railways, is one to each 425 miles in Canada, while in the United States it is 1 to 660 miles, and the difference is due to the fact that the legislation in the United States is more advanced.
I shall not, in view of the discussion that has taken place, trouble the House any longer. I trust that anything that I have said will be accepted in the spirit in which it was uttered. My sole object is to assist in enacting legislation which will eliminate this terrible evil. If my Bill which has again gone to the Senate be found after a year's experience not sufficient, we shall have to try and improve on it. And as regards the elimination of level crossings, with which the Bill sent to the Senate does not deal, I shall be glad to assist the Minister of Railways in every way possible, to put into practical legislation the protection of the people. But in my opinion the contribution, if any is required to be made by the people, should not be attempted to be levied on the provinces or on the municipalities at all, but be paid entirely by the federal authorities.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac).: I wish to preface the very few remarks I intend making on this subject, Mr. Speaker, by expressing my gratification at the unanimous concurrence of the House in the Bill of my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), and I hope that, in dealing with this question of level crossings, which is recognized by members on both sides as of vast importance, we will find equal unanimity. I would not have risen at all to address you, sir, did I not consider it my duty to place the county of Frontenac right before this House. In reply to an inquiry which I had on the paper regarding the accident down near Kingston at the Montreal street crossing some time last month, the Minister of Railways made the statement that the Grand Trunk Railway showed a willingness to go on with the building of the subway, but that the county of Frontenac and the city of Kingston objected on account of the expenditure. As the hon. minister had not the opportunity to get the facts, his error was excusable, but I wish to put the position of the county of Frontenac in that matter correctly before the House. As far back as 1898, Mr. D. D. Rogers, who then represented the county in this House, took steps to have the railway crossings in the county protected. In 1902 the county sent a deputation to Ottawa which waited on the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. That deputation asked that a subway be built at the outer station near Kingston. True the city of Kingston did raise the objection that as the station was outside the city, they should not be asked to bear any part of the cost. However, the request of the county of Frontenac was granted by the Railway Committee and that commission issued an order placing the cost of the approaches on the county and city jointly and calling on the Grand Trunk Railway to proceed with the work. Nothing however was done, despite the protests of the county of Frontenac on several occasions against efforts made by the city of Kingston and by the Grand Trunk Railway system to prevent the subway from being built. Despite these protests nothing was done until February 17, 1904. The county council then sent a letter to Mr. Hayes, of the Grand Trunk Railway, asking him to go on with the work as ordered by the Railway Committee, and in June, 1904, at a special sitting of the Board of Railway Commissioners the Grand Trunk applied to have the former order of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council amended. This request was not granted, but the Board of Railway Commissioners, at the request of the council- and I want to emphasize that-approved of the order of 1902, and asked the Grand Trunk Railway to go on and construct the subway. No steps, however, were taken by the Grand Trunk Railway to build that subway or protect the public from June,
1904, to July, 1905. At that time it came to the knowledge of the county that a somewhat _ similar case was pending in which the city of Toronto was interested, and in July, 1905, the county of Frontenac expressed its willingness to allow the matter to stand until that case was finally decided. These facts clearly show a disregard by the Grand Trunk Railway of the order of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, in the first instance, and then of the subsequent order of the railway board, as well as a disregard for the public. Throughout this whole matter for the last ten years, there has been no lack of effort made by the county of Frontenac to have the subway built and certainly no effort made to prevent its construction. In spite of the opposition in the adjoining municipality of the city of Kingston and of the Grand Trunk Railway, the county of Frontenac has been continually persistent in its endeavours to have the subway constructed and the public protected.
I have here a memorial addressed to this House by the council of the county of Frontenac, calling attention to the number of accidents at that level crossing and asking this House to take such steps as will insure the protection of the public. This petition is signed by the warden of the county and every member of the county council. It has been said that since the Dominion and provincial governments have contributed by bonus or other substantial aid to the construction of this railway, they are accessories to the danger created. I cannot see the matter in that light. If we go back to the time when the Grand Trunk Railway was constructed, we can understand that the municipalities were deeply interested in having that railway built, but they had no idea that, as the years went by; the danger would become so great as it is, owing to the speed of trains and other causes. Let us take the position of the Grand Trunk Railway in this matter and I am going to confine myself almost entirely to the conditions in my own county. Let us take this crossing, popularly called the Montreal Street crossing. There have been a number of deaths at that crossing. It has been said by the Minister of Railways that a good many accidents are due to individul carelessness. I do not think that could be contended as regards deaths occurring in that place. I believe the railways should be held responsible so far, at least, as that particular crossing is concerned. And I will give my reasons: When the railway was first built, there was only one track. Later, they laid another track in the course of double-tracking their system. But, more than that, they made a railway yard or shunting ground right across the highway. I submit that when the Grand Trunk Railway laid six tracks across the highwav there, they did so with an utter disregard of the convenience of the travel-

ling public, and with a criminal disregard of the lives of the people using the highway. So far as expense in making that crossing safe is concerned, I think the responsibility should fall upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company which created the danger.
I am not going to attempt to lay out a plan whereby these dangers can be obviated. But I believe that something can be done with regard to the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these crossings that will lessen the danger-done quickly and at comparatively little expense and without waiting for the more general action under which all crossings may be dealt with. There are many crossings in country places where the trees or bushes approach close to the railway on either side of the highway so that a person travelling on the highway cannot see the train apnroaching until he is on the track, and so cannot take means to avoid danger. I think many members of this House who have travelled through the country will agree with me that by simply cutting down the bushes or trees which obstruct the view of the people travelling on the highway, much might be done to remove danger at these level crossings. Again, I think that in laying out new towns or cities, danger might be greatly lessened by making it obligatory to build streets running parallel with the railway track into which the streets running at right angles would run. In this way the crossings could be merged into a few and danger greatly lessened, and that at comparatively little expense.
I have no intention of going into this subject on broad lines. It has been very ably introduced by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) who has contributed to the debate many facts and figures, which, I am sure, we shall all consider carefully and with great interest. My object in speaking was simply to place my own county in a proper light before this House, so far as these level crossings are concerned. The people of the county of Frontenac have hot asked what their share. of expenses would be to get rid of these level crossings. They have asked that the danger be removed. Up 'to the present time at least, there has been no cavilling on their part at the expense. I trust this matter will receive the attention of both sides of the House, and that it will be dealt with thoroughly and in a way to prevent the fatalities which we all so much deplore.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I merely wish to add a word to this very interesting discussion to express to the House the great interest that we in the province of Quebec take in the very important question raised by my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). I had not the advantage of hearing all that was said by that hon. gentleman in support of his motion; but reading the motion I find that it expresses exactly our feeling upon this subject. 1 have not seen the report showing the number of Mr. EDWARDS.
accidents that have occurred, but I think that we have had, in Quebec, about the same number of these distressing fatalities as have happened in the province of Ontario -somq that we have had during the nast year being of a most arm filling character. We have not, in the past, taken as much interest in the' discussion of this subject as has been evinced by our colleagues from Ontario. Indeed, these hon. gentlemen have persistently brought this matter to the attention of the government. It is also a very urgent question for us in the province of Quebec. I was glad to hear the declarations made by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), that the government was going to take up this subject without delay and see if something could not be done to diminish the number of fatalities. I listened to what was said by my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), and I quite agree with 'him that, so far as making the level crossings safe is concerned, there should be no contribution by anybody but the railway companies themselves. But when you would propose to eliminate a level crossing altogether, I must say that I feel some embarrassment in holding the same conclusion. I do not know if I understood my hon. friend to say that he thought that no contribution ought to be made except by the federal government.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, I say so-as distinguished from the municipality and the province.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It may be that my hon. friend is right. He has given a great deal of study to this question, which I have not. But I incline rather to believe that not only the government should contribute, but there should be some mode by which the municipality should contribute in a proportion which I am not prepared to designate at the present moment. The elimination of level crossings by the railway company with a contribution only by the government would give rise to a great deal of difficulty, I think, because it involves interference with the roads. I think jt would be necessary-and I think it would be fair as a general rule-that the municipalities should contribute something, and that they should be interested and co-operate in the elimination. I do not think the province should be called upon to contribute-I do not see any reason why such a contribution should be called for. In Montreal at least, we have found that the urgent necessity for the elimination of these terrible death-traps arises from the growth of municipalities around the crossings, making a great artery of the road which crosses the railway, and thus making it far more dangerous. This and other reasons, I think, might be adduced as reasons why the municipality should become interested in the work and contribute in some small proportion. I think that in

Toronto the work of substituting other crossings for level crossings was contributed to by the municipality under special agreement
In Montreal we concluded an agreement with the Grand Trunk for the elimination of level crossings by contributing, I think, the sum of $1,000,000, and I would be inclined to say that not only the municipalities interested in the elimination of the crossings but also the government should contribute something. I would be inclined to place the initiation of that elimination with the municipalities. Of course any scheme of that kind would, under the present conditions, necessitate enabling legislation by the provinces empowering the municipalities to take action and to have recourse to what is in reality a Dominion tribunal established to regulate our federal railways and, having had recourse to that tribunal, to be bound by its directions. I think it is only fair in some instances I have in mind to ask that the municipalities should contribute something, and that the Dominion government should contribute a fixed proportion determined in advance, but not an arbitrary proportion, a percentage of so much which would be defined by legislation.
This motion entirely meets with the views and desires of the province of Quebec and I hope the promise made by the Minister of Railways will be fulfilled as promptly as possible.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, in supporting the very excellent resolution of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) I wish to compliment him upon the research he has made and on his very excellent speech in support of his motion. The subject is one of the mo3t important that comes before this parliament for consideration. It is associated with the subject of transportation, and transportation is, after all, the highest politics and the vital question for the parliament of Canada to consider. Anything in reference to transportation ought to be considered carefully and well by the people of Canada. It is all-important to us that the transportation of passengers and freight should be rapid in order to compete with other countries. If we have speed and level crossings we must have danger to the people of the country. The figures brought forward by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) in support of his resolution giving the number of accidents which occurred among railway employees on this continent in comparison with other countries where they have better provision for safeguarding public crossings were appalling. I had no idea the death rate was so high. We are suffering from the effects of early conditions in this country. We were bound to have railways, but we could not
have them if we imposed European conditions upon them. We had to submit to all -.these difficulties and dangers which now accompany our railways in order to get them. We are getting out of that 'position now. What ought we to do? We should do as the Minister of Railways has suggested and impose upon railways to which we grant charters in future certain provisions in reference to crossings. I prefer the manner suggested by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), that these conditions should be statutory and the enforcement left either to a court or to the Railway Commission. But the time has arrived when we must do something not only in the interest of the people of the country themselves, but in the interest of the railway companies. They are anxious to have the Commission make inquiry into these .crossings for the purpose of arriving at some plan or other by which these dangers should be either gradually eliminated or in some way guarded against. The amount that a railway company pays in the shape of damages for loss of life, in pensions to injured employees and destruction of material would to a great extent offset the cost of doing away with the level crossings or guarding them. I was struck with the law of Connecticut mentioned by the hon. member providing that each railway line in the state shall eliminate one of these dangers for every 60 miles of road each year. That would be a gradual im-pfovement in the conditions.
I realize the difficulty of an arrangement between the federal and provincial governments and the municipalities as to contributions towards the elimination of these crossings. My contention is that the power vested by the British North America Act in the federal government with respect to railways covers everything incidental to the charter which we give them. If it is necessary to cross a highway, jurisdiction over which is in the province, we do not need to get legislation from that province in order to regulate the manner of crossing. The very power given to us to grant a charter for a railway gives us everything incidental to it. I am not going to give any opinion of my own, but I am going to state to the House that I have listened to the biggest lawyers that were ever in this House, to Ministers of Justice to whom the question had been submitted, and they were all of the opinion that where power was given to the federal government to do a thing everything in the slightest degree incidental to it, although the province would otherwise have had jurisdiction, was also given to the federal government. What practical legislation can we enact on this question? It would be unwise and unfair to pass legislation to say that a crossing shall be overhead or under-

ground. In Great Britain that is the law except in very exceptional cases. As my hon. friend says, a level crossing is permitted perhaps in the Highlands of Scotland. where there is not much travel over the road, and then a gate is required to protect it. We cannot adopt such a law as tl at in this country at the present time. M e could not get railways built, but we must gradually go in that direction. One of the primary objects that we must keep in view in our legislation in reference to lailways is the protection of the lives of the people, and our legislation should have that tendency as long as it does not act as a detriment or as a bar to the development of our transportation facilities. A well considered scheme may be thought out, one that would apply to the future and also have regard, to a certain extent, to the past. I prefer not giving powers to the Commission to be exercised arbitrarily as they think proper. I prefer the suggestion of my hon. friend from Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) that there should be a well thought out scheme adopted by the parliament of Canada and that it should then be placed in the hands of the Commissioners to be carried out. Whatever scheme is adopted its guiding principle should have in view greater protection to the public at level crossings.


Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West Lambton).: 
Edward Arthur Lancaster: What I say is that if the municipality and the province pay in addition to the Dominion, then the municipality is paying three times over and the province twice. The man in the munici pality pays his taxes to the province and the man in the province contributes the revenue to the Dominion.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What the hon. gentleman says may be true, but I would ask him if the municipality and the province to-day receive their share of the taxes from railways, is it not fair that the municipality and the province should bear some of the burden ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, but they should not pay three times over.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The railways are paying to the municipalities and the provinces large sums in the form of taxes, and under these circumstances it is not an unfair argument to ask that they should be required to pay something towards the elimination of these crossings. I did not intend to get into an argument with my hon. friend regarding this point. I agree that this is a big, broad question, that it should not be approached in any spirit other than in that of endeavouring to, in some way, lessen the danger, to get rid of the crossings, and it should be done in the most equitable way that can be devised by this House. If it is approached in that spirit, as it will be, then I think that some scheme will be worked out whereby the demands of the people will be satisfied. There can be no doubt about this point that a scheme cannot be formulated in a day or in a week. It is a matter that will have to be carefully considered so that justice may be done to all. This is a oues-tion that the government ought to take into consideration because it is a burning question with the people of the country. It is something that should be taken into consideration at once and it is something in regard to which some decision ought to be come to as rapidly as possible. It will not do to say that in so far as the railways are concerned they are the people to blame because the people who built the railways are simply carrying out what they are bound to carry out under their charters; that is to do the best they can for the people and to improve the service as much as the service is required to be improved. In the doing of this they are running trains; they are running faster trains and they are perhaps putting the people in the way of more danger than heretofore. But they are only doing what their charter calls on them .to do, and they are doing it in the public interest and for the service of the people of Canada.


Haughton Lennox: In reference to the suggestion of the Minister of Railways that this debate should not be continued in the absence of the Minister of Finance he has been good enough to say to me that he will afford another opportunity to the gentlemen who wish to speak on this question if he does not introduce a Bill this session as he intends to do. It being six o'clock I thought I would mention that that is perfectly satisfactory to me.


George Perry Graham: Would the House permit me to offer a thought for consideration in reference to the question as to municipalities and provinces contributing for all the crossings? If whether they are in my municipality or in my province the Dominion would contribute, then when my province and my municipality get the additional benefit of having a level crossing eliminated in their borders should they not contribute something more?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is it a benefit?


George Perry Graham: I think it is a great benefit. I have no idea at all of trying to choke off discussion, and if I produce a Bill it will give opportunity for full discussion to every person. If such a calamity should overtake me that I should not be able to introduce a Bill I assure my hon. friend that the government will see that he will have every opportunity to further discuss this resolution.
At six o'clock the House adjourned.

Thursday, February 18, 1909.