Hon. GEORGE  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 197) to amend the Railway Act. He said: This Bill is somewhat lengthy, and I shall briefly refer to the changes it is intended to make in .the existing Act. In the first clause it is proposed to apply the Act so as to require telegraph, telephone, and express, companies to make yearly statements of their business as do the railway companies now. The next paragraph refers to the protection of forests from fire caused by a railway company, and it has been the subject of resolutions by the Conservation Commission, and by the Forestry Association of the Dominion. It was first suggested that the law be made specific and stringent as to what the company should do, but at a meeting between the Chairman of the Conservation Commission, a representative of the western farmers, a member of the Forestry Association, and the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, this clause was decided upon as meeting all requirements'. It makes clear that the Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).
Board of Railway Commissioners can compel a railway company to provide facilities for the protection of property contiguous to a railway, to say how many patrolmen should be necessary, what fences should be provided, and to make general rules in this respect. The next clause is to make applicable to telephone, telegraph, and express companies the existing law with reference to railways which names an agent in any locality upon whom notice can be served. The next clause makes clear certain matters as to the location of railways, and that I shall explain on the second reading. The next clause is to provide that lands even though they belong to a railway company and are not for strictly railway purposes, can be treated like lands belonging to any other individual in the matter of expropriation for, say, another railway. The next clause is introduced by arrangement with the Chairman of the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board, and it makes provision by which a joint board can be formed of a member of any provincial board having jurisdiction over these matters, and a member of the Dominion Board of Railway Commissioners, to compel connection to be made between a provincial road and a federal road, and to make provisions for the interchange of traffic.


Mr. LENNOX.: Will that be in harmony with the statute recently passed by the Ontario legislature?


Mr. GRAHAM.: Yes, but it will apply to any other province having a provincial board organized for similar purposes. The next clause provides for the appraisement of damages to land adjoining or abutting on a highway where the railway has been allowed to run on a highway. There is not in the present law any provision by which the owner of the adjoining property can get damages on account of the railway getting on the highway in front of his property. The next clause is to allow, under general regulations and rules of the Board of Railway Commissioners, wires to cross railways where the railway consents and where the regulations are complied with. At present application has to be made to the board in each case. The next clause is a similar clause with reference to sewers under railways where the railway consents. The next clause has reference to fencing 'along lines of railway under construction. Under the existing Act the railways do not have to fence unless ordered by the board, and the amendment will be somewhat drastic, and will compel the railways to fence unless excused by the order of the board. It places the onus on thfe railway companies to prove

that it is not necessary for them to fence. It also compels the railway company to fence right of way or take other effectual means, such as cattle-guards to prevent cattle getting on the railway. The next section repeals that clause of the Act which prohibits stock from running within half a mile of a railway. There will be some discussion as to the propriety of this in the older parts of Canada, but on the whole it has seemed to those who have considered it, that it is a wise provision in the interest of the western part of Canada where they have the right to graze on these lands that are not inclosed, and under the present Act it is impossible for them, in many cases, to get redress if their stock is killed. In the older provinces-I can speak more particularly of Ontario-most municipalities, by by-law,
_ forbid cattle running at large on the highways, and they may continue to regulate that matter by by-law if they choose to do so.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Will the railways be bound to observe those by-laws?


George Perry Graham: The by-law does not affect the railway; it affects the man who owns the cattle. But I presume that if a cow were on a highway contrary to a by-law of a municipality, it would be there contrary to law, and that would be a factor in deciding the liability of the railway. The next clause, 12, is merely to make clear a section that was passed last year. Section 13 is one giving the Board of Railway Commissioners powers, in addition to the power given to them by the Act as it now stands, to regulate the price of electric power under their jurisdiction. Further, if a person makes application to a company under the control of the board for a certain quantity of power, and the company declines to give it to him, he can appeal to the board for an order on the company to give the power asked for. Section 14 is in reference to returns to the department as to accidents. The statute says that they shall be made semi-annually. They have been made annually, and we are making it clear that an annual return in general terms is all that is required; but I w'ill introduce a clause into the Bill providing that the minister may ask for a return whenever he sees fit. This is to cover two points: first, if a question arises as to an accident in which lives have been lost, in addition to the particulars required by the Board of Railway Commissioners, the minister may deem it wise in the public interest to ask for further particulars. Power is also given to the minister, where complaint is made that a large quantity of stock has been killed, to require a return to be made more frequently than twelve months, so that
the matter can be investigated. Complaints have been made by farmers in the west that where stock has been killed, the railway company or some person has frequently buried the carcases, and it has sometimes taken a year or two for the owners to find out where the animals have gone, as no trace is left of them. This clause is desired to enable the department to get the proof of the killing of those animals if it is thought to be in the public interest, as often as may be required. Then we propose to add a section to the Act which is quite drastic and may cause some discussion. The main features of it are that where a railway company has been granted a charter by the parliament of Canada, or where a railway has passed into the ownership of a company holding a charter from the Dominion of Canada, if the line is allowed to become dilapidated to such an extent that it is unsafe to operate, the government may step in and declare that the subsidy granted to the railway company shall become a lien upon it to such an extent that the railway can be sold under it. This power may, perhaps, never, at all events not very often, be exercised; but something is necessary to give the department power to compel railway companies or companies owning railways to keep their line in a fit condition to operate. I beg leave to move the first reading of the Bill.


Mr. MACDONELL (South Toronto).: Has the minister dealt, in the Bill, with the question of commutation tickets, so as to prevent railway companies from discriminating in regard to them? I understood that the minister had some sympathy with the municipalities that made their wishes known in that respect, both in the press and by interviewing the government.


George Perry Graham: There is nothing in this Bill in reference to commutation tickets.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: Does the section in regard to railways which are allowed to fall into disrepair apply to grants made by the Dominion of Canada in the future or to grants made in the past? In other words, will it be retroactive?


George Perry Graham: That is debatable, as the Bill is drawn.


David Henderson: Will the joint board have power to deal with electric roads incorporated by the province of Ontario as well as with electric roads and steam railways incorporated by the Dominion? I think the minister knows the case I refer to-the Hamilton case.


George Perry Graham: The Bill gives powrnr to the board to deal with provincial roads as well as Dominion roads.


David Henderson: No matter whether electric or steam?


George Perry Graham: There is no distinction as to the kind of propelling power.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 196) to incorporate the Continental Fire Insurance Company of Canada.- Mr. Molloy.

Mr. FOSTER.: I would like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if there be any truth in the statement I have seen in the newspapers that negotiations are now going on between this government and Germany for an improvement in the trade relations between the two countries?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: There is no truth at all in it.



THE INDIAN ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVER moved third reading of Bill (No. 177) to amend the Indian Act.
George Eulas Foster: My contention, when this Bill was brought in, was that the matter should previously go to parliament-that is after the investigations had been made, and before any action was taken regarding this reserve. I see that an amendment has been inserted embodying that idea so that on that point I have no lurther objection.


Mr. DOHERTY.: The hon. minister was good enough the other evening to say that he would consider an amendment I suggested to provide for representation before the courts of such Indians as may be opposed to removal from their reserve. I think the object wmuld be obtained by adding to subsection 3 of section 49A the following words:
And shall assign counsel to represent and act for the Indians who imay ibe opposed to the proposed removal.


Mr. OLIVER.: The section as it stands, it seems to me, would permit the judge to take the action my hon. friend suggests, but he desires to make that mandatory.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is one purpose. No doubt the section dealing with the powers of the judge is very large, and it might be contended that under it he will have the power to assign counsel for these Indians. The section reads:
3. The judge shall have the like powers to issue subpoenas, compel the attendance and examination of witnesses, take evidence, give directions, and generally ito hear and determine the matter and regulate the procedure as in proceedings upon information by the Mr. GRAHAM.
Attorney General within the ordinary jurisdiction of the court.
I am not prepared to say offhand whether in any proceeding upon information by the Attorney General, the Exchequer Court has the power to assign counsel to act for parties who are not represented by counsel. If there be a special provision to that effect, my amendment would not he necessary; but if not, I do not think that subsection 3 of section 49A would empower the judge to assign counsel to these Indians. It must be remembered that legally the Indians are represented by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs; but where there is collision between him and the Indians, the Indians ought to be represented by an independent counsel. The machinery of this Bill will never be set in operation except when the Superintendent General and the majority of the Indians differ in opinion, and in such a case the Indians ought to have a special representative. We should not only give the judge the power to permit such representation, hut we ought to make it his duty to appoint counsel for the Indians.


Frank Oliver: I am quite ready to accept this proposed amendment. I only wish to say that, as I understand the wording of the subsection, adequate provision is made for the appointment of counsel, and as a matter of public policy of course counsel would be appointed. I am quite willing, however, to accept my hon. friend's amendment so that it shall be mandatory on the judge to appoint counsel under certain circumstances. I beg therefore, to withdraw the motion for a third reading .
Motion for third reading withdrawn.
Mr. OLIVER moved that the Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend subsections 3 of section 49A by adding thereto the follow'-ing words:
Ancl shall assign counsel to represent and aot for the Indians who may he opposed to the proposed removal.


Mr. BRADBURY.: While I agree in the amendment suggested by the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty), I cannot but think that the Indians ought to have something to say in the choosing of counsel. In this Bill the Superintendent General takes power to himself which the department has never had, and which no Superintendent General has ever had. He is taking the power to take away from the Indians their reserves, and thus violating every treaty made with the Indians without giving them the opportunity to protest in any way against it. The amendment moved provides that the judge may assign counsel. In my opinion the counsel ought to be assigned on the recommendation of the band.

The band ought to have something to say as to who shall represent them. The experience I have had with regard to one of the reserves proves to me that it is quite possible a counsel might be chosen to take the Indians part, who may not have the best interests of the Indians at heart. I think that there ought to be some provision made that the Indians may have something to say in the choosing of their own counsel.
There is another phase of the Bill about which I wish to say a word. The first section of this Bill is to amend section 46 of the Indian Act. Now, section 46 reads as follows:
No portion of any reserve shall be taken for the purposes of any Tailway, road or public work without the consent of the Governor in Council, and, if any railway, road or public work passes through or causes injury to any reserve, or, if any act occasioning damage to any reserve is done under the authority of an Act of parliament or of the legislature of. any province, compensation shall be made therefor to the Indians of the hand in the same manner as is provided with respect to the lands or rights of other persons.
I contend that this clause is contradictory. It starts out first by declaring that no portion of the reserve shall be taken for the purposes of any railway, and then it goes on to provide that if any railway, road or public work passes through and injures the reserve, the parties responsible sfhall be liable for damages. I believe that this part of this section should be rescinded. The amendment proposed by this Bill covers practically everything that is necessary. The change would make the Bill more logical and more easily understood.
As to the Bill as a whole, I desire again to enter my (protest against the principle. The Indians are not represented in this House and have no voice in making this legislation. As I said a moment ago, the minister is asking for power greater than any Superintendent General before ever pretended to ask for. And, in view of the surrender of the St. Peter's Indian reserve. of which I know something, I cannot hope that the Department of Indian Affairs will administer this proposed new law in a manner to commend itself to the sense , of justice of this country. I have no hesitation in saying that under section 49 of the Act, the Indian had some protection, as it remained for the Indian to say. whether he was willing to surrender his reserve or not. And while I believe that the Act has been openlv violated in connection with the surrender of the St. Peter's Indian reserve, yet the Indian has some redress. But, under the proposition before us, he has no redress; it will not be necessary to consult him in connection
with tlhe surrender. When these treaties were made, in most cases the Indians were a power in this country. The treaties had to be lived up to; the Indians were, in many cases, able to compel the white man to keep faith with them. To-day the. Indian is weak. The guardian of the Indian, the Superintendent General, is all powerful in this House. This fact is all the greater reason wlhy the parliament should guard carefully and sacredly the interest of the Indian, the wards of the Canadian people. I contend that the power that the Superintendent General is asking for under this Bill is altogether too 'broad and arbitrary. He is simply taking the power to dispose of people's property and rights without giving them an opportunity i* refuse or to lay their views fairly before the court, or even to a protest against the proceeding. In this country, especially in the province of Ontario, we have some bands of Indians who are very intelligent; we have members of these different bands who are just as intelligent as the average member of this House. I think it is almost a crime against everything that is fair to say to such a band of Indians: We will take possession of your reserve in defiance of treaty rights, without giving you an opportunity of being heard or even protesting as to whether you wish to surrender your reserve or not. The minister, a few nights ago, brought in a Bill before this House to confer upon him power to take a reserve in Victoria. That was a special case. I submit that in every such special case that may arise, where the Indians may refuse to surrender their reserve, yet, where it is in the pulblic interest that the Indian reserve should be surrendered, the Superintendent General can come down to parliament with a special Act. He need not take, as he proposes to do under this Bill, the broad power to apply this to every Indian reserve in Canada. It has always been our proud boast that we have treated our Indians fairly. But if this Bill becomes law we may sometimes have a Superintendent General who may not be as zealous for the best interest of the Indians as my hon. friend, yet in his hands would be placed the power to take any Indian reserve in Canada, within the scone of this Bill without giving the Indians the opportunity to make their protest felt. For these reasons, I think that the Bill should be referred to a committee for revision and elimination of some of these powers. If that is not done I would ask at least that the Indians may have the right to nominate the counsel who shall appear before this court to look after their interests.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to traverse again the arguments on the general merits of the Bill. All these were thrashed out

840&
very fully when the Bill was up for consideration before, and the House in its wisdom decided that the principle should be adopted. With regard to the propriety of the Indians who object to the proposed readjustment of their affairs being authorized to name their counsel, I think that is a very dangerous proposal, and not in the interest of the Indians themselves. If the sound judgment of the Indians could be depended upon to be exercised in the protection of their own interests, then there would be no necessity for the Indian Act or for the supervision that parliament has placed over them. It is because it is recognized that they cannot be trusted to protect their own interests that this supervision is exercised, and I think it is within the judgment of the House that, under those circumstances to leave the question of the choice of a counsel to represent the Indians, in the hands of the judge of the Exchequer Court, is giving them better protection than to leave the matter at their own choice.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Does not subsection 1-a cover all the provisions of subsection 1 of the old Act?


Frank Oliver: I could not answer that off hand. -I substituted this section for the section of the old Act in the belief that this section met the present requirements better than the previous section.


William Sora Middlebro: The minister lias not done that. I do not see any provision repealing subsection 1 of the old Bill, and yet this seems to cover and go beyond the old section. This old section is inconsistent. It provides that no portion of any reserve shall be taken for the purpose of any railway, road or public work without the consent of the Governor in Council, and also that if any railroad, road or public work passes through or causes injury to any reserve, compensation must be paid; but it does not say in the latter case that they must have the consent of the Governor in Council, they may be trespassers. That is contradictory, but the section the minister has introduced now fully covers all the powers in the old section, and gives broader powers as well. Therefore, the old section is unnecessary and has not been repealed by the minister.


Frank Oliver: The Bill has been referred back to committee, and I would ask it to remain in committee until I have had an opportunity of considering the point raised.


William Sora Middlebro: The phraseology of the present amendment is defective. You have the phrase : 'without the consent of the owner, may with such consent as aforesaid,' &c. That might be read that he shall Mr. OLIVER.
not take any land without the consent of the owner, and may with the consent of the owner. I 'think it is intended to refer to the-consent of the Lieutenant Governor in. Council, occurring earlier in the section.


Frank Oliver: Undoubtedly that is the intention, and I think that would be the reading of the section.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. and House went again into committee on the Bill.
On section 1,
Frank Oliver: I think the objection of the hon. member for North Grey is well taken, but it may be overcome by a change of one word so that the introduction of section I would read:
Section 46 of the Indian Aot, chapter 81 of the Revised Statutes, 1908, is amended by substituting the following subsection for subsection 1 of the said section.
Then, in the following line, strike out the letter ' a ' after the figure '1


William Sora Middlebro: Would the minister include in his amendment that in subsection 1 the words: ' such consent ' where they occur in the seventh line be struck out, and .that in lieu thereof the words: ' consent of the Governor in Council ' be inserted?


Frank Oliver: That will be agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: Could the minister inform the committee how many Indian reserves will be affected bv the wording of section 2?


Frank Oliver: I could not at the moment, but I think it is only the reserve situated in the city of Vancouver, although I may be mistaken.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How does the minister interpret the word 'adjoining'?


Frank Oliver: That the reserve line will touch the line of the corporation.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What is the object and purpose of drawing the line in that way? If the principle is good why not apply it to all reserves? I do not say that the principle should be applied but if you are taking such arbitrary power to remove reserves in this manner why not. apply it to all reserves? The same argument would apply to a rural district where an Indian reserve is situated, as would apply to a city, although perhaps not quite so strongly.


Frank Oliver: We recognize that the power asked for is arbitrary, and that it should not be exercised except under exceptional conditions, such exceptional conditions being that the land of the Indians,

by reason of their being contained within or adjoining a city, has reached an abnormal value altogether out of comparison with the original value or intention in the setting apart of the reserve, the result being that it is in the interest of the Indians that the townsite value which their reserve has attained should be translated into cash so that they may get the benefit of it rather than that they shall merely continue to occupy land having that value, but of which they are not getting the benefit.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
_ Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of Bill (No. 156) to amend the Department of Railways and Canals Act. He said: Mr. Speaker, the object of this Bill is to put upon the statute authority for the establishment of certain funds in connection with the management of the Intercolonial railway. As a matter of fact, these funds have been established in a way for some years. We have a fund, for instance, for the renewal of equipment, that is for the purchase of cars, and another for the renewal of rails. I want to establish one also to facilitate the payment of loss hy fire out of revenue where the loss should be paid out of the receipts of the road. In discussing this with the Finance Department, and with the Auditor General it was thought wise to amend the Act to give the department authority to establish these funds, so that there will be no question Irereafter about it or about the depositing of money in them, and the payment of money out of them.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: Have you at present any trouble in providing renewal of equipment under your general vote? What is the necessity of a suspense account?


George Perry Graham: Each month we set apart a certain sum for this purpose, and if at the end of the financial year this money has not been expended it remains in the fund. The intention is to carry the account on, so that we will have it to pay for, say, work under contract.


John Graham Haggart: You are merely applying the money already voted to the intention of the appropriation?


George Perry Graham: Yes.	.


George Eulas Foster: Does it mean that the minister has not to .come back for a revote, which has always been considered a salutary check? If the minister has $1,000,000 for a certain purpose, and he has spent $500,000 of it at the end of the year, he would now have to come back to parliament for a revote of the other $500,000? Does this propose that when once there is a vote of $1,000,000 there should be no reference to parliament again until he has expended that money, even though several years should elapse?


George Perry Graham: Hardly that. At present we lay aside $25,000 a month for railway equipment, and that is accounted for. Every railway company has to do something like that in order to carry on its business. The Auditor General thinks that possibly under the statute it is not clear he has the right to allow us to continue to do that. This money is merely to renew equipment out of railway revenue, and there would be little in the fund at the end of the year, but under the present system if there is $30,000 left, we have to pay it back to the consolidated fund and get it revoted.


George Eulas Foster: The idea of the Bill Is probably all right. The minister gave me the impression that the money would not have to be revoted, but I do not see anything in the Bill which would enable him to use the money unless it were revoted. It is, I suppose, a proposal more in the way of keeping the accounts than touching the basis of parliamentary appropriation.


George Perry Graham: We have to keep to the rule in that respect.


John Graham Haggart: How does the Auditor General get rid of the audit of this money?


George Perry Graham: Every dollar expended has to be audited by the Auditor General, when we take a certain amount out of a vote to pay for cars, this makes it legal. He audits every account the same as now.


John Graham Haggart: This Bill does not alter the law of appropriation?


George Perry Graham: I do not think so.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



ST. JOHN VALLEY RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of Bill (No. 150) to authorize the government of Canada to acquire by lease a certain line of railway in the province of New Brunswick.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: What is this Bill?


George Perry Graham: This is the Bill we discussed very thoroughly on the resolution. The provincial government is guaranteeing the bonds of the St. John Valley railway to the extent of $25,000 a mile, and this Bill provides for its operation by the Intercolonial railway, provided it is constructed. I would like to have the Act on the statutes so that if an arrangement is made by the provincial government with any company we will be at liberty to enter into a contract with them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the 'second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. DANIEL.: I would like to ask the Minister of Eailways and Canals if this clause is in accordance with the Act which was passed by the legislature of New Brunswick. I think that when the resolution was before us some objection was taken to the fact that equipment was not provided for in this Act while it was in the provincial Act.


George Perry Graham: I think there was a question as to the initial rolling stock, it being contended that -we had included the initial rolling stock in this Act, while it was not contemplated in the New Brunswick legislation. Personally I am not sure that it is absolutely necessary to retain the initial rolling stock. I find that it would be such a small matter in starting the new line that it is not worth while putting it in the way of the construction of the road or of its operation.


George Eulas Foster: The minister would be willing to strike that out?


George Perry Graham: I would he willing to omit the rolling stock in order to help out the arrangement.


John Graham Haggart: Will the minister state what is the difference in length between this new line and the Transcontinental line and its connection with St. John? Will he also state what the government have calculated tlhe loss would be, or the difference 'between what it would cost to run the road and the 60 per cent of the receipts which the government retain?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: My hon. friend the Minister of Railways has asked me to reply to the hon. gentleman, because I am familiar with the province of New Brunswick.


George Eulas Foster: Have you ever heard of this railway before?


William Pugsley: Yes, it has pleasant memories for me; I do not suppose I shall Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
ever forget it. This road runs from Grand Falls to St. John, by one of the routes surveyed by the engineers of the provincial government. The distance is 207 miles from Grand Falls to St. John. The Transcontinental goes from Grand Falls to Moncton, and from there the distance back to St. John is 88 miles.


John Graham Haggart: What is the distance by the Transcontinental?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) says the distance from Grand Falls to Moncton is 198 miles. This, added to the 88 miles, would make the total distance from Grand Falls to St. John 286 miles. This line reduces the distance about 80 miles. I think the Minister of Railways can answer the question as to the loss better than I can.


George Perry Graham: I think it would be some years before the road would pay its way and pay the 60 per cent. I go further:	I
think that with the vast majority of branch lines in the maritime provinces that will always be found to be the case. I had not any idea, in making this proposition, that the Intercolonial railway would make a cent out of it. In fact, I have always thought that it would cost the Intercolonial a considerable sum of money to run this road on the 60 per cent ; but, looking at it from the point of view of the convenience of the people who for many years have not been able to get a line of railway through this valley, I thought the people of Canada would be prepared, even at a loss on the operation of the road, to agree to operate it on a 60 per cent basis.


John Graham Haggart: Haven't they a line on the other side of the river running in the same direction between the two points?


William Pugsley: They have at certain points; but practically all the way from Woodstock to Fredericton it is 20 or 25 miles back from the river.


Mr HAGGART (Lanark).: Is it much longer than this line?


William Pugsley: There is one road from Woodstock to St. John which first strikes McAdam. This must be 70 miles from the St. John river. From McAdam to St. John it also keeps away from the river until it reaches Welsford. For the last 14 miles it runs parallel with the river. There i3 another line from Fredericton to Woodstock running 20 or 25 miles from the river. But there is a very rich country from Woodstock to Fredericton, and also from Fredericton to Welsford, which is entirely without any accommodation. I would suggest that, with the unanimous consent

of the House, which I think would be necessary, the provision as to the company providing the initial equipment should be struck out. I am very glad indeed that the Minister of Railways feels that he can properly do that. It is exceedingly desirable that every reasonable effort should be made to secure the earliest construction of this line.


John Graham Haggart: What does the Minister of Railways say? Will this interfere with the contract? '


George Perry Graham: It will not. Take lino 17, and you will find the words ' with its appurtenances and rolling stock.' Strike out the word ' rolling stock.'


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It is moved in amendment that the words ' rolling stock ' be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. CROCKET.: When the resolution upon which this Bill is founded was before the House I moved an amendment for the purpose of making the resolution agree with the Act passed by the New Brunswick legislature authorizing the Lieutenant Governor in Council to guarantee the bonds of the company. The objection I made to the resolution was that it did not follow the terms of section 1 of the New Brunswick Act. Section 1 of the New Brunswick Act provides that :
No swell agreement shall be entered into with any company or corporation for the construction of the 6aid line of railway or the guaranteeing of the said bonds, and no such bonds or debentures shall be guaranteed, unless and until the parliament of Canada shall enact legislation authorizing the granting of a subsidy in aid of the construction of the said railway to the amount of not less than $6,100 per mile, and authorizing the entering by the government of Canada into an independent agreement with such company or corporation and with the government of New Brunswick aforesaid, for the leasing of the 6aid line of railway, when completed, with its appurtenances and rolling stock and for the operation, equipment, maintenance, upkeep and repair by the said government of Canada, as part of the government railway system of Canada for a period of 99 years.
What I wished to have inserted was the word ' equipment.' I understand that the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Railways objected to the word ' equipment ' being inserted in the resolution, and it is not in the Bill. It seems to me that unless this Bill is made to correspond with the terms of the New Brunswick Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council of New Brunswick will have no power to guarantee the bonds of the company. *


Mr. CARVELL.: My hon. friend must bs in error. If he will read section 1, he will
find in it these words: ' Including the supply of additional rolling stock from time to time sufficient to handle the traffic as it may arise, maintenance, upkeep and repair.' It seems to me it is all provided in that section. In my opinion the resolution upon which this Bill is founded really followed the legislation of New Brunswick. I may be wrong, but if the Minister of Railways is willing to eliminate the question of initial rolling stock or rather take that away from the company which builds the road, I can see no reason why the Bill should not be agreed to, because the company must, out of its own funds or the funds received from the sale of bonds or the subsidy, provide for equipment as the Bill now stands. All thg Minister of Railways proposes is to eliminate the equipment so that it shall not be necessary for the company to make that expenditure, which makes it that much easier for the company to construct the road and have it operated by the Intercolonial railway.


Oswald Smith Crocket: My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) will see that these words in section 1 relating to rolling stock and operation are not in accord with the New Brunswick Act; and I do not see how the bonds can be guaranteed by the Governor in Council of New Brunswick until the condition prescribed by section 10 of the New Brunswick Act are fulfilled. That section requires an agreement for the operation, . equipment, maintenance, upkeep and repair by the government of Canada. The first section of this Bill differs from the New Brunswick Act in that it does not provide for the equipment of the railway by the government of Canada.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Even by the New Brunswick Act it is not required that the railway shall be equipped by the government of Canada, but that it shall be equipped by the company, and the company will then hand over to the government of Canada the road with its original equipment. This amendment proposes to relieve the company from the necessity of providing the initial equipment, and I cannot see that that would prevent the government of New Brunswick from guaranteeing the bonds.


William Pugsley: This change must -be made with the unanimous consent of the House. Let the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) draw an amendment relating to the rolling stock, and let the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) draw one, and make them both agree. In the meantime I would suggest that there should be an additional section to accomplish this purpose. Section 1 authorizes the Governor in Council to enter into a contract with any railway, but there is nothing to authorize the railway company to enter into a con-

tract with His Majesty. I, therefore, move that section 2 be added:
Section 2. It shall be lawful for the board of directors of any Tail-way company under the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, with -which -the Governor in Council proposes to enter into -the contract provided for in section 1 of this Bill, to execute said contract, and the same, when so executed pursuant .to the order of the said board of directors, shall be legal and binding on the company.
A company ordinarily has not the power to lease its line of railway. This will give that power to any company' with which the Governor in Council enters into a contract.


John Graham Haggart: Has this company a Dominion charter?


William Pugsley: Yes. It is under the legislative jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament. I move that the following be inserted as section 2 of the Bill:
I-t shall be lawful for the board of directors -?f any railway company under the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada with wli-ich the Governor in Council proposes to enter into -the contract provided for under section 1 of this Act to execute such contract and the same when so executed pursuant to the order of such board of directors 6hall be legal and binding on the company.


John Graham Haggart: We do not generally empower the directors to do that without the consent of the stockholders?
-Mr. PUGSLEY. Well, say ' The Board of Directors with the consent of the shareholders.'


John Graham Haggart: You do not need the unanimous consent?


William Pugsley: Put it in this form:
It shall be lawful for the board of directors of any railway company under legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada with which the Governor in Council proposes to [DOT]enter into the contract provided for in section 1 of this _ Act, -with -the consent of the shareholders given at a meeting duly called for the purpose, to execute such contract, and the same when so executed pursuant to the * order of such board of directors shall .be legal and binding on the company.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend from York, New Brunswick (Mr. Crocket), -will read what is proposed to be done, I think he will see that it meets his views and that the government proposes to provide the rolling stock. It is proposed to strike out in line 17 the words, * and rolling stock,' in line 18 the words, ' equipped with initial rolling stock ' and in line 20 the word ' additional,' thus making the section lead:
Mr. PUGSLEY
The said line of railway with its appurtenances -when completed and for -the operation, including the supply -of rolling stock, from time to time sufficient to handle the traffic as it may arise, .maintenance, upkeep and repair by -the government of Canada.
That would make it absolutely clear. Then, in the last line of subsection 3, leave out the words 'and equipped.' That would make it even clearer. Subsection 3 then would read :
Each twenty-five miles thereafter, until the line -be -completed from Grand -Falls to St. John.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Our only object is that the legislation shall make it clear that the government of Canada shall provide the rolling stock. It may be, as the minister has stated, that the amendment he proposes will have the effect. But, in case there might be some d-ou'bt, I think the safer -course would be to make the provision accord with the language of the New Brunswick Act. Section 1 provides that the Governor in Council of that province could not guarantee the bonds of any company undertaking the construction of this railway until there be an agreement with the government of Canada providing for the operation, equipment, maintenance, upkeep and -repair by the government of Canada. This Bill, in its present form, certainly does not provide for that. What would be the objection to making the provision in the terms of the New Brunswick Act? Then, there -could be no doubt. What I propose is to move that these w-ords be struck out, and that the w-ords of the New Brunswick Act be inserted in lieu thereof.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think there is one objection to that. The words of the New Brunswick Act are found in Section 11:
For the leasing of the said l-ine of railwav when completed., with its appurtenances and rolling stock, and for the operation, equipment, -maintenance, upkeep and repair by the government of Canada.
The object is to provide that before the government .can enter into this agreement the rolling stock must be provided by somebody. As I understand, it is to be built -by a company and handed over to the government. Of course, the company, under this arrangement, would not wish to provide the rolling stock. If the hon. gentleman will note the word ' rolling stock ' near the bottom of page 41, in the New Brunswick Act, he will see the objection I am raising. Of course, it may be that that would be only an inference, but I am afraid it might be such an inference that some one would say we could not sign that agreement until the rolling stock was there.
8418
MAY 4, 1911 4t


Oswald Smith Crocket: Under the proper construction of section 11 the bonds cannot be guaranteed until there is an agreement for the equipment, maintenance and operation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not by the government of Canada until there is an agreement, *with somebody.


William Pugsley: With the amendment moved by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) it would read:
And with the government of the province of New Brunswick for the leasing of the said line of railway when completed, with its appurtenances, for the operation, maintenance, equipment, upkeep and repair.


Oswald Smith Crocket: If it reads in that way it would answer the purpose.


William Pugsley: That covers the ground. Even if it is not exactly word for word with the provincial Act I do not think that would make very much difference, because before a lease could be entered into, the provincial Act would have to be altered as it provides that the grade shall be four-tenths of one per cent, while this Act provides that it shall be sufficient if it is up to the general standard of the Transcontinental railway, which would, I think, allow a grade of one per cent. If arrangements could be made I should think everything could be agreed upon, and then any necessary amendment could be made at the next session of the provincial legislature.


George Perry Graham: That suits me.


John Graham Haggart: Are they to provide the rolling stock or the government?


William Pugsley: The government, under this amendment.


John Graham Haggart: Does that conform with your resolution? Under that resolution the company have to provide the rolling stock. How can you alter the Bill in a most important point after you pass the resolution?	[DOT]


William Pugsley: It is not very important, because it is only in connection with initial equipment, and I stated that I trusted this might go through with the unanimous consent of the House. It is really a matter of enormous importance that this line should be constructed, and I hope that upon consideration my hon. friend will be one of those here who will agree unanimously to this.	'


John Graham Haggart: I am not making any objection, but it seems to me such a total change from what I understood was the meaning of the resolution, that is that the company should provide the rolling 266
stock. Now we have it that the government have to provide it.


William Pugsley: It was only the initial rolling stock. The minister might have that of great or little value.


John Graham Haggart: That would be only hand cars, &c.


George Perry Graham: It is only the initial rolling stock, which would be poor.


William Pugsley: Now, will some one follow me. In section 1, strike out the words:
And Tolling stock when completed and equipped with initial rolling stock, for the operation, including the supply of additional rolling stock from time to time sufficient to handle the traffic as it may arise.
And insert in lieu thereof the words:
When completed with the appurtenances and for its equipment.
Then it would go on:
For its maintenance, upkeep, Ac
That covers it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Yes, that covers it.


George Perry Graham: And on the second page, in subsection 3, strike out the words: ' and equipped '.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I think you want the word * operation ' in there.


William Pugsley: ' And for its operation, equipment, maintenance ', &c.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You should strike out the word ' appurtenances ' in line 17.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The word ' appurtenances ' is in twice.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Strike it out of the amendment.
Mr. -GRAHAM. Yes, take it out of the amendment, and leave it in the original.


William Pugsley: Strike out of the amendment the words * with its appurtenances '.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is proposed that all the words in line 17, after the word ' railways ', including lines 18, 19 and 20, be struck out, up to the word ' maintenance ' in line 21, and that in lieu thereof there be inserted the words * when completed with its appurtenances, and for its operation and equipment '. Starting from line 15 it will read as follows:
Twenty-five thousand dollars per mile, and with the government of the province of New Brunswick, for the leasing of the said line of railway when completed with its appurtenances and for its operation, equipment, main-

COMlt^NS
tenance, upkeep and repair by the government of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Then it is moved that in subsection 3 the words ' and equipped ' be struck out.
Section as amended agreed to, Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 185) to amend the Fisheries Act.-Mr. Brodeur.
On section 1: licenses in British Columbia for making seal or fish oil,
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Mar-' ine and Fisheries).: When the resolution on which this Bill is based was before the House I explained the object of the Bill. This clause is for the purpose of authorizing the minister to adopt some regulations governing the manufacture of oil from sea-lions, hair seals, sharks and dog-fish. As I explained the other day, we have had applications from people in British Columbia asking to be authorized to manufacture this product, provided regulations of this kind should be passed.
On section 2: license in British Columbia for salmon factories.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is a provision by which a license fee of $50 shall be charged to canneries in British Columbia. This has been recommended by the British Columbia Fish Commission as explained the other day when we were discussing the resolution.


Mr. CROSBY.: Does this apply to the whole of Canada?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, this part only applies to British Columbia.


Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: I would like to ask the minister whether he has thought of the objection I made the other day, that this provision against dealing in salmon, and the curing thereof prevents a man curing salmon in his own back yard. Does the minister intend by this law to prohibit the individual fisherman from curing salmon? Is the law in the interest of large corporations who alone are able to pay this fee of $50?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not intended to prohibit any person from curing fish in his backyard for his own use. For the protection of the salmon canning industry generally, it is absolutely necessary that the fish should be canned and cured under hygienic conditions and one reason why a licence is provided for is that we may have some control over the method of canning and curing.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: 


James Davis Taylor: The minister says he does not want to prohibit a man curing his own fish, but as a matter of fact he does prohibit him under this clause, and I would suggest that he should so draft it that his intention be given effect to and that it should not prohibit a man from curing in his own house. I know where a man purposed curing salmon on his own premises, for his own use, and not for commercial purposes, and the officer of the department at New' Westminster told him that under this Act he required to take out a license which, the fee being $50, was prohibitive.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Was it for his own use?


James Davis Taylor: Yes.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: What the Act has in view are establishments that are curing or canning for commercial purposes.


James Davis Taylor: The Act does not so limit it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If the curing was for his own use I can see no objection to it, but certainly these large canneries ought to be licensed so we may see that they are conducted properly.


George Eulas Foster: You can add the words,
' for commercial purposes.'
Mr. BRODEUF*. There \wbuld be no objection to that.


Adam Brown Crosby: I agree that the government should have such control over large canning establishments as will enable them to ensure that the canning is carried on under sanitary conditions. But, when you add the word ' curing ' it means pickling salmon or smoking salmon, and w'hen a person buys pickled or smoked fish he can see what he is buying and there is not the same necessity for taking precautions as in the case of canning. I do not see why a man should have to pay a license fee of $50 because he is going to smoke salmon or put it in barrels even for commercial purposes. Of course the Act does not apply to the Atlantic coast and the people of British Columbia know what they want.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The curing establishments we have in mind in British Columbia are large establishments which do not exist in the maritime provinces and they can easily stand a fee of $50. In some cases the curing and canning is carried on in the same establishment. In order to meet the objection raised by the hon. member for New Westminster, I am willing that we should add the words, ' for commercial purposes.'


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have diffidence in venturing on this subject, not being a salmon fisherman, but I would ask the minister if these canning establishments are carried on by persons who themselves catch the fish? The minister limits the operation of this Act to the province of British Columbia, and I more than doubt that this parliament has power to regulate trade and commerce in a particular province, because that does not seem to come within the general regulation of trade and commerce confided to us under the British North America Act. If this legislation is under the provision which gives the parliament of Canada control of the inland and coast fisheries, then I do not see how a man who buys salmon and proceeds to can has anything to do with the fishing. It looks to me as if this provision were in the nature of local legislation for British Columbia, as to how people will carry on a particular kind of business in that province.


Mr. SPROULE.: You might as well provide for a license to can chickens.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Under section 91 of the British North America Act we have the right to regulate the fisheries, and we consider that the number of canning establishments has an effect on the preservation of the fish, because the larger the number of such establishments the greater the number of fish caught. In regulating the canneries we regulate to a certain extent the quantity of fish taken. In most cases in British Columbia the canners also cure the fish. It was the unanimous recommendation of the commission that legislation of this kind should be passed in order to preserve the fisheries.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I quite understand that parliament has power to make regulations to preserve the fisheries, but this seems to me to be a somewhat remote method of getting at it. Instead of restricting in some way the quantity of fish to be caught, we take it upon ourselves to prescribe regulations requiring a man to take out a license for a canning establishment, and we actually prescribe that there shall be not more than one such establishment within 50 miles. You are regulating the quantity of fish to be taken by the indirect method of imposing obligations on people who are carrying on businesses in which they handle fish, but w'hich do not seem to me to form any part of the fisheries. If you carried that principle out to its logical conclusion, you might prescribe how many fish stalls there should be on the market in Montreal. It would all work back -to the preservation of the fisheries. It seems to be doubtful whether this is an Act to regulate the fisheries, as you are 266 h
regulating how the fish shall be handled after they have passed out of the fishermens' hands.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The salmon of British Columbia is not like the salmon on the Atlantic coast, a large quantity of which is sold in a fresh condition. The sock-eye salmon has to be canned to be placed on the market. Therefore, to reduce the quantity of fish to be caught, which we consider necessary for the preservation of the fisheries, we think the best method is to regulate the number of canning establishments, so that they will not be more numerous than the fisheries can stand. I may say also that we recently came to an agreement with the British Columbia government by which a certain number of fishing boats could be.licensed in that province. As a result of our researches, we think this is the best way to conserve the fisheries.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As regards the number of boats to do the fishing, that would seem to me to be a p'art of the fisheries.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Canning is just as important.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No doubt it is just as important; but when the Act gave you the control of the sea-coast and inland fisheries, did it also give you the right to control the fish after they were caught, and to determine how many should be canned in a particular province? If it did, it seems to me that it would give you the right to determine how many fish any man should eat, because that would work back to the protection of the fisheries.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose the province, for revenue purposes, imposed a tax of $50 or $100 on each of these establishments, where would you be then?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may inform my hon. friend that Jhey. are imposing a tax to-day.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provincial government might also impose a license.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, there is no doubt that under the British North America Act the provincial government could impose a license, and it is doing so.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to point out to the minister again, as I did the other day, that the effect of this clause is not in any way to preserve the fisheries of British Columbia, that it makes no difference to the fishermen who go out with their nets to catch fish, how many salmon canneries are licensed, that the only effect of this provision is to strengthen the monopoly in the production of this article of food. The regulation providing that no canning establishment may be conducted without a license, coupled

with the policy that no license shall be granted to any person not already in the business, continues in British Columbia the monopoly in the salmon-canning business now established; it does not operate to the preservation of the fish, but does operate to the increase of the profits of the canners at the expense of the fishing population of British Columbia. It creates a condition peculiar to that province, and not prevailing in the state of Washington where there are canners independent of the fishing combine. Now, I appeal to the minister to take further information on this subject if he is not possessed of it. I told him the other day, what seemed to be news to him, that there is in British Columbia an absolute fish combine; that all interests there are joined to establish the price which they will pay the fishermen, and the price at which they will sell, and to make for themselves whatever profits they see fit. I told him that this operates harshly on the fishing population, because they had in many instances to destroy_ a great portion of their catch, and I appeal to him before he puts this Bill through, to make provision in cases of that kind that when the licensed canners would not buy the fish which the fishermen caught, they should have some other market in which to sell them. I reminded him also that he not only prevented them selling their fish on the Canadian side by limiting the number of licenses, but also prescribed an absolute prohibition of export ; so that when a Canadian fisherman has 400 or 500 fish in his boat ready to sell, and no Canadian canner will buy them, and when an American canner a few miles away holds out his hand for those fish, 'the minister says, I prohibit you by force of law taking those fish across the boundary line. That is the condition at present. It does not preserve the fish.	On the
contrary, it makes the cruel enactment that a man with this valuable property in his possession must destroy it because this government will not allow him to sell it in any quarter. It does not preserve the fish, but attacks the livelihood of the fishermen. In this respect the Canadian government is fostering as tight a monopoly in the production of food as any monopoly in the world. In the enactment of this law we confirm in cold blood what was perhaps an accident at the outset. We are providing absolutely that men with valuable property must destroy that property without getting any benefit to themselves, and for the profit of the salmon canners. The minister gives as a reason for this prohibition (hat the salmon canning establishments are also curing establishments; but if that is his only reason his purpose will be served by licensing them as canning establishments simply.	.


Mr TAYLOR (New Westminster).: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There are some which are only curing establishments.
' Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster). There are private individuals who wish to go into the curing busines on their domestic premises, but who are prohibited by this because they cannot pay the license_ fee in competition with the large associations. We find the Minister of Fisheries standing up for the capitalists against the fishermen. The minister should be of all men the first to stand by the poor fisherman who is not able to protect himself. As I see no good that can result from the prohibition of curing salmon without a special license, but much evil, and as, so far as the canners are concerned, every good purpose is served by licensing their establishments as canneries, I move that the words ' or salmon curing establishments * be struck out of the section.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend's statement with regard to the combine is not at all well founded.


James Davis Taylor: In what respect is it not?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Because there are several establishments. Take the Fraser river for example, Some are under the control of the British Columbia Packers Association, but there are also several independent concerns who are competing with the larger establishments, and doing fairly well.


James Davis Taylor: Will the hon. minister give the names of any of these concerns?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, we must have in the department the names of those independent concerns. My hon. friend himself said the other day that there were some.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to know the names of any which the minister has in his mind.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am giving the hon. gentleman himself as an authority because the other day he said that there were besides the British Columbia Packers Association some independent concerns. He claimed, however, that most of those independent concerns, and the British Columbia Packers' Association had a sort of board of trade or association like the Manufacturers Association,' dealing with their interests generally. I do not suppose that any one would say that the manufacturers are a monopoly because they are members of an association called the Canadian Manufacturers Association. I understand that, so far as the Fraser river canneries are concerned, there is a large company, and some other independent companies which have absolutely independent management,

and I do not see why we should call them a monopoly. I may say also that we are not prevented by this legislation from issuing a license to any other company, or association which shows its ability to carry on a curing or canning establishment. Quite the reverse. My hon. friend said the other day that it was pretty evident there was a combine regulating the prices to be paid to the fishermen. Of course if there were any such close combine among the canners, the department would be anxious to come to the rescue of the fishermen, and give them or give any other association a license. We are taking the power to grant licenses simply in order to control more effectively those cannery establishments. To-day we have no control over them. I would be very glad to refuse a license to any company which would go into a combine to the injury of the fishermen. So that instead of opposing this legislation, my hon. friend, who has the interests of the fishermen at heart, should help the government to have it put on the statutes. If there be no legislation at all, what can be done to prevent those men combining amongst themselves? There are, of course, some general laws, but they could not be applied so effectively as this legislation. I might remind my hon. friend that some years ago we passed a law obliging manufacturers to take out a license, and providing that if they should combine to prevent the freedom of trade, we could refuse them licenses. In like manner if those canners should combine for the purpose of depriving the fishermen of their honest, fair profit, it would be the duty of the government to refuse them licenses; and when those people see that they might be deprived of their licenses, they will be careful about forming any such combine.


James Davis Taylor: What advice would the minister give now to a fisherman-and this is not a hypothetical case-who catches five or six hundred fish and brings them down to the cannery wharf, and finds a notice put up by the licensed canners to the effect that the limit to-day is 200 fish? What is the fisherman to do with the other three or four hundred?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In such a case, these men should immediately apply for a license and they will get it.


James Davis Taylor: No doubt, the minister means that. But I would point out to him that it takes perhaps six or seven months at the shortest to get the machinery for a salmon cannery, and the life of the salmon after it is caught is about one day. Therefore, it is simply impossible for the man who brings his six hundred fish to the salmon cannery and finds all but 200 of them left on his hands
to secure relief by applying for a license to start a cannery. I wish to tell the minister that the effect of this limitation is not to preserve the fish but to make it necessary that a large quantity of fish must be absolutely destroyed. His combine of canners refuse to buy the fish, the minister will not license any other canners, nor will he permit the export of the fish to the canners on the American side who are perfectly willing to buy these fish at any time. The fishermen can get absolutely no relief from the minister. He protects the combine at every point but refuses to protect the fisherman. I do not think the minister understands the situation. I think if he were on the ground and saw, as I have seen over and over again, large quantities- of as fine fish as ever were caught dumped into the river, he would hesitate little about making the necessary regulations. I can assure the minister the effect of these regulations is absolutely cruel to the fishermen of the Fraser, and that 'they do not operate to preserve the fish but rather to destroy them.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) ought to be fair and state to the House why it is that, occasionally, there is a larger catch of fish than can be handled in one day. He has stated that he has seen fishermen come in with four or five hundred fish of which the cannery man would take only one hundred and the other three or four hundred would have to be dumped into the river. I believe it is a fact that on several occasions during the big runs such conditions have existed, because the catch for the day, or for several days in succession, was so great that the canneries could not possibly handle the fish during the twenty-four hours or so which elapse before they spoil. Therefore it was that the surplus had to be dumped into the river. That has occurred on the Fraser during abnor mal runs in a big year. It is understood that the big run comes once in four years But in the last fourth year the run was not so large as to bring about these conditions, while in the ordinary years there are not enough fish to keep the canneries operating. Consequently no new canneries have started. The hon. member (Mr. Taylor) says the policy of the department is to keep down the number of canneries, and so it brings about a condition of monopoly. As a matter of fact there have been no applications for canneries on the Fraser river for a number of years. I am quite sure that if my hon. friend or any of his friends want a license for a cannery on the river, the minister will give the subject his best consideration. The hon. gentleman knows that many canneries are not operated, including some owned by

the British Columbia Packers. They have been closed down. That has been true for a number of years. But it was unfair to convey the impression to the House that a large number of fish are being dumped into the river as a consequence of the policy of the department in limiting the number of canneries. Every person who has visited the canneries knows that ordinarily, in every fourth year the run is so great that the canneries cannot pack all the fish, and, therefore, take a certain number from each fisherman, which is fair. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor, New Westminster) said something about the prohibition of the export of salmon taken by British Columbia fishermen

that the fishermen are not permitted to sell them to the cannery men on the American side, which would mean the cannery men on the Sound. But that would operate two ways. If the Fraser river fish caught by Canadian fishermen can be taken over and sold to the American cannery men-they would only have a distance of twenty miles or so to go-then the salmon caught in enormous quantities in the traps on the American side of the line should be permitted to come into British Columbia canneries to be canned there. The hon. gentleman knows that th4 prohibition of the export of fish for that purpose on the Fraser, and the prohibition of the importation of fish to the canneries of that river was agreed to a number of years ago. I believe it is more in the interest of the Fraser fishermen than it is of the Fraser river cannery men. The cannery men especially would be anxious to have it removed, so that they could go down to the traps across the line and buy all the fish they want. The hon. gentleman says these fish are thrown away. That is not always the case. I know, that as a matter of fact, large quantities of fish-I think a whole steamer load-was taken from the Fraser river to a northern cannery to be canned. The hon. gentleman says there is a monopoly among the cannery men of British Columbia. I do not believe there is.
On the Fraser river, there is a combination of cannery men during the season which regulates, as far as the cannervmen can regulate, the price to be paid for fish. That may be a combination, no doubt it is to that extent. But the Fraser river is not the only fishing district in British Columbia; there are more canneries outside of the Fraser than on the Fraser, and there are very many independent cannery men who are not in the British Columbia Packers, which is a group of canners working as one company. There is the Bell-Irving Co., a large, 'strong company, outside the British Columbia Packers' Co. In the Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
north you have the Wallace Bros., absolutely independent of the British Columbia Packers. Then there is Henry Doyle, J. H. Todd & Son, the original cannery men of the province. These men are not in the British Columbia Packers; they are scattered over the coast from Alaska to the boundary line of the United States, and it is idle to say there is a combination that is operating to the disadvantage of the fishermen or to the enhancement of the price of such a food product as fish. Of course most of our fish is sold in Europe, the consumption in Canada is very small, and the surplus of the United States goes to the English market, where we have to meet it in competition. There is no doubt that the cannery men on the Fraser get together and agree what price they will pay the fishermen for their fish. The price may start at 10 cents, and if it is a scarce year prices go up to 25 cents per salmon, according to the abundance or scarcity of the fish. The cannery men agree that they will pay a uniform price. To that extent there is a combination and that operates against the fishermen. On the other hand, the fishermen combine and say; We will not sell ibelow a certain price. As a matter of fact, the fishermen and the cannery men agree that a fair price shall be paid; in scarce years a high price and in plentiful years a low price. I would suggest that in order not to interfere with the fisherman who wants to cure fish, the words ' for commercial purposes ' should be inserted after ' British Columbia,' so that small curing establishments would not be included as curing establishments and be required to pay the license fee of $50.


James Davis Taylor: I have no fault to find with the conclusion at which the minister has arrived, but I must take exception to many of the statements he made on his way to (hat conclusion. I have no objection to curing establishments for commercial purposes being licensed and taxed in this way, but I have very serious objection to what has occurred in the past, that is individual fishermen desiring to cure on a modest scale being refused permission to do so unless they took out a license and paid the same fee as a cannery with a large pack. The minister is far from being posted on the condition of the salmon industry in British Columbia, evidently he has given very little attention to it. I would suggest to him that it is not fair to those who are posted upon the salmon canning industry that he, with his prestige as a minister, should in this House contradict the testimony founded on facts which we are in a position to give. No one stated in this House, what he is at such pains to controvert, that the

British Columbia Packers' Association control the industry in British Columbia or on the Fraser river. Five or six times the minister has made the statement that the British Columbia Packers are not the only persons in the industry in British Columbia. I have never heard any one say they were, in fact in the discussion the othex day in the minister's absence that fact "was made quite plain to every person here. There are on the Fraser river, for instance, three important interests, the British Columbia Packers Association, the A. B. C. Canners Association, the St. Mungo Cannery, and one or two others, all . entirely distinct as to ownership and management, but all merged into one absolute combine as to the price to be paid for fish, and as to the price at which they will sell their product. The minister, when enlightening the committee just now, knew about the existence of these three separate associations of canners; evidently he did not know that these three were combined to fix buying and selling prices. In the absence of that knowledge, it is unfair to come to the House and say that no combine exists. Such a combine does exist, not sub rosa, not secretly, but openly; the combination has a public office and a public secretary; it issues to the press as well as to the members of the association day by day and week by week, during the canning season, its reports. We all know of its existence and it amazes me that the minister should say that no such combination exists. I must assume he does it innocently, I believe he does it unintentionally, but it is dangerous for him out of the mass of his misinformation or lack of information to contradict statements made to this committee by way of information. It is idle for the minister to say there is no destruction of fish. We on the scene, on the Fraser river, knows that this goes on all the time, and that the fishermen are absolutely helpless in the face of it. There is no notice given in advance of any limitation to be placed by the canners on the purchase of fish. The fishermen are sent out by the canners to catch all the fish they can get. They go to work at dark, they remain fishing until dawn; they may be rewarded with several hundred fish, and the first intimation they have that they are not to be paid for all their catch is when they arrive at the cannery wharf and see a notice that only a limited quantity of fish, it may be 100 or 200, or any other number arbitrarily fixed, will be bought by that cannery. I say to the minister and his colleague from British Columbia that any fisherman arriving at a wharf who is confronted by that notice has absolutely no recourse.


William Templeman: Does that limitation of the number of fish apply to every year, or is ii only occasional?


James Davis Taylor: The limitation as to the number of fish is put up by the cannery owners at any moment when it suits their purpose to put it up, and that is where the hardship comes in, that there is no certainty on the part of any fisherman when he catches fish that he will have any market for them. The minister does not seem to know that American fish from traps are imported.
At six o'clock, Committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 2,


James Davis Taylor: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose, I was pointing out a few inaccuracies in the statement, then just made, by the minister from British Columbia. Amongst other matters the minister referred to the fact that under certain conditions fish caught in the traps on the American side might be imported into British Columbia. The minister referred to this possible importation of trap-caught fish as something to be discouraged at all hazards. It so happens that such fish have all along been imported, are every season imported and are canned in the canneries on the Fraser river. This is a sample of how extensive was the knowledge brought to bear on this subject by the minister who undertook to tell the committee that I was astray on the information that I handed out. Under*the law as it has stood the fishermen are absolutely prohibited from selling their fish on the American side. They are prohibited from exporting it a! all, but the canners have not been prohibited from importing fish. Upon bringing it into the country, it is true, they pay a duty, but as they export the greater part of their product, that duty, minus a very small charge for office fees, is always refunded to them, so that the transaction costs them nothing more than putting up a cheque from the time they bring the fish into the country until the time they export it. The minister from British Columbia, when he mentioned this as something wdiieh at all hazards should be prohibited, overlooked the fact that he is giving his warm, enthusiastic, cordial approval to the arrangement which has been malde at Washington whereby that which he says should not be brought into the country at all, is to be admitted, not of our own volition, but is to be admitted

without any right on our part to interfere in any way with the process under the terms of this treaty, and is to be admitted free of duty. I would ask the minister what he thinks of that and upon what ground he can justify the attitude which he took here to-day of admiration for what he thought was the prohibition of the importation of that fish for canning with his attitude as a member of the government in bringing into effect 'a 'solemn bargain made with the authorities at Washington, whereby we are compelled to admit fish and have no means of keeping it out of our country unless we abro gate that arrangement.
There is another matter as to which I would like to say a word. It was the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, I think, who referred to this. In answer to my objection that under the regulations as they stand, fishermen are often compelled to destroy their fish, because the canners on the Fraser river have not the capacity to can them and put a limit on the catch, the minister reminded me that these fish are often taken on scows to the Skeena river, there to be canned, and he instanced this as a proof that there is no limitation upon the catch such as I have suggested. The minister omitted to state what is the fact, that when the fish are so bought for transportation to the Skeena river, they are bought at a greatly reduced price, so that the canner gets just as much profit from canning on the Skeena as he would if he canned on the Fraser, but the unfortunate fisherman gets a half or less price compared with that which he would get if there were facilities for canning on the Fraser river. I would like to direct his attention also to a circumstance connected with the restriction permitting only a limited number of licences to be issued to the canners, because he will see that the effect of that supposed precaution on his part for the preservation of the fishery is altogether destroyed so long as persons having a license to can on the Fraser are permitted to take a whole scow load of fish away from that district and can them at far distant places when their licenses were only supposed to apply to fish canned on the Fraser. I would like to point out to the minister also, to show how delusive is the idea that the catch of fish is limited by the number of licenses issued, that canneries vary a great deal in capacity, that under this Act, as I understand it- he may correct me if I am wrong-a cannery of the largest, capacity pays the same license as a cannery of the most limited capacity, and that the process of enlarging canneries is so simple that an establishment that has but one unit this year may, next season, consist of two, three, or Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).
four units under the same control. Under the regulations now in force, if we have twelve canneries this year of one unit capacity each, we may have next year, under the same license, twelve canneries of four units each, or forty-eight units, making four times the quantity of fish that they may can, and yet the minister states that he is preventing the fish from being caught by prescribing that only the twelve present holders of licenses shall have licenses next year. I ask him what difference it makes to the fish whether we have twelve canneries of four units each or forty eight canneries of ;one unit each. jThe capacity would be precisely the same, but the monopoly created by the minister under the present regulations would be entirely destroyed. I think the time is opportune now, when the Bill is before us, for the minister to give this his serious consideration, so that when the fishermen complain, this year or next year, of being unable to sell their fish, they will not be told that an unconsidered provision of the law has brought about this condition, because here we have the whole subject up for review, the minister is fully informed of the present working of his Act, he has abundant opportunity now to correct the evil, he has noticed it and not more than three or four minutes would be required to remove all these disabilities to which I have referred.


William Templeman: The argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor, New Westminster), has only one object and that is to establish the fact-if it were a fact-that in some manner or other the department has, by its enactments and regulations, created a monopoly in the fishing industry in British Columbia. I desire to say that is not correct at all. The hon. gentleman stated that all the proprietors of the canneries in British Columbia were in what is known as the British Columbia Canners Association.


James Davis Taylor: I have heard that of the British Columbia Canners' Association, and I certainly could not have said so.


William Templeman: The Fraser River Canners' Association was merged in whit is known as the British , Columbia Canners' Association which includes probably one-half of the canners in the province of British Columbia. On the. Fraser river where twelve canneries operated last year, eight of these canneries were in the British Columbia Canners' Association, and four were not. The names of the independent canners are:	Todd and Sons, Lee Company, Great West Packing Company, and Glen Rose Packing Company. There were twelve canneries operating on the Fraser

river, but about three times that number must have closed up because there was not fish enough to go round and probably most of these canneries are owned by the firms who are now operating canneries, particularly the British Columbia Packers. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor, New Westminster) has tried to establish the fact that the canners of British Columbia were combined in an association to regulate the price they shall buy the fish for, and the price they shall sell the fish at. That is not correct, inasmuch as of the 39 canneries that operated in British Columbia last year, only 20 were members of the British Columbia Canners' Association, and 19 were independent or outside the association. The report I have here comes from the secretary of the British Columbia Canners' Association, and is authoritative, and it shows that on the Skeena river-my hon. friend confines his attention to the Fraser river, but that is not the whole of the fishing industry in British Columbia by any means -on the Skeena river there are four members of the association, and four who are not, the independent canners toeing Todd and Sons, Kildala Packing Company, Wallace Brothers, Limited, and the Skeena River Commercial Company. At Rivers Inlet, there are three members of the association, and three who are not, the latter being Todd and Sons, Kildala Packing Company, Strathcona Packing Company. At Naas river two are members of the association, and two are not; in the outlying districts there are three members of the Canners' Association, and six outside or independent. The fact is, therefore, that one-half of the canners operating in British Columbia are not members of this so-called combine. But as a matter of fact the British Columbia Canners' Association is not a combine in the ordinary sense. As I understand it they are organized largely for the purpose of giving attention to the fishery regulations, keeping in touch with the Department of Fisheries with regard to the fishing regulations, and generally for looking after their own interests. It is true, as my hon. friend says, that at the opening of the fishing season the cannery men regulate if they can the price they are going to pay for the fish during the year, but on the other hand the fishermen who have a union, get together and try to keep the price at a higher rate, and by mutual concession the price is fixed. If the fish are plentiful the price is low, probably ten cents per fish, and if the fish are very scarce the price is high. I have known it to be 25 cents per fish, but I am not very well informed as to the prices. There is no evidence further than I have explained, of a combine to regulate the price paid. The remarks of my hon. friend appply to the Fraser river a little more than
to the other districts. On the northern rivers it is true that more Japanese and Indians are engaged, in the fishing industry than on the Fraser river where more white men are employed. With respect to the importation of fish for canning purposes, I am aware that some years ago it was a common thing for canners south of the boundary to come into Canadian waters and buy the fish caught on the Canadian side. That was objected to because some of the fishermen were under agreement to sell the fish to our own canners, and it was also undesirable that fish caught in Canadian -waters should be taken south of the line to bd canned in American canneries and form a portion of their pack. On the other hand some of our cannery men have gone south of the boundary line when fish were scarce in Canadian waters, and bought large qtfantities from the American traps and canned them at their canneries. That was a mutual interchange of fish. Some years ago the department prohibited the importation of fish from the American traps to be canned in our canneries; the Canadian fishermen having objected to the competition. On the other hand, our fishermen claimed the right to sell their fish to the Americans, if they could get a better price than they were getting from the Canadian canners. After a while the practice was stopped and there was no more selling of Canadian fish caught toy Canadian fishermen to be canned in the American canneries. It is quite true that Canadian cannery men can go south of the boundary and buy all the fish they like and pay one cent a pound duty, and bring them to the canneries, and they can export them and probably get a rebate of the duty paid, although my information is that there is nothing of that kind done at the present time. As a matter of fact considering the catch of fish south of the boundary line there is none to sell to the Canadian canneries. If my information is correct that sort of importation of fish for canning purposes has not occurred for years. Tn my view our fish ought to be canned in our own country, and my friend -will admit that if we permit our canners to go to the American traps and buy fish to can in Canadian canneries it would be competing with the catch of the Canadian fishermen and lowering the price of their fish. But, if our cannery men can buy fish from the American traps and bring them into Canada, and pay one cent a pound duty and export that fish and get a rebate of the amount of the duty. I would say to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that our fishermen ought to be treated equally favourably and be given the advantage of selling their fish to American canners. I do not think the practice prevails at all,

and I think my hon. friend -will have some difficulty in establishing that fact.


James Davis Taylor: 1 think I made it abundantly plain that 1 was speaking for the fishermen of my riding, who are the fishermen on the Fraser river, and the Minister of Fisheries seems to be engaged in the rather dubious occupation of drawing a herring across this salmon trail. I made no reference to the fisheries on the Skeena river, which are entirely different from those on the Fraser. The .seasons are different, the prices are different, the classes of people employed are different, the methods of the canneries are different. The two fisheries are entirely distinct. The canners on the Fraser river are combined under the name of the Fraser River Canners' Association, or \vhatever modification of that, name has been recently made, as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries told me the other day was the case. The combine is as tight now as it ever was, and was equally so last season. The usual notice was issued at the beginning of the season by all ttie canners that the canners of the Fraser river would pay such prices for fish, and the same prices prevailed in all the canneries on the Fraser river last season. There is a fish cannery combine, and if the minister does not know about it, I would advise him to pay due attention to the situation there, and the fact will be very soon forced upon his attention. It is nothing to the fishermen on the Fraser river that some of the operators of traps on the coast of Vancouver Island are not in the combine; neither is it anvthing to them that the conditions are different on the Skeena river. We are concerned about the combine on the Fraser river, and what we ask of the minister is. not that he shall issue more licenses on the Skeena river or allow more traps on the coast of Vancouver Island, but ti.at if any of our interests on the Fraser river desire to open a new cannery, they may be permitted to get a license.


William Templeman: May I ask my hon. friend if he knows of any person on the Fraser river or anywhere else who desires to establish another cannery on the Fraser river?


James Davis Taylor: Yes, I have known of it, and when they have gone to the Fisheries office at New Westminster and made the preliminary inquiries-because you cannot establish a cannery in a day just as you buy a hat-they have been told that the decision of the department was that no new licenses should be issued.


William Templeman: 


William Templeman: I want to say, then, to my hon. friend that if any decent company wants to establish another cannery on the Fraser river, and makes application to the department for a license, it will have my strong commendation, and I have the word of my hon. friend the minister that he will give it fair consideration.


James Davis Taylor: Am I to understand that the explanation of all these large words is that there is to be free trade in canning licenses?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: What my hon. friend is afraid of, I understand, is monopoly. He is afraid that this legislation is going to bring monopoly. I may tell him that it is quite the reverse. There may be to-day monopoly to a certain extent, though there is not practically, because, as has been stated by my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue, there are on the Fraser river a certain number of canners who are outside and independent of the Association. These companies have formed an association for the purpose of approaching the government and discussing the various questions affecting the fisheries generally, just as we have in all parts of the country various persons engaged in the same trade who have formed an association for the purpose of discussing their mutual interests. That does not mean that they have formed a monopoly. Nobody would say that all the members of the Manufacturers' Association should be called monopolists. I may say to my hon. friend that if there are some people who want a license, and who cannot get justice from the existing canners, they will be welcome; and if on any occasion it is proven that justice has not been rendered to the fishermen, and those fishermen want to form an association and establish a cannery, they will be welcome to a license. The legislation we are proposing to-day is to kill any monopoly. If the canners do not render justice to the fishermen, why should we be called upon to renew their licenses? To-day the ordinary rules of trade are regulating these canneries; there may be a large number or a small number; but in future every cannery will have to come to the government for a license; and if it is found that they do not treat the fishermen fairly and equitably, we shall have an opportunity to force them to render justice. My hon. friend, who claims to be a friend of the fishermen, should welcome this legislation as being in the right direction.


James Davis Taylor: The hon. minister says that if cofnplaint were made against the present canners, he would not renew their licenses. Suppose the fishermen made complaint against all the pre-

sent canners, and the minister refused to rene'w their licensee, how much fetter off would the fishermen be? They would be much worse off. What the fishermen want is not that the minister should interfere with the canners, but that he should cease interfering with other people. Then they will toe able to keep the canners straight without the minister's intervention. If the canners ill-use the fishermen this year, and the fishermen organize next year to meet the conditions, the canners, with their powerful combination and unlimited capital will so alter the conditions next year as to freeze out the new people, and when they are frozen out, the canners will revert to the old conditions. That is the experience with all combinations of that kind. I would like to point out how weak is the minister's comparison with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, because there is no license or any other condition required before an investor can have a factory, and create the conditions which entitle him to become a member of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. There is absolute free trade in factories. All the manufacturers do not belong to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and if any outside investor sees a chance of engaging in a business now controlled by any person in that association, he is at perfect liberty to do so.
Whereas in the ease of the fisheries, no person ambitious to go into that business can do so unless he has a license from the minister; and for years it has been the policy of the minister to refuse a license to any one outside of those already engaged in the industry. He refers to the fact that many canneries on the Fraser are idle. But *why are they idle? Because to create a monopoly, all the canneries on that river which could be purchased, were purchased by the British Columbia Packers' Association. Speaking from memory they purchased about fifty canneries and immediately closed about thirty of them. In New Westminster we had several cannery sites held under long leases from the city, but unfortunately the city did not foresee the possibility of outside capital coming in and buying out those concerns for the purpose of closing them. The British Columbia Packers' Association did close those canneries and made a condition in re-leasing the property that no canneries should be established on it. That was a profitable move from the standpoint of the association, but it did great injustice to the fishermen on the Fraser and the city of New Westminster. The hon. minister loses sight of the fact that all those interests are combined when there is question of fixing the price which will be paid the fishermen for their fish. He knows that in the last big
year, when our fishermen might have expected to make a profitable harvest, the price of salmon on the Canadian side was exactly one half of the price which the same people were paying on the American side for identical salmon at the same time. When we got 10 cents per fish, the American fishermen got 20 cents; and when we got 124 cents' per fish, the American fishermen got 25 cents. My hon. friend's department alone is responsible for this condition, and it is a condition which we have only this opportunity of amending before the next big run is on.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am extremely sorry to find that my hon. friend still reiterates the statement that there is a combine in British Columbia, and that the fishermen are not well treated. If there be a combine, how does he account for the fact that there are several men in the business who are not in the association, but are absolutely independent of it? Besides, how is it that during the last three years no one applied for a license for the opening of any new cannery? Several establishments have been closed and my hon. friend says they were closed for the purpose of monopoly. That is contrary to the information we have in the department. The information we have is that these establishments were closed because they did not pay. But if other people wanted to start canneries, why did they not apply for a license? Within the last three years, not one has applied for a license.


James Davis Taylor: My information is to the contrary.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is the information I have from the officers of the department.


James Davis Taylor: The local inspector does not necessarily report applications for licenses. He has to inform prospective applicants that there is no use in his doing so because he has orders from the minister that no licenses are to be given.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If the inspector had an application he would send it to the department. The inspector out there is a very efficient man, who would not refuse a license without referring the application to the department.


James Davis Taylor: Is it not a fact that the minister notified the inspector that no new licenses were to be issued?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, we never gave any notification to that effect.


James Davis Taylor: I certainly was under that impression. That was stated in this House last year in the course

of the session and was not contradicted by the minister.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is not the information I have from the Acting Superintendent of Fisheries. He says that he never gave such instructions.


James Davis Taylor: If the minister will say that we shall have free trade in fishing licenses in the future, and that he will give a license to any one who wants to establish a cannery, that will be satisfactory.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I shall be very glad to consider any application for a license. So far we have never had any.


James Davis Taylor: The minister has never refused an application?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


James Davis Taylor: Why, then, will my hon. friend not remove this harmful impression by saying that he will not refuse a license in any case without some good reason?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly any man who applies for a license and proves that it is necessary such a license should be given, will get it.


James Davis Taylor: But how can any one prove it is necessary? How can any one tell what the future catch will be? We do not know what fish may be caught. It is an absolutely impossible premise which the minister lays down, and that justifies my suggestion that the reason he will not promise free trade in licenses is because he does not intend to grant new licenses.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I can assure my hon. friend that if he has any one who wants a license, let him make the application and it will be duly considered; and if he makes out a good case the license will be granted.


James Davis Taylor: I am not here as the advocate of any special privilege or as an applicant for a special privilege for any one. I am speaking for the whole public and maintaining the rights of the fishermen to free trade in salmon licenses.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The amendment is that the words ' Or salmon curing ' be struck out of subsection 23a of section 2.
Amendment negatived.


James Davis Taylor: The hon. minister from British Columbia (Mr. Templeman) suggested an amendment.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I move to add after the words ' British Columbia ' the words ' for Mr. TAYLOR.
commercial purposes ' to subsection 23a of section 2.


James Davis Taylor: Does the minister intend to extend this system to the curing of other varieties of fish, and to other , parts of Canada than British Columbia?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is not the intention now.


Mr. JAMESON.: That is not the intention under this Bill, but let us understand whether, this principle having been adopted by this parliament, the minister will, later on, introduce legislation w'hich. would enable him to place under license any fish curing establishment in any part of Canada, no matter what variety of fish it might handle or what conditions had prevailed up to that time in regard to them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not the intention of the department now to make any change of that kind.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
On section 3-amending section 36-annual fee for lobster cannery license.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This clause is inserted as a result of the recommendation last year of the Committee on Marine and Fisheries.


Clarence Jameson: What protests have been received by the department in respect to any of the recommendations made by the Committee on Marine and Fisheries last year concerning the lobster fishery? I understand from statements in the press that protests ""have been made against certain of the recommendations, and, indeed, against some of the regulations framed under the recommendations, more especially that relating to the standard trap. It seems to me, inasmuch as that committee made this report, all the suggestions they did make were to be accepted in their entirety, and any suggestion which they made had reference one to the other. So, if it is not the intention of the department to enforce the matter of standard traps, it seems to me questionable whether it would be the intention of the committee that these other provisions, especially the increase in regard to the license fee should be enforced.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: So far as the change proposed in this section is concerned I believe mo protest has come from any person or company. Some protests were made concerning the date at which we should put in force the regulations concerning the traps. My hon. friend will remember that these questions came up at the opening of this session. (I was going to

say last session, because we have already 6pent some days upon this matter.) I thought I could not deal with these protests without having the matter referred to the Committee on Marine and Fisheries, as all the regulations that had been adopted were adopted upon the recommendation of the committee. Consequently, this complaint was referred to the committee. But the committee recommended -I think unanimously, but at any rate by a large majority-that the change asked for in the date of the coming into force of the regulations should be adopted.. This Teport was made to the House, and as a Tesult of that report I had the regulations amended to cover the recommendations of the committee. Since then I do not remember any complaint made to the department with regard to these recommendations. Perhaps I should except Prince Edward Island, where they have been asking for extensions. But we thought it advisable not to make extensions. The matter seems to be giving satisfaction now..


Clarence Jameson: My recollection of the newspaper Teport I saw is that the legislature of Prince Edward Island had passed a resolution condemning in toto the regulation with Tegard to the standard trap and asking that it be rescinded. To be sure, there can be no active resistance to - that regulation at the present time, because, if my memory serves me the regulation as to standard traps is held in abeyance until December 31, 1912. It may be that when that time arrives parliament, or the minister may see fit to either annul the regulation or extend it -again indefinitely. If that were done, it seems to me, these other provisions when they were recommended by the committee, were contemplated to come into force simultaneously with the provision regarding the standard trap, might be left out. I would "like the minister to state whether the legislature of Prince Edward Island has made a request that the regulation affecting the standard trap should be abolished altogether.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I was under the impression that the objection made by the legislature of Prince Edward Island was simply concerning the time limit. It is some time since I'read that. But, whether it referred to one or to the other, we thought as that was the deliberate judgment of the committee, we should not make any more changes, and so it will come into force at the time specified in the regulations,


Clarence Jameson: The minister will remember that when the additional fee was proposed to be placed on the canners of
lobsters, it was with the understanding that the revenue derived would be used for the protection of the fisheries. Now, we have this condition of affairs as a result of the postponement of the enforcement of the standard trap regulation-that there is no protection necessary, so far as preventing the taking of small lobsters is concerned. There is, as a matter of fact, no size limit to-day, generally speaking. Therefore, there is nothing to protect in that sense, and it seems unfortunate that the canners of these fish should be penalized by this additional fee when the revenue is not required for the protection of the fisheries.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend must remember that, in the regulations passed, it was provided that the standard trap would have to be made from January 1 last. So, the recommendations aTe now in force with regard to the new traps which are being made and so reasons exist for enforcing these regulations to ensure that the new traps are made according to the regulations.


Clarence Jameson: I understand then from that what the minister has said he will see to it that the regulations affecting the standard trap are enforced from now on, so far as the new traps are concerned.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, certainly.


Clarence Jameson: And that after December 31, 1912, that regulation will be enforced with respect to any of the old traps which may be still in existence.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Precisely.


Clarence Jameson: Is the minister taking any steps to patrol the maritime provinces coast waters, for the purpose of affording additional protection to the lobster fisheries?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, we are taking steps in that direction, and will likely ask for a vote of the necessary money.
On section 4: furnishing statistics to the department,


Clarence Jameson: Has it been the custom of people operating these canning factories to report the number of traps which they fish? -


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, we have been receiving reports.	#


Clarence Jameson: I didtpnot know that many operated the traps; in most cases they operate the factories and purchase their fish.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have had reports

L
844-}
On section 5: keeping of lobster pounds.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is a new section to provide that pounds may he established in which lobsters caught during the open season may be placed and sold during the close season. Under the existing law it is illegal to be in possession of lobsters during the close season. This clause worked detrimentally to the interests of our fishermen, and as our close season occurs at a time when lobsters would bring a very high price on the American market, the American fishermen, having no close season, enjoy a great advantage in that market over the Canadian fishermen. Owners of these pounds may sell lobsters which they have caught during the open season, to American fishermen. This traffic must be surrounded with every precaution to avoid breaches of the law, and only after great hesitation and repeated requests have the department adopted this policy. I hone this policy will commend itself to the favourable consideration of parliament and that by it we can give a further advantage to the lobster fishermen.


Clarence Jameson: On whose recommendation is this being done?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On the recommendation of the officers of the department, and at the request of a great number of people who have asked for this year after year.


Clarence Jameson: How many pounds is it proposed to license?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As many as are applied for.


Clarence Jameson: Will any assistance be given by the government towards the. establishment of pounds?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No provision is made in that respect. It is expected the revenue the owner will get by selling his lobsters in this way will compensate him for the expense incurred.


Clarence Jameson: What will be the probable cost of construction?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That will vary according to the location, in many cases it will be very slight.


Clarence Jameson: What would the minister consider a large cost or a small cost?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It depends, on the location of the, pound. There are places where pounds are naturally established, and only some furtljr structures of small account are requiAl. 11
Mr. JAMESONr' .'A? I understand, any person applying f<fr a license will, on payment of an annual license fee of $75. be entitled to receive a license to keep a pound. I agree with the minister's state-Mr. BRODEUR
ment that in some places the cost of construction of these pounds may be comparatively small, tout such cases will be very few, comparatively speaking. In eastern Nova Scotia a pound was established some years ago, and the gentleman who operated it, informed me that although the situation lent itself naturally to the purpose, the cost of constructing and maintaining it was very considerable. The profit from its operation was not he stated very extensive, although, as I understand, he was receiving from the government a very respectable sum for handling seed lobsters. I know there is another place, in the county of Digtoy, where, -some years ago, there was a pound in operation for the keeping of these lobsters during the close season. I am informed that it cost something like $10,000 to $12,000 to fit that up for the business, although the location was naturally one quite appropriate for the purpose.
But, the feature which presents itself most forcibly to my mind is that there are comparatively few places along our coasts which naturally lend themselves to the purpose which this regulation makes provision for, and that consequently there will be comparatively few people who will be able to avail themselves of the advantages of this amendment to the Act. That means then, in effect, that this particular business will, in different localities, become in the nature of a monopoly. There is, of course, another feature to it, and that is that the American palate is to be satisfied and gratified during the Canadian close season, while the poor Canadian will not be permitted to gratify his appetite, and he, as I understood the minister, will have to forego his dish of lobsters, during some months in the year. If the minister does not propose to make any relaxation with regard to the regulation in that respect it would not be lawful for a person operating a pound to sell these lobsters in the Cana-adian market during the close season, as he is only permitted to sell for use out-, side of Canada. The minister, during the discussion which we had some days ago on the subject of the lobster fishery, stated that it was possible for Americans and Canadians to fish for lobsters during the Canadian close season, outside of the three mile limit along the Canadian coast, and sell them in the American market, although they could not at the same time sell them in the Canadian market. It would seem to me that when we admit that that condition is possible, and when we erect these pounds along the coast, whether there be many or few, these two things working together will lend themselves to the violation of the law. The minister knows that there is a very pressing need for the enforcement of a close season, and that with-

out the enforcement of a close season the lobster fishery, if it does not cease to exist, will certainly decline seriously. Indeed, there are many people who think that under existing circumstances the lobster fishery will become depleted, and be a thing of the past before very long. But, it seems to me that there are two dangerous features in connection with this matter. One is that it is bound to create a monopoly in different localities because of the very great expense to which it will be necessary to go to provide these pounds, make them satisfactory, make them safe, make them so that the lobsters can be kept in a healthy and wholesome condition; the other is that where you have these lobsters taken in the open season available to he put in the pounds by the person who is operating or controlling it, you are open to the risk of having lobsters taken outside of the three mile limit, or inside of the three mile limit in all probability, during the close season, and put into that pound surreptitiously. So that, there are these two features which are going to be evident in the operation of this Act when it goes into effect.
I should think that it would be very wise on the part of the minister to have some information, definite and satisfactory, as to the probable cost of the construction of these pounds, and of their maintenance, because, if any person makes application to the department, as I understand it, and that application has the approval of the fishery officer of the department, I take it that the department would be, under ordinary circumstances, in dutv bound to issue a license. May I ask the minister whether the department would in every case issue a license to any one applying for it who would be willing to pay the fee?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The second objection which my hon. friend has mentioned against this policy


Clarence Jameson: I* had not concluded my remarks.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Oh, I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


Clarence Jameson: Would the minister be
good enough to state if the department will grant a license in any case when an application is made for it?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly.


Clarence Jameson: That, it seems to me, is going to be the difficulty. Here you have a large number of people holding licenses from the department, each one of whom w-ould be entitled to be in possession of lobsters during the close season. While I do not think there are a great many pounds, bona tide, which wmuld actually be established, at the same time, the holding of these licenses would, on the face of it, give to the persons possessing them a legal right to be in possession of lobsters during the close season, and there would 'be a very serious danger of lobsters being taken during the close season under these licenses, although, the licenses, of course, would not be for that purpose, but merely for the purpose of enabling them to keep lobsters taken during the open season tn their possession, and to dispose of them outside of Canada during the close season. I merely bring these matters to the attention of the minister because he has regulations intended to protect the lobster fishery, which is a declining fishery, but which is a very valuable one. These suggestions may perhaps be along the lines 'which he has himself considered, and per-hans he would give to the committee his opinion with regard to these different matters.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Jameson) that the fear which he entertains with regard to the possibility of violating the regulations in establishing these pounds has been engaging the very serious consideration of the department for many years, I was telling the committee a few moments ago that years ago we had applications from a number of people asking for the privileges which are now authorized to be given by the legislation under consideration. The department was afraid, as my hon. friend is, that there might be some violation of the regulations, that it would be inciting the people to violate the rules and regulations in the way he has just suggested. However, after giving the matter our most serious consideration, we have come to the conclusion that we should request parliament to give us the necessary authorization to establish these pounds. We will have at each of these pounds a man for the purpose of supervising the operations, and, having an officer in charge of the pound, nothing of an illegal nature can be carried on. There might be some violation, but the man who would do such a thing might incur very serious consequences. The owner of a pound will have to observe the regulations, and if he fails to observe them it is a matter of discretion with us whether we renew his license or not. That will induce him to carry out the regulations properly. In that regard I think that our fears, which appear to have been shared by my hon. friend also, will disappear, and that Ave may expect very good results from this policy. My hon. friend says that this is going to create a menopoly. I do not see how it . can create a monopoly because we will issue licenses to every one who applies. I am informed that the cost of Mr. Baker's pound was $3,800, and I should think that the income

to the owner of the pound will be sufficient to give a fair return for the money invested.


Clarence Jameson: I understand that Mr. Baker's was almost a natural pond, and that the outlay was comparatively speaking small.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have no doubt that in many cases the cost would be greater.


Clarence Jameson: I understand that it cost Mr. Baker more than the sum mentioned.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Baker stated to the department that it cost him between $3,800 and $3,900. The idea is to sell these lobsters on the American market as well as on the Canadian market, and no lobster' will be allowed out of the pound during the close season except on the certificate of the fishery officer. With all these precautions I should think that the law will not be violated and that a new source of revenue will be opened up to our people.


Mr. LOGGIE.: Is there any size limit on the lobster taken?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. Berried lobsters will not be permitted to be sold.


William Stewart Loggie: The small lobsters are now used in the canneries and when the canneries are not in operation they may be put on the Canadian market out of season, which I think is very undesirable. If you put a size limit on the lobster when placed in the pound it would not be so bad.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think there is any danger that these small lobsters will be sold as fresh live lobsters. Some years ago, as my hon. friend knows, we' abolished the size limit regulation.


Mr. TODD.: Coming from a fishing section of the country I wish to say that I heartily endorse this legislation. For a number of years, in my county there has been a great demand for the establishment of private lobster pounds, the idea being that when the' lobsters grow in the pound to a large size they will be sold at a much higher price than if sold when taken first from the water. I believe that the license fee provided for in the Bill is none too high. In my section of the country there are places, small and large, where if cheap dams are constructed the lobsters can be held, and there fed and cared for. The size limit in Charlotte county waters is 101 inches, and no lobster can be taken out of our waters and sold unless it is 101 inches long or 4f carapace measurement. Those who establish these pounds buy live lobsters from the fishermen, and they cannot buy them undersize in our waters. I am Mr. BRODEUR
sorry to say though that they can bring smaller sized lobsters from the waters of Nova .Scotia, and they can keep these fish in the pounds and feed them until they grow to a larger size. The result is that often the growth of the lobster is from 150 to 300 per cent in say two years and by letting them grow to this larger size they get a much higher price for them in the American market. It pays those who own the pounds to keep the lobsters in them, and it pays the fishermen to sell to the pound keepers, and I cannot see how it in any way injures the lobster fishery. The lessees of the pounds have to take their chances on the lobster dying before growing to the increased size. Therefore, as all the risk is put upon the man who obtains the licenses for pounds, as the government is contributing nothing, and as the fishermen are benefited, I feel that the action of the government in this matter is highly commendable. I heartily approve of this measure as I believe it to be beneficial, judging from my own experience in the waters of my county and from what the fishermen have told me.


Clarence Jameson: How long would the hon. member (Mr. Todd) expect these lobsters to be retained in the pound in order to grow to a marketable size?


William Frederick Todd: Possibly the fishermen who put them in the pound would not care to keep them more than a year. I know of one case in Charlotte county waters where they have been kept for about two years. I may say that I have had a letter from one of the lessees of a large pound which comprises about sixty acres and he claims that his company has already lost about ten thousand dollars in lobsters, but a large part of that loss was due to losing eighty or ninety thousand lobsters in one season, not because, m death or lack of care, but because they got out over the sea wall. The objection to using such a large body of water for a pounH is that they have to use the traps in catching these lobsters as they do in the open sea. In the smaller places little dams could be built so that the water can be lowered, and the lobsters caught in' the open season, and the fishermen are not put to the expense and labour of setting traps. .


Clarence Jameson: May I ask my hon friend what the system is in his county with regard to the storage of lobsters; whether the individual fisherman takes them there and puts them in the custody of the person who ' controls the pound, whether they are taken account of, and accounted for at the end of tjie season or when they wish to remove them, or whether they are sold to the operator of the pound at the time they are taken there.


William Frederick Todd: The fishermen take these lobsters as near the pound as possible, and the licensee then sizes them and pays so much apiece f'or them. When these 150,000 or 175,000 lobsters were brought from these particular waters, I know, from the lobster canners of my own county, that they were complaining because they had to pay a cent a pound more for them than they did before it was found that the owners of these pounds were buying our lobsters and paying a higher price.


Clarence Jameson: The proprietor of the pound takes the risk?


William Frederick Todd: Takes all the risk.


Clarence Jameson: I am glad to know, from what the minister says, that the Canadian epicure is also to have an opportunity of getting an occasional lobster during our close season. I understood, when he first explained the purpose of this amendment, that it was the intention only to allow lobsters taken during the close season to be exported. The minister states that an officer will be placed at each one of these pounds to see that there is no infraction of the law. I do not know whether that will entail the employment of additional officers, but I presume that it will. I have this to say with regard to the officers, and I think it will be endorsed by every hon. member of this House who knows anything about the lobster fishery, that the officers whom the minister may appoint for this purpose will have to be a little sharper and keener and more attentive to their duties than the officers who are at present supposedly looking after the lobster fishery. I think there has been very little attempt on the part of the outside officers of the department to protect the lobster industry, and, whether the minister appoints new officers or instructs the present officers to watch these pounds, I hope they will be given to understand that they are to watch them and see that the law is carried out; because I know that at the present time many of the officers of the department are winking at open violations of the law-the taking of lobsters in the close season and the taking of small lobsters at a time when there was a legal size limit. I hope the minister will give these officers to understand that they are to live up to the letter and the spirit of the regulations, because that is the only way in which the lobster fishery can be preserved. This amendment is opening the door to infractions of the law during the close season, and it is only by a rigid enforcement of the regulations that infractions of the law in that regard can be prevented, and the protection of the lobster fishery can be maintained.
The minister says that a license will be granted to any person making application
for it. I would like him to inform the committee whether there will be any standard of pound, because I can very well apprehend that there may be individuals who, without having any proper place available for the construction of a suitable pound, men perhaps with the best of intentions, but lacking experience in this matter, may make application, thinking they may be able to carry out the impounding of lobsters in a satisfactory way. The minister may remember that two years ago, when the committee sat to take evidence with respect to the lobstery fishery, and particularly with regard to the impounding of lobsters, one of the witnesses, who knew considerable about the matter, declared that there should be certain standard regulations in regard to these pounds, because the sunlight impinging on the backs of these fish when the water over them was not sufficiently deep to protect them, brought about a sickness which made them unfit for human food or killed them outright. So I presume it will be necessary to fix some standard or have some regulation as to where these lobsters may be impounded, and that it will be on the certificate of some officer in that regard that the license will be issued. I would like the minister to inform the committee as to whether the license will as a matter of fact be granted only after an examination by some officer of the department, and when the department is satisfied that there is a proper pound available, in the possession of, or under the control of the person making the application for the license.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have not yet considered whether we should adopt a standard pound. This is a matter which should be left largely to the man who goes into the business. He will have to make a certain expenditure in order to get a proper pound. Then why should we interfere to prevent him from impounding lobsters in it? He might say that it was an interference with his business. So long as he impounds lobsters and disposes of them legally, that is the only thing with which I think the department should be concerned. We are glad to see a large number of persons going into this business. I think it will he very profitable if properly carried out. Of course, a great deal of latitude will have to be allowed to the man who goes into the business as to the selection of the site and the way he will manage the pound.


Clarence Jameson: I am glad to have that explanation of the minister, because what I wanted to make clear was this, that in the granting of these licenses there would be no preference shown to one man over another, whatever his local standing or influence might be-I need not, perhaps, say



[DOT]whatever his political leanings might be. But there are some people in the community who have a pull, so to speak. Any man who has the desire to enter into this business, I understand from what the minister says, will have as good an opportunity and right, and stand in as good a position before the minister and the department, as the man who may be more wealthy and more influential-every person will have a fair show and no partiality will be shown.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
MONTREAL HARBOUR COM'	MISSIONERS ACT.
Bill (No. 48) to amend the Montreal Harbour Commissioners Act, 1894-Mr. Brodeur-read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This Bill is for the purpose of correcting an error in the description of the boundary of the harbour of Montreal. In the description the southern boundary is used instead of the eastern boundary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I understand correctly, the error consists in the fact that what is usually called the southern side is really the eastern side.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. We are in the habit of saying that the lower part is the eastern part whereas it is the northern part.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



REGULATION OF THE MANUFACTURE OF EXPLOSIVES.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 79) to regulate the manufacture, storage and importation of explosives- Mr. Templeman-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,
William Templeman: I desire to amend subsection (g) in this respect. That section reqds:
'Magazine' means and includes any building, storehouse, structure or place in which any explosive is kept or stored.
The provincial authorities have pointed out that possibly we might be infringing on provincial magazines licensed by the provinces, and after consultation with the provincial authorities we agreed to this amendment:
That after the word 'stored,' the following words be added: 'Other than at or in or for the use of a mine or quarry in a province for which provision is made by the law of the said province.


Clarence Jameson: 


Charles Joseph Doherty: As this amendment is made in deference to a suggestion that some portion of the Bill might be an infringement of provincial rights, I should like to point out that this measure save in so far as it deals with the importation of explosives, is clearly something not within the legislative competency of this parliament. This Bill purposes to regulate the way people shall handle explosives, and that has nothing to do with any general regulation of trade or commerce. It undertakes to regulate how any man in his own factory shall handle and deal with explosives and its purpose is the protection of life. It does not seem to me to be anything but a purely local matter in each province, and if you cannot justify it on the ground that it is a regulation of trade and commerce, as the words ' trade and commerce ' have been interpreted by the highest authorities-that is, the regulation of some general nature 'or affecting commercial interchange either between the different provinces or between the provinces and the outside world-I entirely fail to see how you can justify it at all. There is at least one section that makes quite clear how purely local this matter is. I refer to section 10 :
10. No license shall be granted for any factory or magazine hereafter established within the limits of, or within one mile of the limits of any city, town or incorporated village, or elsewhere except with the approval of the municipal corporation or other local authority having jurisdiction, and also with the consent of the minister.
That provision-in itself a most excellent provision-clearly indicates the purely local nature of this legislation. Methods of handling explosives which a man has stored may be perfectly safe in one locality and very dangerous in another; and here you are endeavouring to regulate the handling of explosives by one general law made applicable all over the country. And, because you are seeking to make the law applicable all over the country, I suppose it is inferred that that gives jurisdiction. I would respectfully suggest for the consideration of the minister that that is an unfounded idea. What determines the jurisdiction is the subject matter that is dealt with; and I should certainly be very much interested to know under which of the provisions of section 91 of the British North America Act the minister says he has power to declare how I shall handle explosives in my possession in the particular locality in which I live. So far as this is a licensing Act- for I believe there are provisions requiring licenses-it does seem to me that the provinces certainly would have power to license persons handling explosives. I know that in my own province people have
. 8453

to take out a license for the sale of gunpowder. I think the minister ought to he in a position to point out to us where he finds jurisdiction in this parliament to regulate how people shall carry on their business on their own premises in the locality in which they live. I must confess that, even after some reflection, I have not been able to find the grounds on which this is brought within the jurisdiction of this parliament. I do not say that there are no provisions of the Bill that are within our jurisdiction. The regulation of importation is clearly within -the power of this parliament. And there -may be other provisions also. But the bulk of the sections seem to me to contain provision to secure purely local ends-to secure people from dangers that may Tesult from the fact that somebody is handling explosives in the course of his business or otherwise in these localities.	'


William Templeman: I would not care to debate the constitutionality of this Bill with my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty). This is a Bill, as he sees, regulating the manufacture, importation and storage of explosives. The Bill was framed by Captain Des-blorough, the chief director of explosives of Great Britain, who came to this country last summer, spent several months examining the conditions of our powder establishments and presented to my department a full report which has been printed and sent to each member. The Bill was subsequently referred to the Department of Justice. I have conferred with Mr. New-combe the Deputy Minister of Justice on the point of the power of -this parliament to legislate on the manufacture of explosives and the regulation of magazines, and I was advised that there was no doubt that the Bill was constitutional. Great care has been taken in the preparation of the Bill not to trench in any way upon provincial jurisdiction.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Under what- clause of the British North America Act does the minister claim jurisdiction? Was it under ' Trade and Commerce '?


William Templeman: Yes, I think he quoted that as one of the clauses that gave this parliament supreme power. I should like to point out that this Bill is the outcome of a strong public demand. The first request we had for legislation by the Dominion parliament on this subject came from the Ontario Department of Mines. It appears to be impossible for any province to control by regulation the manufacture of explosives and to inspect the explosives to ascertain that they were ot proper composition and not too easily exploded. There ought to be uniformity in the character of the explosives used if the very numerous 267J	.
accidents, such as we have had in the last twelve months, are to be obviated. After a conference with the manufacturers of explosives in Canada, the contents of this Bill were approved of. The provincial governments were consulted, and we had the very able assistance of Air. Thomas Gibson, the Deputy Commissioner of Alines for Ontario. AVe exempt from the jurisdiction of this Bill magazines licensed by a province which has inspectors and the machinery for inspecting magazines. Thus this Bill is really introduced at the urgent demand of several of the provinces, and all the manufacturers and a general public demand. Such catastrophes as have occurred at Sand Point cannot possibly be prevented by any provincial legislation; at least every province would have to pass legislation regulating the character of manufacturing establishments, and would also have to establish an elaborate scientific staff to examine every explosive placed upon the market. The provinces have desired this government to deal with this matter so as to have uniformity.
I would not attempt to argue the constitutionality of some of the Bill's provisions with learned lawyers; I simply state that the Bill has had the endctrsation of the Justice Department. It is highly in the public interest if we can avoid such terrible catastrophes as have occurred. The Hull disaster of a year ago is an example. Four tons of virite exploded-The day before the explosion there were 24 tons in the storehouse near Hull, and if the explosion had taken place while the entire quantity was there I am told the foundations of this building would have been shaken, and the walls might have tumbled down. It is a very serious matter. Even if there is a little doubt as to our power to license powder magazines, there is no chance of objection by any province on the ground that we are infringing on their rights, it is not a question that- the provinces will be too anxious to assert their right to legislate upon.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The anxiety of the provinces to maintain their rights is the smallest consideration. Just because this legislation is of the greatest importance, and because satisfactory legislation for the protection of the public against danger resulting from explosions is highly desirable, these are the very reasons that make it essential we should have effective legislation. If we have not jurisdiction this will not be effective legislation, and it will make no difference if the provinces do ask for it. If the provinces lie back and do not pass the requisite legislation, when the public good requires it, and leave the matter to us, and we have nothing to justify ourselves except that the public good re

quires such 'legislation, that fact will not make our legislation any more effective, and the result will be that we will have legislation which if it were effective would be most desirable but, if ineffective, would be quite useless and our intervention in the matter will simply serve to lull the people whose duty it is to attend to these things, into the idea that they are being attended to. It is precisely because of the great importance of this legislation that it should be effectively made. I have the very highest respect for the opinion of the Justice Department, and of the Deputy Minister of Justice particularly, and I do not want to criticise it, but it would be a certain satisfaction to us, who have some doubts on this subject, if we could be informed upon what provision in law the Deputy Minister of Justice based his opinion. In the very first section we have a provision that no person shall have an explosive in his possession without a license from the minister. _ If this provision is based upon the jurisdiction of this parliament to deal with the regulation of trade and commerce, I fail to see how this House can impose upon me the necessity of having a license from. f)h!e minister in order to have an explosive in my possession. That surely has no connection with trade and commerce.


William Templeman: My hon. friend will see that that is unless it is an authorized explosive.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am within the provisions of this law if I have it in my possession without any idea of dealing with it in any way. The provisions with regard to selling explosives are open precisely to the same objections. I have great respect for those who have asked for and recommended this legislation and for the provincial authorities, but ail of these things constitute no answer to the question that may be raised as to the effectiveness of this legislation. The answer to the objection which will be made will have to be found in the British North America Act, and I think that certainly it is regrettable that we are not to be put in a position to know just in virtue of what power we are taking it upon ourselves to make this legislation.


William Templeman: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: It may be a little late to rectify an error after the legislation that it is endeavoured to enforce is found to be unworkable. If you are relying on this legislation, when perhaps the jurisdiction is not here to prevent the great evil of the uncontrolled handling of explosives, you are running the serious risk of meeting a. situation where you have nothing but the fancied security resulting from illegally enacted legislation. While I do not propose to press the point too far, still it is one which deserves serious consideration, and if the Department of Justice, have given it serious consideration, I suppose they have said the last word on the subject. At all events, I shall be able to feel that I can sleep soundly and that I have no further responsibility in the matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that the minister must be a disciple of the late Oliver Mowat. He said at one time that when-

ever there was a question as to the right of the legislature to legislate upon any subject although he was fully satisfied that it had such a right, still he went on the assumption that it had, went on and legislated and left it to the courts and the people afterwards to determine whether the legislature had or had not that right. He was not very much concerned whether he had authority so long as he honestly believed he had and he went on and legislated.


William Templeman: And he enacted a lot of good legislation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


Mr. ARTHURS.: If the minister gives the ordinary meaning to the words ' kept and stored ' I believe that this legislation will go farther . than is contemplated by him. As I read the Bill it would prevent the sale or storage of any cartridges, or percussion caps in any ordinary store in any town in Canada. Let me read clause (g) of section 2:
_ 'Magazine5 means and includes any building, storehouse, structure or place in whioh any explosive i6 kept or stored.
Section 6 says:
The minister may issue licenses for factories and magazines, and no one shall manufacture, either wholly or in part, or store explosives except in licensed factories and magazines.
Clause 10 provides that:
No license shall be granted for any factory or magazine hereafter established within the limits of, or within one mile of the limits of, any city, town or incorporated village, or elsewhere except with the approval of the municipal corporation or other local authority having jurisdiction, and also with the consent of the minister.
If we take this language in the ordinary way I think it will prevent the sale of ammunition by any hardware store in Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is it that the province takes that right to itself? It is only during the last session of the legislature of Ontario that a law was passed prohibiting the sale of firearms, cartridges and such things for the peace and safety of the people. This legislation deals with explosives and firearms. The province must believe that it has the right to do so in the interests of the peace and safety of the people. We are dealing in explosives as well.


William Templeman: A great deal of this Act will be put into force by regulation. We will act on the advice of experts. Section 18, paragraph (e) provides that:
The Governor in Council may make regulations for excepting from the operation, of this
Act shops, stores and other places where small quantities of explosives are kept for use or sale.
There is no desire to interfere with the sale of explosives in stores. My hon. friend refers to the word ' magazine5 in the interpretation clause. Of course, powder and cartridge in a country store, or in a city store for that matter, would noi. be in a magazine to be licensed by this Act.


James Arthurs: The Bill says that * magazine ' means any place in which any explosive is kept or stored. I do not see where any exception is made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that the minister's explanation that he is going to do by regulation what he could not do by law is rather a strange assumption of legal power.


William Templeman: Well, it is absolutely neces'sary to make proper regulations in this case.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Shall.the proposed amendment to subsection (g) be carried-that at the close of subclause (g) the following words he added:
'Other than at or in and for the use of a mine or quarry in a province by which provision is made by the law of such province for the efficient inspection of mines and quarries.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Mr. TEMPLEMAN moved that the following be inserted as a new clause after clause 2:
This Act 6hall not apply to the Department of Militia and Defence or to the Department of the Naval Service.
The Department of Militia and Defence secure their ammunition under proper supervision, and they do not want any interference by the Department of Mines.


Mr. BARNARD.: Is the Department of Militia and Defence allowed to manufacture and keep unauthorized?


William Templeman: No.


George Henry Barnard: But this Act does not apply to them. Some of the provisions of this Act are framed to prevent injury to certain people living near the manufac-turies and storehouses and it would be in teresting to know if the Department of Militia is to be allowed to keep storehouses in places dangerous to the people in the neighbourhood. Can the minister say that an explosive belonging to the government would not have the same dire results as an explosive manufactured by private individuals? So far as the Department of Militia is concerned, there is no authorized explosive, because this Act does not apply * to it.


William Templeman: The Department of Militia and Defence U3es English explosives and all English explosives have for years come under a similar provision. There is no explosive sold in England that, is not tested and that has not been authorized. The Militia Department uses proper explosives under proper conditions.


Mr. GOODEVE.: The minister has not answered the question put by the hon. member for Parry Sound, as to whether it was the intent of the Act to prohibit the sale of ordinary gunpowder in the regular hardware stores?


William Templeman: Unquestionably and undoubtedly it is not the intention to prohibit or interfere with the sale of powder in stores except it be that we have machinery, in this Act for the inspection and testing of explosives, and there will be no unauthorized explosives allowed to be sold anywhere. This Act will not interfere with their keeping small quantities authorized explosives in an outhouse, or a store, or anywhere else.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: The interpretation clause says that an explosive means among other things, fireworks, fuses, rockets, percussion caps, cartridges, and ammunition of all kinds, and clause 6 says that the minister may issue licenses for factories and magazines and no one shall manufacture or store explosives except in licensed factories or magazines. The Act certainly would seem to contemplate the prohibition of the sale of powders by small stores. How can the minister reconcile these provisions of the Act, what do they mean?


William Templeman: They mean exactly what they say. All that the Bill will have to do with these things is to provide as to the care and safety of the chemical combinations in them. If the Act is not clear that it does not apply to the storage of small quantities of ammunition, gunpowder and so forth by the retail trade or the wholesale trade for that matter, I am quite willing that it should be made clear. The word magazine3 applies primarily to magazines in connection with manufacturing establishments for the storage of very large quantities of explosives. I read in the papers recently a good deal about a magazine on the Montreal road, within a few hundred yards of a considerable population, where explosives are stored in very large quantities. It is magazines of that kind that this Bill purposes to deal with, and I am quite willing to make it so clear that there wdll be no reason to interfere with small quantities of explosives kept for sale in stores.


George Henry Barnard: 


James Arthurs: Would the minister be willing to have a separate section reading in this way:
Nothing in this Act shall apply to shops, stores or other places where small quantities of authorized explosives are kept for use or sale.


William Templeman: Yes.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: The minister has just explained that 'magaizne,' in his interpretation, means a large magazine for storing large quantities in connection with the manufacture of explosives. But the question is not what his interpretation is if the Bill becomes law. The Bill purports to make the explanation, and it says that 'magazine'- means and includes any building, storehouse, structure or place in which any explosive is kept or stored. That is very clear. The Bill also siays what an explosive is, and it includes in that term caps, ordinary ammunition and fireworks; so that ordinary ammunition could not ibe kept in any store or in any room without a license. I may say that I am not objecting to the Bill, because I think the principle of it is a good one.


Mr. ROBB.: Will the minister define what a small quantity is?


William Templeman: I suppose such quantities as merchants keep.


George Henry Barnard: A wholesale merchant might keep several tons, while a retail merchant might keep very little.


William Templeman: We might strike out 'small quantities' and say 'shops or stores where explosives are kept for use or sale.'


Charles Joseph Doherty: The amendment apparently entirely destroys the definition of a magazine as set forth in section 2, or at all events restricts it to places where explosives are kept neither for sale nor for use. It would appear to me that a place where a man kept explosives neither for sale nor for use would be a very restricted number of places. The manufacturer who keeps his explosives in a magazine is keeping them for sale at some period, and this amendment would make the Act utterly inapplicable, no matter how large the quantity was, unless it were kept for sale or use. It seems to me that the amendment is absolutely contradictory of the definition cf a magazine in the Bill.


Mr. BUREAU.: Why not define the word ' magazine ' as including any building in which any explosive is kept or stored except retail stores where explosives are kept for sale, and private houses where explosives are kept for the use of the owner thereof.


William Templeman: Better let that clause stand.
On section 3,
3. Except as herein provided, no person shall have in his poseession, or import, store, use or manufacture, whether wholly or in part, or sell, any explosive unless such explosive has -been declared by the minister to be an authorized explosive.


George Henry Barnard: We have had to-day a Bill which provides that no one shall go into the salmon canning business without a license. We have on the statutes an Act providing that no one shall go into the whale fishing business without a license. We know that a monopoly was given to one company for the whole whale fishing business. It seems to me we are carrying on this license business a .little too far. It is not always easy to get these licenses. There is no prescribed course whereby anybody who wants a license can come to the government and easily get it. It takes a long time, and in a great many instances the license is refused. And sometimes, when friends of the administration find out that other people are applying for the licenses, they come in and the first applicant" does not get the license but the friends of the government do.


William Templeman: What kind of a license?


George Henry Barnard: Any kind.


William Templeman: Name one.


George Henry Barnard: I could- name one if I chose.


William Templeman: This is a very good time to do it.


George Henry Barnard: I have one case in mind where that fact exactly happened. I would suggest that -this matter should be safeguarded in some other way. It seems to me it could be safeguarded by having regulation and inspection with a heavy penalty for violation of the regulations. This matter is of very great importance to the province from which I come. In reading the report of Captain Desborough, and the suggestions he made,.it occurs to me that this Bill is going to very materially increase the manufacture of explosives, and so increase the cost to the consumer. The Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) is well aware that the cost of powder is a very serious expense particularly in British Columbia where powder is used so extensively both in the mines and in the clearing of land. While I am not prepared to say that precaution should not be taken for due care and the prevention of explosion, yet, I submit that very great care should be taken that the cost of production is not unduly increased. Captain Desborough, I
understand, is an expert in charge of the military powder manufactories in England.


William Templeman: Director of explosives.


George Henry Barnard: At any rate he is connected with the imperial army, is he not?


William Templeman: He is an officer on the retired list, but belongs to the Home Office. He is enforcing the Explosive Act.,


George Henry Barnard: At any rate, he is a government official, and the factories he is familiar with


William Templeman: No, he has charge of the inspection of all the manufactories in England.


George Henry Barnard: At any rate, there can be no doubt that in a closely populated country like England greater precautions are required so far as storing explosives is concerned than in a country like this. In a country of that kind they are more likely to go into more expensive work and operation 'than is necessary in a sparsely settled country. Therefore, I -would suggest to the minister that he should be very careful to see to it that the recommendations of Captain Desborough do not unduly increase the cost of production. It is .curious-I do not say that there is any connection between the two facts-but I am informed that just at the time Captain Desborough came here in connection with this manufacture of explosives, a company was formed in England with a capital of $10,000,000 with the idea of making a merger of several large powder companies throughout the Dominion of Canada. And it is obvious, that while there may ,be, as I say-and I do not suggest that there is any connectionbetween the two facts-but it would be obvious that the more expensive the manufacture of explosives is made, the less danger there is of competition against a trust of that kind.


William Templeman: There is no limitation to the number of licenses to be issued. Any person can go into the manufacture of explosives. I have no fear that because we are going to issue licenses and to regulate this business, we shall increase the cost. As a matter of fact, the English explosives are selling for less than others, and they are manufactured under careful regulation. There will be no limitation of the number of manufactories. Under the Department of Inland Revenue there is no limitation of the number of distilleries. You can all have licenses for the manufacture of alcohol if you like, and the same wall be true with regard to this other kind of explosives.


George Henry Barnard: The point I was trying to make is that if the cost of production is increased-as, undoubtedly, it must be- that would have the effect of deterring other

people from going into the manufacture. If I read aright the recommendation and report of Captain Desborough, he stated that in manufacturing they put too many machines of one kind in one building, also that too large a quantity of explosives was stored in one building, also that there should he embankments of earth between the different buildings-and generally made a number of recommendations which meant undoubtedly very largely increased cost of manufacture. The manufacture of giant powder and gunpowder, I understand, is a comparatively simple and cheap matter. But if you are going to hedge it about with restrictions of the kind I have indicated, you are going to increase the cost of production and the cost to the consumer. That would make it necessary to have more capital in order to start in the business and would certainly keep others out of it.


William Templeman: My hon. friend, I trust, does not wish to continue the present conditions. The conditions of manufacture have been condemned by Capt. Desborough, and the changes are all designed to avoid accidents. In my hon. friend's own country there were two or three disastrous accidents last year. I do not know the cause of those accidents and it is to deal with these questions that this Bill is introduced. As to the increase of cost to the manufacturer a representative of every manufacturer, especially in Eastern Canada, conferred with Capt. Desborough and heartily supported the provisions of the Bill. They are all prepared to continue manufacturing under the conditions of this Bill.


George Henry Barnard: I hope my hon. friend did not think I objected because the cost to the manufacturer would be increased? Capt. Desborough states that they were not going to disturb to any extent existing plants, and I object to the minister saying I am not in favour of the principle of the Bill. I have not the slightest objection to every attempt being made to safeguard the lives of those engaged in this industry, but we must be careful not to so increase the cost of production as to make the purchase of powder any greater burden than it already is in British Columbia.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What is meant by an authorized explosive and how is the declaration that an explosive is authorized to be made?


William Templeman: When an explosive has passed the tests prescribed under the supervision of the inspector of explosives, and is approved by him, the minister will declare it an authorized explosive. The chemical composition will be the basic principle of the test.


George Henry Barnard: 


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I sympathize with the object of the Bill in regard to protecting the lives of those engaged in the manufacture of explosives, and also those who use them; with the largely increasing use of explosives in our various industries, it is essential to have an Act of this nature, so that any criticism I have to make is not because I am opposed to the principle of the Bill. It seems to me that the Bill will interfere with certain provincial rights, and will bring about confusion and conflict where the province has effective legislation. If the Bill was confined to the manufacture of explosives and their use for specific purposes, and did not embrace the sale and stronger of all kinds of explosives, some of these difficulties might be overcome. Has the minister consulted the various provinces to avoid conflict with provincial Acts? Once the Dominion parliament legislates, that legislation will override any provincial Act.


William Templeman: The hon. member for St. Anne Division (Mr. Doherty) raised the question of provincial rights, but he has thrown responsibility for the constitutionality of this Bill upon the government, and is not pressing that point. As far as the constitutionality of the Bill is concerned, I am resting entirely upon the' opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice. The Bill was referred to all the provinces, and they were all satisfied with it and were very anxious that a general law for all Canada should be passed by the Dominion parliament.


Mr. MACDONALD.: I did not have the opportunity of hearing all the discussion on this Biil, but the remarks that the hon. member made have attracted my attention to the possibility of a conflict of jurisdiction which might arise. In my province we have very complete regulations as to the use of explosives in connection -with the mines, and these laws have been found to work very satisfactorily. I trust that the minister has made provision in the Bill, which I regret I have not studied closely, to see that there is no infringement with these regulations as they are already provided, particularly in the mines. _ Where you have to deal with the coal mining industry, where the lessees and operators of these mines, hold under the Crown, and where the Crown, represented by the_ government of a particular province, introduces regulations into the leases under which they hold and operate these mines, I think it would not be wise for the federal government to interfere.


William Templeman: The Bill does not touch the use of explosives at all either in a quarry, or in railway construction, or in a coal mine. All it aims at doing is to

secure the manufacture of as safe an explosive as possible. We purpose putting on the market only authorized explosives.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Much of what is contemplated by this Bill is done already by municipal by-law under provincial authority. The legislative assembly has given power to the municipalities to pass bylaws regulating this same thing. Therefore, it must toe in conflict with provincial legislation and provincial rights to that extent. The minister said, in reference to some observations toy my hon. friend from Montreal St. Anne (Mr. Doherty), that we are not making a law to cover this condition, tout that we are making regulations to cover it. It is done by regulation. Power to make regulations is under the statute law, and if the statute law is unconstitutional the regulations can certainly have no force or effect. When we are confronted with such an uncertainty as this the government have it in their power to provide a means whereby they can be satisfied. They can make a stated case, send it to the Supreme Court and have the verdict of the court whether this law is wholly constitutional or only partly constitutional. What has the minister to say about that? I think we should have some reply.


William Templeman: I do not agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) at all that we ought to make a stated case. I do not know what stated case we could make or how to bring the case before the Supreme Court. There is no doubt in the minds of my officers that this parliament has power to regulate the manufacture and importation of explosives and the whole purpose of this Bill is to regulate the manufacture, storage and importation of explosives. We believe we have that power, but if we have not that power we will soon find it out when the law is put in force. I think that the best way to get a decision as_ to the constitutionality of a law of this kind is to put it in force, because we will find out much more quickly in that way than by taking a stated case to the court.
I do not think we are wrong and I do not know that I can say any more to my hon. friend than I have already said, that I am acting on advice with regard to the constitutionality of the Bill, and therefore, I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman that we should drop this Bill and have a stated case. It might take two or three years to get a decision on that point. As a matter of fact, this Bill was intended to be introduced last year, and we have been somewhat criticised for dilatoriness in not having brought it forward sooner. In the meantime there have been two or three most disastrous explosions the fatal results of which might have been avoided if a Bill
of this kind had been upon the statute-books.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is true that the minister says he has been fortified by the advice of the Justice Department, but this is not the first time that we have found the Justice Department wrong on constitutional questions which have been decided by the Supreme Court. I admit that while the favourable opinion of the Justice Department is a strong justification for legislation along that line when it is clear that there will be a conflict of authority, I think it is ample justification for submitting a stated case to the Supreme Court. The minister says that it would be two or three years before we would be likely to get a verdict. Does he mean to say that the Supreme Court is so impotent and indifferent that it would take two or three years to get a decision from that court? They might decide the case at the first sitting of the court, and consequently it could not be more than six months before the case was decided. I think it would be much better to avoid improper legislation if it can be avoided by stating a case for submission to the Supreme Court than to pass legislation and then afterwards find that a great deal of litigation might result from it, and that we are obliged to go back and abandon what we have done as being unconstitutional or ultra vires.


James Alexander Robb: It will be regrettable if the question of jurisdiction results in failure to safeguard the lives of those engaged in the handling of these dangerous explosives. This is not a new question. It has been before the public for some years and it is recognized that something should be done to safeguard human life. This Bill, as my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) points out, only deals with the manufacture of dynamite.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It goes further than that.


James Alexander Robb: It aims at preventing the continual sacrifice of human life by explosions. In the last three years 114 lives were lost from premature explosions on railway construction work in this country. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Barnard), a few minutes ago, expressed the fear that this legislation might increase the cost of manufacturing explosives. It seems to me that all Canadians should agree that human life should be of more consideration than dollars. The greatest cost that this country has paid for explosives has been the cost of human life. I hope my hon. friends will not press this question of jurisdiction, but will allow the Bill to go through and see if something cannot be* done to safeguard the lives of those who

are compelled to handle these dangerous explosives.
On section 4,


Charles Joseph Doherty: Thi3 is a class of legislation, of which we have had a good deal this session, by which we hand over blindly our legislative power with regard to a particular matter, to the Governor in Council. We say here that no man should have a right to do different things except as permitted by the regulations which are to be made under this Act, and the Governor in Council is empowered to make any regulation he chooses and to impose any conditions whatever upon the permission to be given. When the power of legislation was confided to parliament it was with the idea that parliament should use it and not hand it over blindly to be used by the executive government of the country. I quite understand that there may be details that are better dealt with by regulation than by statutory enactment, but when we simply say that no person should have the right to do the things mentioned here unless he gets permission in accordance with such regulations as the government may make, it seems to me we are going too far in the direction of delegation. The minister must have some idea in his own mind as to what the conditions are on which this permission should be granted and he should put in this Act some definition of what these conditions are, so that we may have even a general idea of what we are doing.


William Templeman: I can send my hon. friend the English Act, and there he will see that the regulations are very voluminous and very technical and highly scientific. This Act could not be administered in any other way than under such regulations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How would this section affect chemists who are constantly experimenting with these explosives?


William Templeman: Permission would be given for keeping a small quantity.
On section 6,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The municipalities by by-law specify that merchants may keep these explosives in segregated buildings. Would not this section interfere with the municipal authority in that respect?


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: The issuing of license pertains to the province, and I do not think the federal government has any power to issue them.


William Templeman: We will let that stand.


James Alexander Robb: On section 7,


James Arthurs: This clause is open to the same objections that I made to the Bill in the first place. The provisions and definitions in this Bill would make it impossible for any man to bring into Canada a box of cartridges, percussion caps, or fireworks. I do not think it is the intention of the minister to prohibit the importation of cartridges either from Great Britain ot the United States.


William Templeman: Of course, the intention is to prohibit the importation of explosives that are not authorized. There is no explosive imported from Great Britain that is not authorized.


James Arthurs: The clause reads, importation of authorized explosives. Under this clause a man would require to have a permit from this government before he could cross the line with a box of cart? ridges. Is that the intention of the minister? The people dealing in these goods which come from Great Britain would have to get a permit from the minister for every shipment.


William Templeman: There is not much use of our testing and inspecting explosives manufactured in Canada, and not permitting any except those authorized to be sold, if we are going to permit explosives that are not authorized to come from another country. All the explosives from Great Britain are authorized, and of course they will be admitted.


James Arthurs: Do I understand that the intention is to permit the importation only of those explosives authorized by the government and those authorized by Great Britain? Is it the intention to prohibit the importation of explosives from the United States?


William Templeman: I am advised that in the United States the government is proceeding along similar lines and has in connection with its geological survey a testing station for explosives, and is now authorizing explosives. Explosives authorized in that way by the United States government would probably be approved of without any further examination by our testing officers. But explosives which are not tested or authorized by the United States government would have to be tested by our testing stations before they could be passed.


James Arthurs: I do not think the minister understands the objections I am raising. It is simply this. There are a large number of American rifles brought into this country by parties coming in the hunting season. They import cartridges

for these rifles, and under this clause they would have to get a permit each time they imported these cartridges, whether authorized or not.


Morley Currie: I think the minister does not perhaps understand the situation. Last season, in the hunting season, a number of hunters had purchased a certain kind of Remington rifle, which took a certain kind of ammunition. Within five or six days of the opening of the season those who. endeavoured to secure cartridges for that rifle discovered that they could not obtain them from the hardware stores, and small retail stores and had to wire to the makers in the United States to secure that kind of cartridge. If a case of this kind arose under this Act, the small retailer would have to go to the trouble of getting a permit from the government, which would make it impossible for him to secure these cartridges at the time of the hunting season. I think an exception should be made there. I would like also to ask what is ' the manner authorized by the Railway Act' for transportation of explosives. We all know that the railways are authorized under the Railway Act to transmit ammunition or powder of any kind. If I remember rightly, a terrible explosion occurred on one of the railways at Stratford, in western Ontario. If this Act is to be of any use, I think these regulations should apply directly under this Act, and should not have any reference to the Railway Act. I would like to know if the minister knows what the regulations under the Railway Act are.


William Templeman: I confess I am not very familiar with the regulations, which occupy 25 pages. As the transportation of explosives is provided for by the Railway Commission under the Railway Act, we exempt it in this Bill.


Morley Currie: Suppose these regulations of the Railway Act were transgressed by a railway company, and trouble arose,_ and a suit was brought, what authorization has the Railway Commission under the statute to make these regulations? The most dangerous thing in connection with explosives is the handling of them on the railways, and I think this Act should be made to apply to railways. For instance, a railway is carrying in the summer time dynamite that was made in the United States. It has saw-dust filler. When the warm weather comes the nitroglycerine -will thaw out of the saw-dust filler and will leak through the box to the bottom of the car. If a drop of that happens to go on the railway track, there is an explosion and the car goes up in the air. That is what happened at Stratford. If this Act is to be of any use, it should
be made to apply to cases like that. I would like to know if the Railway Commission has any power to make these regulations, and if they have the force of law.


William Templeman: The Railway Commission, in adopting these regulations, say that under the powers and in pursuance of sections 26, 230, 286 and 287 of the Railway Act, the board approved of these regulations.


Morley Currie: Do these regulations limit the carriage to authorized explosives?


William Templeman: This does not refer to authorized explosives.


Morley Currie: Why not have a reference made to those regulations of this Act, 'and have them authorized under this Act?


Morley Currie: Why not let this clause stand and have a reference making those regulations legal under this Bill?


William Templeman: These regulations are legal now. They have been passed by the Railway Commission under the Railway Act.


James Arthurs: Small arms and ammunitions should be excepted and there should be no necessity for a permit in their case.


Morley Currie: I think that the objection with reference to small arms is valid. The minister seems to be under the impression that unauthorized explosives can be taken into the country without permit. If he will read the section he will find out that permits may issue for the importation of authorized explosives and the unauthorized cannot be brought in at all. A man who tries to bring in 100 rounds of 22 cartridge in his valise or a dozen firecrackers will be liable to a penalty unless he gets a permit. A great number of 'hunters, come from the United 'States to Ontario and Quebec, and they bring their ammunition. They should not be liable under section 7.


William Templeman: But explosives under this Bill are meant explosives in large quantities. Under clause 18 the Governor in Council may make regulations, and he has ample power to exempt small arms and ammunition from the operation of this Bill.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Take the two provinces of Quebec and British Columbia, which are largely advertising their game, that is becoming quite an asset of both provinces. They are coming, as the minister knows, all the way from Europe. I was given the 1 names of several who have come on two or

three occasions from Germany with a party and who have spent considerable sums of money in order to engage in hunting the large _ game of British Columbia. I only mention that to indicate the importance of this section, for under this section, when these men arrive, any game warden or any body else can stop them on the border and hold up all their arms and ammunition, and before they can bring a single particle oi ammunition in it will be necessary for them to get permission from the government here at Ottawa. I think it would be well that that question should be looked into, because it comes up in so many clauses of the Bill, and a proper section drawn, to cover the point, so that the Bill may be made effective. I think the minister admit-in fact it is not discussable at . at this is the effect of the section, r \ ?s no* a 'mere objection for the sake of objection from hon. gentlemen on this side, but it is an important question. And, unless the Bill is amended it would lead to considerable trouble, especially as I have already pointed out in these two provinces.


William Templeman: I quite agree that ammunition for small arms especially, should be exempted from the operation of the Bill, otherwise it would lead to very considerable confusion. I would assume as a matter of fact-I am only giving this as an opinion-that all ammunition used in small arms should be of the best kind and certainly good enough to be authorized.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: But, even if authorized it would be necessary to get a permit. That is the difficulty. There should be some way of exempting ammunition for this purpose. I think it would be well for the minister to let this section stand, and draft a section that would cover that point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would seem that the Bill contemplates that, because 'safety cartridges ' are defined in the interpretation clause. In making new regulations all you would require would be to provide that, safety cartridges may be exempt.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Shall section 7 stand?
On section 8-special permits,


Morley Currie: It does not say to whom this special permit is to he issued. I should think an analyst would be the only one person who would require it.


William Templeman: This provides that for purposes of analysis and scientific research a quantity not exceeding two pounds may be imported. The Bill gives permission to anybody to submit an explosive for analysis. Scientific men may want to investigate, and, on payment of a small fee, Mr. GOODEVE.
they may be permitted to import in quantities not exceeding two pounds.


Morley Currie: For chemical analysis two pounds is more than enough.
On section 9-applicants for licenses to furnish plans of factory and premises.


Morley Currie: What authority has the minister to issue licenses? As I understand that under the law the power to grant a license to carry on business remains entirely with the provincial parliament. The law will permit the Dominion government to allow a person to carry on a business, or to prevent him carrying it on. But I do not think it will permit the department to license anybody. If the minister will consult the legal department of the government, I think he will find that he cannot give licenses. That has been tried by this parliament on several occasions, and I understand that the decision has been against it.


William Templeman: We discussed that point at considerable length before the hon. member (Mr. Currie, Simcoe) came into the House. I said I would abide by the opinion of the Justice Department that this is a power we have a right to take-the powep to license for the purpose of regulating the manufacture.


George Henry Barnard: Subsection (a) provides that the plan is to be drawn to a scale, and is to include ' also all the lands adjacent thereto on which buildings are erected.'. I understand by lands adjacent thereto the lands of adjoining owners. I would think there would be some limitation on the word ' adjacent.' It might be mistaken to mean ten miles or half a mile.


William Templeman: That is the meaning. Of course the interpretation would depend on the configuration of the land. A factory might be placed quite close to a building if there was a small mountain or hill between, possibly within 100 yards, while in a very flat district it might have to be a mile away. I see no reason to specify the distance more closely.
On section 10, factories not to be built near towns, &e.


Mr. PERLEY.: Why is the distance of one mile from an incorporated village, &c., stipulated. Are there statistics to show within what distance from a city a factory [DOT]would be safe?


William Templeman: This is copied from the English regulation. They have statistics there, and I presume one mile has been found sufficient. The explosion at Hull was not more than a mile from where we are standing.


George Halsey Perley: The minister is mistaken; it is nearly a mile and a half from here to Eddy's factory.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I think I would move to have that read two miles. As we are giving authority to establish factories without the consent of a municipality, we should make it two miles unless with the consent of the municipality.
Mr. iSPKOULE. The distance which would be safe must depend largely on the amount of explosives kept.


William Templeman: I would move to insert after the word ' jurisdiction ' in the 39th line, the words:
Or the government of the province in any province and in a territory where there is no local authority having jurisdiction, and also with the consent of the minister.
That is to meet the view of the government of Ontario.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the amended section mean that a factory cannot be established within a mile of a city, town, &c., even with the consent of the municipality, that it can only be established a mile away with the consent and that within a mile it cannot be established under any condition?


William Templeman: The clause means that it shall not be nearer than one mile.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Within a mile there cannot be a factory?


William Templeman: No. [DOT]


Charles Joseph Doherty: And more than a mile away they must have the permission of the municipal authority and the minister?


William Templeman: That is my understanding.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let us understand how that would affect the situation. Hardware stores that sell gunpowder and blasting powder, store it in a building.


William Templeman: We have allowed one clause to stand for the purpose of meeting that point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But that was with regard to ammunition.


William Templeman: Quite true, but we propose to narrow the interpretation so as not to include stores.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, for otherwise you are in direct conflict with the provincia1 authorities, because they provide where explosives may be stored, and you may give authority with Tegard to handling and storing them in a way which under the provincial Act, could not be done.
On section 10:	Consent of municipality
and minister before license granted.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: It is suggested that even although a municipality might give consent a mile is very close. It might be necessary to have a two mile limit. Take the city of Ottawa; an outside municipality might give consent to have a factory within a mile although the city would not care to have a large factory of that kind within a mile, and so I think we had better make it ' within two miles.'


William Templeman: I do not want to make the conditions too onerous. If the conditions under which the explosive will be required to be manufactured are lived up to, and if by close inspection the danger is minimized, and the quantities of explosives to be kept in buildings are also minimized to the lowest possible extent, the conditions as to the configuration of the ground and the proximity of other buildings being taken into consideration, I would think a mile not too close. I desire to be on the safe side and, on the other hand, I do not want to make conditions that would be too onerous to the manufacturer. I will be guided 'by the House in that respect," but I think that one mile should stand in the section.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I can conceive from what the minister says that it might be a hardship to force a factory to go more than one mile from a village. It says:
Within one mile of the limits of any city, town or incorporated village.
But, it would make a great difference, if it were close to a large city where the damage and loss of life might be much greater. In a small municipality there would not 'be the same danger as where there were crowded buildings, and a large population. It might read ' witnin two miles of 'the limits of any city, or within one mile of the limits of any town or incorporated village.'


William Templeman: I would rather not change it.
i Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe). There are sev-' *eral cities which are fortified and there are magazines in the fortifications which are used by the dealers of explosives in those cities. How would you work it there?


William Templeman: If the magazines are used by the Militia Department it would have no application.


Morley Currie: The magazines of the Militia Department are used by the trade.


William Templeman: Then the Bill would operate.
On section 11: Permits for experiments, and testing new explosives.


Morley Currie: 
William Templeman: A man might be experimenting with a new explosive. Many are doing that in the hope of getting something newer and (better than anything on the market.


Morley Currie: But that is covered in both places.


William Templeman: No, clause 4 provides far chemical iexperiment and (the making of explosive for scientific purposes, not for practical use. Section 11 authorizes the minister to issue a permit for manufacture for experimental purposes. An inventor thinks he has a new idea and he wants to experiment in the manufacture of an explosive. It may be permitted by this clause.


Morley Currie: Clause 4 would allow a man to make small quantities of explosives for experimental purposes in his laboratory. He could endeavour to discover a new kind of explosive. In clause 11 you say that if he has paid the fees prescribed by regulation he can manufacture for experimental purposes. I cannot see how these two clauses can work together.


William Templeman: They might work together right enough, but one is for the making of a small quantity of explosive, for chemical experiment, and the other is for the testing or manufacturing of blasting powders or explosives for special blasting operations only. The section says that the minister:
May issue a permit to manufacture for experimental purposes or for testing and special blasting operations only, and not for sale.
They are two different permits.


Morley Currie: Is there any difference between ' making*' and ' manufacturing? '


Morley Currie: 


William Templeman: Not much difference.


Morley Currie: Not very much difference. In the one case a man could not make a large quantity of the explosive. It does not limit him as to whether he shall conduct original research or whether he is following in the footsteps of some other experimenter and developing the quality of an explosive which he might not have discovered or made.


William Templeman: The object of giving that permission is to allow people to experiment with blasting powder and the producing of a new powder. They must have that permission or they would be prohibited from doing that without a license.


Morley Currie: If you retain section 4 I do not see any necessity for section 11. Under section 4 a chemist oan manufacture a small quantity of this explosive in his laboratory, but if he proceeds to test it he will come under the penalties provided in section 11.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it is about time we should adjourn. There is no hope of our being able to get through this Bill to-night.	.
Progress reported.



FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 201) respecting the Canada National Fire Insurance Co.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Mr. FIELDING.: We propose to move the House into Supply and give priority to a special estimate of the Minister of Railways for the year just closed; and then to take up the estimates of the Minister of Militia.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.25 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 5, 1911.