REPORTS AND PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Work of the Archives branch, for the year 1912.-Mr. Coderre.
Criminal Statistics for the year ended September 30, 1911.-Mr. Borden.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 241, respecting the Central Railway Company-Mr. Bennett (East Simcoe) -read the first time.
Mr. LANCASTER moved that the order for the second reading of this Bill be discharged, and the fees paid thereon be refunded, less the cost of printing and translation. He said: This House reported against the preamble of a Bill respecting the same railway earlier in the session. This Bill has been sent here from the Senate, but the promoters realize that it would be impossible for this House to pass it, and I have their authority to ask that the Bill be withdrawn.
Motion agreed to.	.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Albert Brit-nell.-Mr. Sharpe (North Ontario).

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 233, for the relief of Frank William Meek.-Mr. Pardee. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section I-marriage dissolved:
Mr. PROULX:: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the passsing of this Bill. It was opposed in the Private Bills Committee. I consider that the evidence is not sufficient to grant the relief that is asked for. There was no direct evidence and, in fact, no circumstantial evidence, of the offence alleged, and the evidence would not warrant the passing of this Bill. I do not think that, any divorce court would think of granting a divorce on such evidence. I understand that the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) also opposed the Bill in committee. I do not see him here to-day; probably he wants to oppose it in the House. Therefore, I would move that the consideration of the Bill be postponed.


Mr. MACDONELL:: I also took the view in the committee that has been expressed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Proulx). 1 was opposed to the granting of this divorce, but the majority saw differently. I think there is no evidence whatever to justify this Bill-there is a mere suspicion at most. I think the Bill had better stand. The Chairman is not in the House, because he is presiding over a committee at the present time.
Progress reported.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Has the Government been asked before or during the present session, by officials of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon the conditions surrounding employment in the steel works and coal mines of the Dominion Steel and

Coal Company, in Sydney and the district of Cape Breton, N.S.?	_
2.	If so, was it in respect to wages paid to mechanics and labourers?
3.	Was it on the grounds that wages were wholly insufficient to insure a decent livingB~
4.	Was it about sanitary conditions surrounding the homes of workingmen, or was it on the grounds of industrial liberty?
5.	Was the Government made aware of a system of espionage carried on by special police employed by the company to interfere with the liberty of the workingmen?
6.	Is the Government aware, or wras the Government made avrare, of the absolute secrecy maintained of the inner workings of the special police department of the said company?
7.	Is it the intention of the Government to appoint such Royal Commission? If not, why not ?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Yes.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. These were among the matters mentioned in the representations made to the Government.
7. A preliminary inquiry is being made into the matter, and governmental action will be determined by the information gathered.


ALAIN MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 
Mr. PELLETIER:: The contract of J. Alain, dated from 1st October, 1908, was renewed from 1st October, 1912. A change was recently made in the postmastership of Alain, and the contractor wrote the department refusing to carry the mails to the new site of the post office. He was given three months' notice of the termination of the contract and contract was given to the new postmaster at the same price, viz:- $40 per annum.


STE. ANNE DES MONTS MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the mail contract of William Doehine of Ste. Anne des Monts, county of Gaspe, been cancelled?
2.	Have any new notices been given? If so. why?
3.	When does the present contract expire?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	No.
2.	(a) The department is inviting tenders for the mail service between Riviere
Mr. VERVILLE.
a Claude and Ste. Anne des Monts to ascertain cost, (b) To effect an improvement in the performance of the service.
3.	31st December, 1914.


STAMP VENDING MACHINES.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Is the following announcement, which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of the 23rd ultimo, correct:
Buy Stamps and Mail Letters in same Machine -Innovation adopted by Post Office Department is the last word in Mail Box Invention.
A contract has just been entered into between the Post Office Department and the Dominion of Canada Postage Stamp Vending Company, Limited, of. Toronto, which promises to be a great convenience and importance to the people of Canada.
Under the terms of this contract the company agrees, without any cost to the department, to erect pillar boxes of handsome design, to be placed on street corners and public places. This pillar box has a stamp vending compartment and a receptacle for the mailing of letters. In other words, one may, right on the street, buy a stamp and mail a letter without having to look around for a letter box.
Everything is provided for at the one spot. This box is the latest thing, and evidently the last word in stamp vending machines. The pillars are of circular design, handsome in appearance and stand about eight feet high. An arrangement is provided for on the crown of the pillar prominently displaying the names of the streets. These will be illuminated at night and should prove a most useful ornament to the streets of any well organized city.
The company intends to immediately start operations and to instal these pillar boxes throughout the entire country.
2.	What are the exact terms of the above contract?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	No. A contract was made on the 20th of May, 1911, between the Post Office Department and a lady (Miss^ Fawns) for stamp vending machines. Miss Fawns had by a clause of that contract the right to assign same as she thought fit, and she has assigned it; the company mentioned in the question is now representing Miss Fawns. When this contract was brought to the attention of the present Postmaster General, he asked the Justice Department if that contract could be repudiated. The answer being in the negative the Postmaster General insisted, at all events, on certain changes and after much discussion and difficulties he succeeded in getting the company to assent to some alterations which made that contract more acceptable.
2.	The contract and amendments have been produced.


PETITION FROM ALBERTA FARMERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BUCHANAN-
1.	Has the Government received the follow-

lug petition from certain farmers in the province of Alberta:
' We, of the United Farmers of Alberta residing in that part of Alberta, known as the dry belt, do petition you for a release from payment of the regular fee of $3 per acre for onr pre-emptions on the following ground:
' Whereas, during our residence of three years or more here we have been unable to make expenses owing to the crop failure due to drought; and whereas the United States Government is giving settlers throughout the dry belt in that country the concession which we are now asking, and also allows them to make proof on homestead and pre-emption in three years;
' And whereas, one quarter section of land is not sufficient for successful dry farming, we
believe it will be for the best interests, not only for this part of Alberta but for the whole province, to grant this petition, thereby encouraging the homesteader to remain on his homestead and master the art of dry farming, thereby developing this part of the Dominion in the only way possible.'
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to take any action to meet the request made in this petition?
Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	This matter is receiving the consideration of the Government.


PRE-EMPTION REGULATIONS.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Has the Government made any changes in the regulations regarding pre-emptions? If so, what are these changes?
2.	If no changes have been made, has the Government under consideration any changes in the regulations concerning the payments made upon pre-empted homesteads?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	No change of importance has been made in the regulations regarding preemptions. Some minor changes have leen made by the department in its practice, (a) A settler is not now required to continue to own his patented free homestead until he has completed the duties on his pre-emption, (b) Where a settler earned his homestead patent by residence in the vicinity prior to the coming into force of the present Dominion Lands Act, the department accepts six months' residence in each of three years subsequent to the data of the pre-emntion entry as sufficient to earn title to the pre-emption quarter section.
2.	No change in contemplation at the present time.


HOMESTEAD REGULATIONS.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1 Has the Government altered the homestead regulations to permit the homesteader to secure a patent upon his homestead by keeping upon his land a certain number of cattle or other live stock?
2.	If not, is it the Government's intention to take such action ?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	No.
2.	Not at the present time.


PORT MAITLAND POST OFFICE.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	What amount was received from sale of stamps at the Port Maitland, N.S., post office during the months of January, February and March, respectively, for the years 1912 and 1913?
2.	What amount of money orders were issued at the Port Maitland, N.S., post office during the months of January, February and March, 1912 and 1913?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	March quarter, 1912, $156.91; March quarter, 1913, $119.71.
2.	March quarter, 1912, $2,778.67; March quarter, 1913, $1,354.45.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY STATISTICS.
Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: 1.	What is the total mileage of railway lines now controlled and operated by the Canadian Northern Railway Company?
2.	What is the total amount of guarantees by the Dominion Government in aid of construction of such lines?
3.	What is the total amount of the guarantees by provincial governments in aid of construction of such lines?
4.	What is the total amount of land granted by the Dominion Government in aid of construction of such lines?
5.	What is the total amount of money granted to date by the Dominion Government in aid of construction of such lines?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	The Canadian Northern railway controls and operates 5,969 miles.
2.	The total amount of the guarantees by Dominion Government on lines referred to is $16,432,000
3.	Information being obtained.
4.	No land has been granted direct to the Canadian Northern railway, but that company, through purchase of other railways has acquired with them land grants to the extent of approximately 4,000,000 acres, of which 1,225,600 applies on its main line.
5.	The total amount of money granted to date to the line referred to is $4,868,522.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-SUSPENSION OF EMPLOYEES AT CHAUDIERE CURVE.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Have Joseph Cantin, Abraham Cantin, Nazaire Fredette, Joseph Jean Cantin, Joseph

Blais, and Eusebe Brusiere, employed as trackmen of the Intercolonial railway at Chaudiere Curve, county of Levis, been suspended from the 1st to the 13th of March last, and their wages retained during the same time?
2.	If so, does the Minister of Railways and Canals know that they were suspended, as alleged, because they placed themselves in shelter from the cold, the wind and the rain, when nothing remained to be done on the line of railway?
3.	Was an inquiry held on the conduct of these men, and is it true that the inquiring commissioner, McDonald, refused the accused to be represented at this inquiry?
4.	Are the wages of these suspended employees to be reimbursed to them?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes, suspended for ten days from May 1, for insubordination, without pay.
2.	The department has no information.
3.	Yes; the superintendent held an investigation and men were asked if any required to be represented by any of their mates and they answered, ' No,' and asked to be allowed to be represented by a lawyer, which the superintendent declined.
4- No.	lj.!II


EMPLOYMENT OE DR. LORD.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Has Doctor Lord, of Desehambault, county of Portneuf, P.Q., obtained a position with the Government?
2.	If so, in what department has he been placed ?
3.	What position does he occupy and what is his salary?
4.	By whom was he recommended?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Department of Agriculture.
3.	An inspector of mail steamers, Ri-niouski to Quebec, at a salary at the rate of $1,000 per annum.
4.	By the Minister of Agriculture.
, INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-ROAD-[DOT]	MASTER	LA VERY.


Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	Has an inquiry been asked for from the Minister of Railways and Canals respecting the contract of P. Lavery, roadmaster on the Intercolonial railway?
2.	Has the said P. Lavery employed his son, Hugh Lavery, as a day labourer and clerk contrary to article 9, page 3 of the book of rules for trackmen of the Intercolonial railway?
3.	Has the said Lavery employed men of the Intercolonial railway and had them work for his personal benefit, when they were being paid$ by the Government?
4.	Has the said Lavery loaned things belonging to the Intercolonial railway, which have lost their value from the usage they received?
5.	If so, does the Government intend to make an inquiry in order to know the truth of these complaints?
Mr. BOURASSA.


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	P. Lavery's son, Hugh, is employed as a time-keeper; Lavery had special authority to do so from his superior, as per article IX, page 111, Book of Rules.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.
EMPLOYMENT OF AMBROSE GRAY. Mr. WHITE (Victoria, Alta.):
1. Is Ambrose Gray, the defeated Conservative candidate in the Beaver River constituency of Alberta, during the recent elections, in the employ of the Interior Department as homestead inspector?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	No.
2.	Resigned April 1, 1913.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY-MAXIMUM GRADES.
Air. DOUGLAS:: il. What is the maximum grade against east-bound traffic of the Canadian Northern railway, now under construction between Port Arthur and Montreal?
2.	What is the maximum grade against westbound traffic on the Canadian Northern railway, now- under construction between Montreal and Port Arthur?
3.	What is the maximum grade against eastbound traffic on the Canadian Northern Railway, now under construction between Port Mann (B.C.), and Edmonton, Alberta.
4.	What is the maximum grade against westbound traffic on the Canadian Northern railway, now under construction, between Edmonton, Alberta, and Port Mann (B.C.) ?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	0.50	per	100	=	26.40	feet	per	mile.2.	0.60	per	100	=	31.68	feet	per	mile.3.	0.70	per	100	=	37.00	feet	per	mile.4.	0.50	per	100	=	26.40	feet	per	mile.


FREIGHT RATES ON THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	What are the winter rates on the several classes of freight, from first to tenth inclusive by Canadian Pacific railway from Montreal to Winnipeg?
2.	What are the winter rates on the several classes of freight, from first to tenth inclusive, by Canadian Pacific raihvay from Winnipeg to Montreal?
3.	What are the winter rates on the several classes of freight, from the first to tenth inclusive, by Canadian Pacific Tailway from Winnipeg to Montreal for export?
4.	What is the winter rate for wheat from Fort William to St. John?
5.	What was the through rate of wheat from Fort William to Liverpool on January 15, 1913?
6.	What was the lowest lake and rail rate on wheat from Fort William to Montreal at any time during the past five years?

7. What was the ocean rate on wheat from Montreal to 'Liverpool since lowest rate prevailed?


Mr. COCHRANE:: The following information is received from the Board of Railway Commissioners:
1. 2 and 3. All rail: 1, 161; 2 236; 3, 109; 4, 83; 5, 69; 6, 64; 7, 50; 8, 49, 9, -; 10, 45.
4.	All rail: local, 30; export, 23.
5.	40i cents per 100 pounds, including all elevation and loading charges.
6.	Fort William to Montreal-lake and
rail-published tariff rates:	local, 15;
export, 14i. Fort William to Port Me-Niohol, all water, special contract, July, 1911: 1 cent per bushel. Port McNichol to Montreal: export, 5 cents per bushel; local, 10 cents per 100 pounds.
7.	Average rate, Montreal to Liverpool, on wheat during July, 1911, 6i cents per 100 pounds.


SHERBROOKE-SUNNYBRAE MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: [DOT]1. When does the contract f'or carrying the mail between Sherbrooke, N.S., and Sunny-brae, expire?
2.	Who is the present contractor?
3.	What is the contract rate?
4.	Has the service been advertised for tenders?
5.	If so, on what date will the tenders he opened ?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	On the 30th June, 1913.
2.	J. S. Cameron.
3.	$1,100 per annum.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


DISMISSALS.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has Jean Alain, postmaster of Alain, Bonaventure county, Quebec, been dismissed? If so, who succeeded him?
2.	Were any charges made against him, and did he reply to them under oath before a justice of the peace, and ask for an investigation?
3.	Why was such an investigation not granted?
4.	Who made the charges against Alain, and what was their mature ?
5.	Was Alain informed by the Post Office Department that an investigation would be held?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Jean Alain has been dismissed for political partisanship and replaced by Albert Boudreau. No investigation was asked, and the information before the department was such that an investigation was considered unnecessary.


Mr. MARCIL:: 1. Has Louis Thibodeau, postmaster of Maria East, Quebec, been dismissed? If so, who succeeds him?
2.	Were any charges made against Mr. Thibodeau? If so, what was their nature, and by whom were they made?
3.	Was an investigation held? If so, by whom, and did the commissioner find the charges proven ?
4.	Was any petition received by the department asking for a change, and from whom ?	a
5.	Who recommended the new postmaster?
6.	Has the department cancelled Thibodeau's mail contract and on what grounds?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Louis Thibodeau has been replaced by Pierre Bernard. The department wrote to Mr. Thibodeau asking him if he had taken an active part in the elections, and he has not even answered the two letters sent him. There was no investigation.
6.	The department has not cancelled Mr. Thibodeau's mail contract.


Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Has Mr. J. It. Standen, postmaster at Osage, province of Saskatchewan, been removed from office? If so, for what reason?
2.	Has Mr. Chas. McAllister been appointed in his place?
3.	Has a petition been presented to the department asking that Mr. McAllister be not appointed ?
4.	Has the department declined to place Mr. McAllister in the office on account of the allegations therein made? If not, then for what reason has he not taken charge of the office ?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes. For political partisanship; and, moreover, the department was informed that the postmaster was leaving the place on the 1st of June.
2,	3, and 4. Instructions to post office inspector McNaughton had been issued for the appointment of Charles McAllister, but, on account of representations made to him, the inspector suspended the appointment until further instructed by the department. Finally Mr. Thomas Blain was appointed, and the post office inspector notified accordingly on the 20th May.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Has Mr. A. L. Deseve been dismissed from the position of officer in charge of the Magog fish hatchery? If so, when?
2.	Were any complaints made against him? If so, were they investigated?
3.	Has Mr. A. L. Audette been appointed in his place? If so, when, and has he an(y special qualifications for the office?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes, on May 13, 1913.
2.	Yes, they were investigated.
3.	Yes, on 1st June, 1913. He was appointed on probation, and if he satisfactorily performs the duties his appointment will be made permanent.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
For a return showing the names, dates of appointment and salary respectively of the employees of the Moosejaw post office.-Mr. Knowles.	jp-
1.	For a copy of any applications made by J. W. Boyle for a hydraulic lease for a stretch of territory on the Klondike river, in the Yukon, beginning at Bonanza ferry and extending up the river, and of any lease granted in virtue of any such application, and of the regulations relating to the granting of such leases under which such lease, if any, was granted.
2.	Also a copy of any other hydraulic leases in the Yukon granted to J. W. Boyle and held by him at the time he obtained the lease on the Klondike river above mentioned, and of the regulations under which the same were granted.
3.	Also a copy of any applications for a hydraulic lease in' the Y'ukon made by J. W. Boyle, F. Slavin and the Yukon Company of Montreal, Limited, jointly and of all letters, papers and documents relating to the several applications and leases above referred to.- Mr. Ames.
For a copy of all telegrams, papers and correspondence in the possession of the Post Office Department, or with any of the officials thereof, regarding the removal from office of the postmaster of Osage. Saskatchewan, and of the appointment of a successor thereto; and of all correspondence bearing upon the said removal or appointment with the post office inspector for that portion of the province of Saskatchewan, and of all other letters and documents with respect thereto.-Mr. Carvell.
For a copy of all correspondence and telegrams relating to complaints, political or otherwise, made against Mrs. Marcelline Roy, postmistress at Elm Tree, Gloucester county, N.B., which led the department to issue an order for an investigation, and the said postmistress to tender her resignation, and the appointment of her successor.-Mr. Tur-geon.
For a copy of all petitions, letters, telegrams and resolutions in connection with the changes made in the names of the post offices at Letches Creek crossing and Letches Creek, North Cape Breton. N.S., the dismissal of Donald Johnson, the former postmaster at Letches Creek, and the appointment of his successor.-Mr. McKenzie.
For a copy of a certain contract dated May 20,	1911, entered into by the Postmaster
General's Department, concerning a stamp vending machine, and of all papers, documents, correspondence, &c., connected therewith.-Mr Burnham.
For a copy of the application of Pacifique Leroux for damages sustained bv removal of a bridge on the Soulanges canal, and of all reports and correspondence on the same.- Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. L. P. Pelletier (Postmaster General), it was ordered that the House go into Committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution: Mr. MAZEN.
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act, and to provide (a) that any railway mail clerk who, on the first day of April, 1913, has had fifteen years service, temporary and permanent, and who has given good and faithful service, may be given a special increase of $100, from the first day of April, 1913, but such increase shall not exceed the difference between his present salary and the maximum salary of a railway mail clerk; (b) that the period of service of letter carriers, messengers, porters, mail transfer agents and box collectors in grades B, C and D shall be reduced from two years to one year; and (c) that the minimum salary of the said persons shall be $2 a day, and the maximum $3 a day.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White Minister of Finance), it was ordered that the House go into Committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for and to authorize an advance out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund by way of loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of a sum not exceeding fifteen million dollars, for the purposes of assisting the company in completing the western division of its railway; such advance to be repayable with interest half-yearly at the rate of four p_er centum per annum, not later than July 1, 1923, the advance to be secured by debentures charged upon the western division of the company's railway and upon the undertaking, equipment and property, rights and franchises of the company, ranking next after the debenture stock of the company issued or to be issued under chapter 100 of the Acts of 1906, and the Act respecting the company assented to on the seventh day of March, 1913, such debentures to be guaranteed, both as to principal and interest, by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.
Further resolved, that the Governor in Council may, in addition to the sums now remaining unborrowed and negotiable of the loans authorized by any Act of Parliament heretofore passed, raise by way of loan in accordance with and under the provisions of that portion of chapter 24 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, relating to the public debt and the raising of loans authorized by Parliament, such sums of money not exceeding fifteen million dollars, as may be required for making the advance contemplated by these resolutions.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 36, respecting Banks and Banking.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: What are these amendments?


Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance):: The amendments made by the
Senate are of a comparatively minor character. In section 15, the application presented for certificate to the Treasury Board

must be a sworn statement. In sub-section 8 of section 16, the word 'hereinbefore' is substituted for the word 'heretofore.'
In section 43 a provision was made whereby it was compulsory for the bank to open and maintain in each province in which it has resident shareholders, a shares registry office, in order that shares belonging to such residents might be transferred there. That was inserted not by reason of any request of shareholders or of banks, but having regard to the fact that under the present Bank Act it is possible that more than one province c.an collect succession duties upon the shares of shareholders - of chartered banks. That results from a decision of Chancellor Boyd in Ontario, who held that a bank's shares are domiciled in the province in which the bank has its head office. Therefore it is possible for the Government of Ontario and the Government of Quebec each to collect succession duties in respect of shares belonging to the estate of a deceased shareholder resident in the province of Quebec. In the committee, it- was thought that, if a provision were inserted in the Act whereby shares might be completely transferred in any province, although the head office of the bank did not happen to be in that province, it might possibly have the effect that only the province in which the deceased was domiciled would be able to collect succession duties in respect of his shares. In other words, it would make the shares follow the domicile of the owner, and I believe that is the general law in respect of personal property. It was doubtful whether the amendment inserted by the committee and approved by this House would effectuate that purpose. The opinion of the deputy Minister of Justice was obtained, but was not very positive in its character. He indicated that if this amendment were inserted, and if action were brought, the courts would probably give effect to the Dominion legislation because the banks come under Dominion jurisdiction. The banks pointed out that this would entail considerable inconvenience to them and some inconvenience to the shareholders. They further pointed out that the transfer of bank shares was a very important matter; that every care had to be taken against fraud or negligence, and that the head office organization in connection with the transfer of shares was very complete and efficient. They also pointed out that they would have to establish a similar organization in each of the provinces, and that this would be no convenience to shareholders because shares are sold principally in Montreal or Toronto. The Senate, instead of allowing the amendment to stand, making it compulsory for the banks to establish these offices, made it permissive, contending that the section, permissive as it now is, is quite as effectual as if it were mandatory.
That is to say, if the shares may be completely transferred in a province, the courts would hold that the domicile of the shares is with the owner resident in the province, in other words, if the banks ' may ' open offices at which shares may be completely and effectually transferred, the same legal consequences, in so far as the domicile of the shares is concerned, will follow as if the section were mandatory. I am of the view, especially as the Senate appears to have given the matter careful consideration, that we should concur in the amendment.
In sub-section 4 of section 54, the word ' detailed ' is struck out before the words ' profit and loss account.' This amendment was introduced in the committee by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy). The banks are in the habit of presenting to the shareholders simply a statement showing net profits after deducting amounts written off for bad and doubtful debts, cost of administration, &c. It was thought it would be in the interest of the shareholders that that statement should be elaborated a little. It has been pointed out, however, that the word ' detailed ' in itself is equivocal and ambiguous, and that the sub-section does not particularize or indicate by any form, as a schedule to the Act, the extent of the detailed information to be given. As the sub-section stood, a bank could put its own interpretation upon the word, and the Senate practically unanimously came to the conclusion that it should be struck out. As i.t appears to be rather of minor importance, I think that we should concur in this change also.
The next amendment is in section 56. In the interpretation clause of the Act the words ' members of the association ' mean the general managers of the banks. Under the Act incorporating the Canadian Bankers' Association, the words ' members of the association ' mean more than this, and tho Senate has struck out in the interpretation clause the words ' and members of the association means the general managers of the banks '; and in section 56 they have struck out the -words ' the members of the association,' and have inserted the words ' the general managers of the banks,' and then in parenthesis: ' or, in the absence of the general manager of any bank, the official designated by him; or, in default of such designation, the principal officer of the bank next in authority.' Therefore the section as amended by the Senate reads:
The general managers of the banks (or, in the absence of the general manager of any bank, the official designated by him; or, in default of such designation, the principal officer of the bank next in authority) shall, at a meeting duly called for the purpose.
Appoint the auditors. In other words, this follows the wording in the Act incorporating the Canadian Bankers' Associa-

tion, and is to provide for action on the part of the general manager, or,' in his absence, by some one delegated in his place. It does not interfere with the principle that the general managers of the several banks shall name the auditors.
The next amendment is in connection with seetion 72. The Bill as it left the House provided:
The Treasury Board shall make regulations providing for the disinfection and sterilization by the several hanks of all hank notes and Dominion notes which have come into the bank's possession before a re-issue thereof to the public.	.
This is a matter that was discussed at some length in the Banking and Commerce Committee, and we reached the conclusion that it would be well to make it compulsory for the banks to sterilize their own notes and Dominion notes that come into their possession, this to be done in the interest of public health. Since the Bill left the House there has been a report by a public officer in the United States, whose name I do not recall at the moment, to the effect that germs are not found upon bank notes, although the bank notes may be soiled and old. While I do not regard that as conclusive by any means, and while I think it is quite probable that filthy bank notes carry the proportion of germs we should naturally expect, at the same time, before the Treasury Board makes these regulations we desire to have time to inquire into the subject, and to have bacteriological tests made. The United States official to whom I have referred, evidently reached the conclusion that the ink on the bank bills did not afford a congenial lodging place for germs, and that therefore it was unnecessary to have bank bills disinfected. It is my intention to have the matter investigated carefully and bacteriological tests made, and ii it is found that soiled bank bills carry germs of kinds dangerous to the public, we can pass the regulations provided for. The Senate took that view, and substituted the word ' may ' for ' shall,' making the section permissive instead of compulsory.
In section 106 there is a verbal change due to a printer's error, changing ' there 1 into ' three.'
The next change of any importance is in section 114. It is a new amendment proposed by the Senate, and it seems to me to be unobjectionable and possibly desirable. It makes it incumbent upon the banks to transmit by registered post to the person to whom any dividend amount or balance is payable, a notice stating that such amount remains unpaid. Section 114 which is thus amended applies to the case of dividends and balances remaining unpaid for a period of five years, and the object of the Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
Senate was to give notice, in so far as notice could be given, to the parties ent tied to the dividends or sums payable as the ease might be.
Section 131 (a), is struck out by the Senate. That section relates to the obtaining of the Treasury Board certificate and imposes a penalty for non-compliance with its provision. The section has been redrafted by the department and provides more explicitly that non-compliance with the section shall be deemed an offence against the Act. The change made is entirely with regard to the penalties and does not change in any way the substance of the section.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: What are the penalties?


William Thomas White: I was just leading up to that. Section 131 (a) of the Act as it left the House is as follows:
Prior to the time at which the certificate permitting the bank to issue notes and commence the business of banking has been obtained from the Treasury Board, it shall be an offence against this Act for any provisional director or director to authorize or be a party to the payment of, or to receive, out of moneys paid in by subscribers or interest thereon, any sum for commission, salary or charges for services in connection with or arising out of the incorporation or organization of the bank.
2.	After the certificate has been obtained from the Treasury Board, it shall be an offence against this Act for any director to authorize payment of. or any general manager or other officer of the bank to pay or cause to be paid any money for or on account of the incorporation or organization expenses of the bank, except and unless the sum so paid is mentioned or included in the statement submitted to the Treasury Board at the time at which the application is made under this Act to the board for a certificate permitting the bank to issue notes and commence the business of banking.
3.	If no certificate from the Treasury Board has been obtained within the time limited by this Act, it shall be an offence against this Act for any provisional director or director to authorize or be a party to the payment of, or to receive, out of moneys paid in by subscribers, any sum for commission, salary or charges for services in connection with or arising out of the incorporation or organization of the bank, unless provision has been made pursuant to section 16 of this Act for payment.
In the case of the Monarch bank, which was incorporated and had a certain amount towards its capital subscribed but failed afterwards to obtain the Treasury Board certificate on account of not being able to comply with the provisions of the Act, especially as to the amount of capital to be paid up, I think $40,000 was_ paid away by the provisional directors, in commissions, salaries and charges. The case has

found its way into the courts and I believe it has been held that for the most part these charges were unauthorized, and judgment was obtained against the directors for repayment. But the money having been paid out, the liquidator tells me it will be impossible to collect more than a certain portion. This amendment is to prevent provisional dire'ctors, prior to the issue of the Treasury Board certificate, paying out money on account of shares other than for purposes which will not require large sums to satisfy; also with regard to commissions and expenses on account of incorporation or organization that a full statement must be made to the Treasury Board on application for the certificate, and must be approved by the Treasury Board. In other words, the Treasury Board obtains power to regulate the amount to be paid on account of organization and incorporation of the bank. I will read the section embodying the change:
If prior to the time at which the certificate permitting the hank to issue notes and commence the business of banking has been obtained from the Treasury Board, any provisional director or director authorizes or is a party to the payment of, or receives, out of moneys paid in by subscribers or interest [DOT]thereon, any sum foT commission, salary or charges for services in connection with or arising out of the incorporation or organization of the bank, it shall be an offence against this Act.
That is the principal amendment to the
first sub-section. Then the amended subsections 2 and 3 are as follows:
2.	If after the certificate has been obtained from the Treasury Board, any director authorizes payment of, or any general manager or other officer of the bank pays or causes to be paid any money for or on account of the incorporation or organization expenses of the bank, except and unless the sum so paid is mentioned or included in the statement submitted to the Treasury Board at the time at which the application is made under this Act to the' board for a certificate permitting the bank to issue notes and commence the business of banking, it shall be an offence against this Act.
3.	If no certificate from the Treasury Board has been obtained within the time limited by this Act, it shall be an offence against this Act for any provisional director or director to authorize or be a party to the payment of, or to receive out of moneys paid in by subscribers, any sum for commission, salary or Charges for services in connection with or arising out of the incorporation or organization of the bank, unless provision has been made pursuant to section 16 of this Act for payment.
It must be observed that the two sections are practically identical, except that it is more specifically provided in the amendment that non-compliance with the section shall be an offence against the Act,
and that those guilty of non-compliance shall be subject to penalties provided by the Act. Two new sub-sections, b and c, have been added to section 147. The purpose is to provide that non-compliance with _ an amendment suggested by the Banking and Commerce Committee and adopted by the House shall be an offence against the Act. Section 147 (b) is:
Every bank which neglects to make and send to the minister during the month of January in each year a return showing in| detail the fair market value of its real and immovable property held under section 79 of this Act shall incur a penalty of $30 for each and every day, after the expiration of such time during which 'the bank neglects to make and send in such return.
They make the bank responsible for failure to send in an annual return as to the value of its property. It will be remembered that this House adopted an amendment that it should be incumbent on the banks to make returns showing the fair valuation of the property held by them under section 79. Sub-section 147c provides that:
Every bank which neglects to make and send to the minister a quarterly return as to the last juridical day of the months of March, June, September and December in each year, giving such particulars as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury Board of the interest and discount rates charged by the bank, such returns to be made up and sent in within the first thirty days after the respective juridical days aforesaid, and signed by the persons by this Act required, shall incur a penalty of $50 for each and every day, after the expiration of such and every day, after the expiration of such and send in such a return.
That is to provide that it shall be an
offence against the Act to fail to make returns as to interest rates. In the Bill as it left this House, no penalty was specifically provided.
I think those are all the changes and modifications made by the Senate. In view of the fact that they are few in number and of minor importance, that the Senate evidently gave the sections that were changed careful consideration, and that none of the principles incorporated in the Act and deemed essential by the Banking and Commerce Committee and by this House have been interfered with, I move that the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill be concurred in.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is only one of the amendments which I would be disposed to question, but inasmuch as we are now approaching the end of the session, I do not intend to oppose the motion for concurrence in the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. I have reference to section 43. I merely wish to say

that if, after giving that section as amended by the Senate a trial during the next few months, it does not operate _ as anticipated by the Committee on Banking and Commerce, I wish to be free at the next session of Parliament to reopen the matter.


Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston):: I have listened with considerable interest to the explanation of the amendments made by the Senate as outlined by the Minister of Finance, and, if I correctly understood his position, it is this:	The adoption of these
amendments in their entirety without criticism, although they practically overrule, in a great many instances at least, the result of the efforts of the Banking and Commerce Committee during the many hours that we listened to evidence and the debate on this subject when the Bill was under consideration, it is my intention to direct the attention of the House to what may be considered by the minister to be very trifling changes. The first is with regard to the sterilization of bank bills. That was adopted by the medical men of the committee for some two or three days and some evidence was given in regard to the matter. The unanimous opinion at the end of the discussion seemed to be that it was a very desirable principle, and had been successfully followed in the United States. We are told that the amendment as suggested by the Senate is based on scientific grounds, and if I might in epigrammatic language characterize the reason for this, it is that bank -bills are obnoxious to microbes. There is no reason given to support the assumption that the bills are not unsanitary. The medical men in the Banking and Commerce Committee told us that these bills were unsafe, and that they should be sterilized, but the Senate has changed this, and there is no defence put up by the Minister of Finance for the reasons or conclusions of the Banking and Commerce Committee. In respect to another clause to which an amendment was made by the Senate, permissive power is given to the banks to establish transfer offices within the various provinces. The Banking and Commerce Committee of this House decided that the establishment of these transfer offices should be compulsory, and underlying their amendment to the original Aot was the principle that dual taxation by way of succession duties was unfair. The best evidence was given with regard to this subject, and the best legal opinion obtainable was laid before the committee. This House may not be aware that at the present time, on the decease of a person practically two taxes are in many cases levied by way of succession duties. The law of the provinces lays it down that where personal property is situated within the Tvrovincp. it. shall he taxable bv way of Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
succession duties, and the legislatures of some of the provinces have laid down also the principle that where the head office of a bank is in a province within which the testator or deceased did not live, a second tax will be levied. Let me cite a concrete instance. If a man dies in the province of Ontario leaving an estate sufficiently valuable to make succession duty payable, the province of Ontario levies a tax, and if the man has bank stock in the province of Quebec, the province of Quebec says that because the head office of the bank is in that province, no transfer of that stock shall take place unless a succession duty is paid to the province of Quebec. I have known cases-and I have no doubt that every lawyer from Ontario and lawyers in other provinces have had the same experience-where two duties have been paid on large estates, one to the province in which the testator lived and the other to the province in which the main office of the company was situated. The Senate get over the matter so easily, it looks so unsophisticated; they simply change the word ' shall ' to ' may,' they say that a transfer office ' may ' be established in each province. The Banking Committee laid down a principle that there should be only one tax on an estate and that that should be levied in the province in which the testator lived, on the wen known principle of law that personal property has its situ where the person owning it is domiciled. That has been set aside by the Senate, and I was surprised that the Minister of Finance did not come to the rescue of his committee because I thought he was in favour of the principle they had laid down.
Mr. WHITE (Minister of Finance).: Was the hon. gentleman present in the House when I dealt with the matter to-day?


William Folger Nickle: A great deal of what my hon. friend said I cornu not hear, but, so far as I could follow him, I did follow him.


William Thomas White: I mentioned what I believed to be the legal opinion of members of the Senate that in so far as the section in the form in which it left this House would accomplish what my hon. friend has in view, namely, that two provinces should not be able to collect succession duties on bank stock, the amendment would be just as effectual. In other words, if the bank may establish offices in the several provinces so that a share may be completely transferred, the legal argument is that if the court would give effect to the section with the word ' shall ' they would give precisely the same effect to the section with the word ' may.'


William Folger Nickle: That is true as far as it goes, but the fallacy lies here, that if the word ' shall ' is left in the Bill, as the

Banking and Commerce Committee of this House left it, then the bank must establish these offices and all ambiguity is cleared away; but as the Senate nas amended the Bill, the banks may establish these offices if they so desire and if they do not there is no possibility of redress. In other words, the right to establish a transfer office is left with the bank and if the bank does not act there will never be a possibility of a testator getting rid of this second succession duty because I have my doubts as to whether the banks will ever act. The Banking Committee ol this House laid down the principle that banks should have transfer offices in each province because it was radically unfair that an estate should be taxed twice m regard to succession.
There is a still more radical amendment. Hour after hour, in the Banking Committee, we fought for the class of statement that should be submitted by the banks and after a great deal of discussion, following the argument of the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy), the word ' detailed ' was put in the section. The Senate have struck that word out, and in doing so they have cut the very heart out of the section. It does not mean anything like what this House intended. The committee on Banking and Commerce, or certain sections of it, fought the interests that wanted to leave the Banking Bill exactly as it was. We fought the matter fairly, day after day, before the committee, we brought evidence to substantiate our position, and, after hours of work, we made our report. Now we find everything nullified by the stand-patters in the Senate. It is all very well to say that the Senate have killed the Navy Bill, and in so doing have thwarted the will of the people. They may have thwarted the will of the people in killing the Navy Bill, but they have equally thwarted the progressive spirit of the province of Ontario in the amendment they have made to this Bill and I sincerely trust that the House will not concur in the amendment.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT (Calgary):: I desire to associate myself with every word that has been said by the horn, member for Kingston(Mr. Nickle). I do not propose to go over in detai what he has already said, but I do say that every amendment that was forced upon an unwilling committee-I was not present a great deal of the time, and I very much regret that I was absent from th,e sittings-has been nullified and 'destroyed by the Senate, and the vital question is whether or not a few capitalists shall control the action of this Parliament. That is a large question, and I think that when we made imperative certain things that we felt should be made imperative, it was not open to the Senate of Canada to make those things
permissive, because In making them imperative, we did that which we believed to be in the best interests of the people of Canada. It is a nice thing and parliamentary institutions have come to a nice condition when, merely to gratify the caprice of the Senate, that which we said should be imperative is changed and made permissive and then we are told, forsooth, that the courts will construe the word 'may* as 'shall.' Why not leave the wording as we had it and make certain that what we wanted to secure will be secured and not depend on a lawsuit to ascertain what we mean? In the ultimate analysis, I say it will be found that the Bank Act of 1913 is the Bank Act of twenty years ago without any change, without one single step forward or one motion towards progress and reform, except in so far as audit is concerned, and the clamour of public opinion necessitated that, and in one or two small instances. This Parlia-is now in the eighth month of its session and I can say, without any fear of succes-ful contradiction, that the Bank Act over which it has laboured for six or seven months is, substantially speaking, broadly and generally, the Bank Act which was on the statute-books of Canada twenty years ago, or at least fifteen years ago, and I say that is not in accordance with the spirit of our institutions. I desire to associate myself with everything that has been said by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle).


Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) :: I am a member of the Banking Committee and I also wish to join in protest against the action of the Senate. It seems "to me strange that, after the careful inquiry made by the committee, at great length, a certain number of gentlemen should offhand, nullify the whole proceedings and make permissive what would otherwise be compulsory. They dare not fly in the face of public opinion, but are trying to effect their purpose by means of the back door.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: I
think the hon. gentleman who have been expending so much indignation on this question are getting unnecessarily excited. To hear the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) talk, one would have thought that the Banking and Commerce Committee of this House were absolutely unanimous on this and every other point. There was grave doubt as to the feasibility and advantage of the proposal to establish these offices in the way proposed here, and why there should be any tirade against the other part of this Parliament, because a collection of business men who heard the arguments in regard to this question, who considered it and all the suggestions that were made, and came to the conclusion embodied in this amendment, seems to me entirely inexplicable.

For myself, as a member of the Banking Committee, who attended the sessions of that committee, I want to protest against hon. members using the language they have used.


Mr. McCURDY:: What about the change cutting out the word ' detailed.' That is a question on which I thought our committee was- unanimous.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not propose to discuss the various amendments of the Senate. The hon. member for Queens and Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy) proposed many amendments in the Banking and Commerce Committee which, had they been adopted, would have resulted in a very curious Banking Act, I only rose to' protest against this unnecessary display of indignation, which is wholly unwarranted.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: I did not attend as frequently as I might have done the meetings of the Banking and Commerce Committee. One disadvantage of having our attention concentrated so much on foreign affairs is that we are not able to give a sufficient amount of attention to home affairs. But if my hon. friend from Calgary has only gathered as accurate information about what happened in the Banking and Commerce Committee as he has been able to gather about the length of the session he is not a very safe guide. He says that we are now in the eighth month of the session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is right; it is the eighth-November, December, January, February, March, April, May-	v


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: June.


Michael Clark: That may be a very good mode of arguing in a law court, but it will not carry my hon. friend very far in Parliament, He undertakes to prove that not having completed the seventh month we are m the eighth. What a very clever lawyer my hon. friend is. I do not think he is serious in saying that. He has miscounted the months. I want to support what my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has said about the need for a little more calm as to what has been done in the othet branch of the legislature. My hon. friend who has such peculiar views with regard to the length of the session says that this will be the same Bill that was passed twenty years ago if we pass it with these amendments. Not having the technical information necessary to enable me to form an opinion, I have^to choose between the opinion of the hon. member for Calgary and that of the minister responsible for this AcL What does the minister say upon this subject? I think that the ordinary member of this House will be inclined to give a great Mr. MACDONALD.
deal of attention to what the minister responsible for this Act says, especially a minister who has given a lifetime to the study of this banking question. He has said that the amendments of the Senate do not interfere with the main principle of the Bill as it passed the House of Commons; thus, the statement of the hon. member for Calgary means that the Bill supported and approved by the minister is the Bill of twenty years ago. This is a quarrel that I may very well leave to be settled between the minister and the hon. member for Calgary. For my own part, I take the guidance of the minister especially as the hon. member for Calgary has such peculiar methods of arriving at his conclusions in matters respecting finance and arithmetic. I listened with interest to what the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) said in regard to the disinfection proposition. We see so few bank bills in the West and we have so much fresh air in that part of the country that we are inclined to run a good deal of risk with the microbes if we have an opportunity of getting possession of a few bank bills. I do not think that there is foundation for a successful revolution in the objections which have been heard from the legal gentlemen who have addressed the House. I think we should be careful as to how we talk about a co-ordinate branch of the legislature and not use language in regard to it such as was indulged in by my hon. friend.
I am disposed to be guided by the minister. I am sorry that the hon. member for Kingston and the hon. member for-Calgary seem to be inclined to form a cave at this point of the session. I do not think that their efforts will upset the Administration and, as I say, I will look to the minister on a matter of this kind.


Mr. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, it has been a matter of regret to me that throughout the consideration of the Bank Act in committee I was not able, by reason of some other special duties, to give the detailed attention to it that I would like to have done. I may say for the information of hon. gentlemen who smile, and especially the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Clark), that I was fortunately able to give sufficient consideration to it to be in a position to stand on my feet in Parliament and give my opinion, with the sanction of my own intelligence, and not rest it on that of any other, be he however elevated in position in this House. My opinion is that the Senate, in so far as they have ventured to interfere with this Bill, have succeeded in a large degree in emasculating from it such amendments as the more progressive element in the banking and commerce committee succeeded in making to it. My purpose in rising is to

protest that the lobbyist has secured too easy an access to the House of Commons in recent years. While it is difficult to draw the line, while it is difficult to say that the lobbyist shall come this far and no farther, that he shall proceed to this door and not within it, it is not difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the lobbyist has too easy access both to this and the other House and that he interferes far beyond the limits within which he should be confined. I am informed that within the other House, while this Bill was under consideration, the paid solicitor of the Bankers Association sat within the rail of that House, or at all events immediately without it, and that he went so far as to interfere with statements being made by Senators on the floor of the House. That being the case, it would be a matter of extreme surprise to me if this Bill had come back unemasculated. We should address ourselves to the question and decide once ' and for all what shall be the rights of lobbyists, and what shall be the rights of representatives of interests in these corridors, in committees and in this House generally. If we decide that we will do a lot to remove the distrust that exists, and has existed for many years among the people of Canada, a distrust that, I venture to say, is not altogther unfounded.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: I have paid some attention to the amendments made by the Senate to the Bank Act. That with reference to disinfection leaves it to the minister's department to say whether the requirement in that regard shall be followed or not. I think we can agree that it is in very safe hands and if the minister finds upon investigation that disinfection is necessary there is no doubt that it will be done. As to the word ' detail,' I agree with my hon. friend from Bed Deer (Mr. Clark) that the minister in charge of the department is very capable and I believe that if he finds it necessary to improve the character of the returns made by the banks, steps will be taken for that purpose. This is not like the laws of the Medes and Persians; we can insist upon the returns being more elaborate if necessary next year. I think that the amendment which they have made to the penalty clause improves it as compared with the form in which we sent it to the Senate. I understand from the minister that this amendment was largely suggested by his own department and I know that Mr. Boss of the Finance Department has a good deal of knowledge upon this subject. With reference to what the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) has said with regard to lobbying, I would say that I have been here for three or four years and no man has ever approached me to lobby me in the general sense of the term. I have never been asked
to support a Bill previous to its going to the committee. I do not know why, but I have always been given a wide berth since I have sat upon any of the committees of this House. Since I have been in this House, I have taken a more or less active part on two committees.
I want to tell my hon. friend that my brother does not have to stoop to be a lobbyist for the Bankers' Association, or for any other body in this country. My brother is quite independent of any corporation in this country; he came here as a lawyer representing the Bankers' Association, and if he were asked by the leader of the Senate to take a seat on the floor of the Senate, he would have been rude to have refused. He did not come here to lobby. I venture to say there is not a man in this House who can get up and say my brother did try to lobby, and if- there is any man who can say so I would like to see him get on his feet and say so now. My brother never had anything to do with lobbying, in the sense of lobbying as generally construed by members of this House. There Is no one who resents lobbying more than I do; I refer to taking a member by the sleeve and leading him off and talking him into something that his own judgment would not let him do. But I have no necessity for defending myself here, because I am known to most of the members who attend these committees. As to my brother, the remarks of the hon. member are totally and absolutely uncalled for, and I resent them.


Arthur Meighen: May I be permitted as a matter of privilege to say that the only reference I made at all to the gentleman referred to by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) was as to what took place in the Senate. I said that was my information. If the hon. gentleman is in a position to rise in his place and deny the correctness of that statement, then he will say somee thing that has reference to my remarks about his brother. His remarks so far have had no reference whatever to what I said about him.


Hon. FEANK OLIVEB (Edmonton):: For once, at any rate, I agree measurably with the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett), in that, so far as my judgment goes, the Bank Bill as it is now before the House, is practically the Bank Act of twenty years ago. But, I want to disagree with him in the suggestion that it is as it is because of the action ot the Senate. I want to say that it is as it is because of the action of this House of Commons, and no member of this House can justify himself for the present position of that Act by raising an issue against the Senate for the trifling amendments which they have made, and which the Minister of

Finance has asked the House to agree to. My hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), in his pathetic appeal to be protected from lobbyists, by law, or by authority of the House, or by authority of the Speaker, will certainly give out to the country an impression with regard to this House of Commons that I believe never prevailed before. I presume my hon. friend made his appeal for himself and on his own behalf, or on behalf of those who are nearly associated with him; but I want to say that so far as I am concerned, just as the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) has said, I do not require the protection of a statute to keep my skirts clear from the control of the lobbyists. I would like to know by what authority my hon. friend passes out to the public of this country such an insult upon this House of Commons, in which he sits and in which he has sat for a number of years.' My hon. friend will not protect himself from the censure of his constituents or the other people of western Canada by the excuse that he did not attend to his duties in the Banking and Commerce Committee or in tnis House, because he was otherwise engaged or because he was not able to protect himself against the lobbyists.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: He was making up the closure rules.


Frank Oliver: Certainly. Nor, will he protect himself by the assertion that other members were improperly subject to the influence of lobbyists. There were a number of gentlemen, members of this House, with whom I did not agree, because I did not think their action was in accord with the best interests of the country, but I said so on the floor of Parliament, and took the responsibility of what I had to say. I would suggest respectfully to my hon. friend that before he hands out such insinuations and insults to Parliament, he should take measures to protect himself by stating his position upon the floor of Parliament.
This Bank Act is an important one; it is one that certainly brings members of Parliament personally within the danger of the great financial institutions of the country. A member of the House is taking some chances in taking a position that is in any way antagonistic to the views of these organizations. It is not for me to say that my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie or any of his friends are influenced by such an idea as that; I would be sorry to think they were. But I certainly object most strenuously to the suggestion he has made, in his own protection. When he finds it necessary in order to protect himself, to insult the whole House of Commons, I think the hon. gentleman goes too far.
Mr. OLIVER.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the hon. gentleman is going too far in saying that an hon. member insulted the House. In my judgment nothing has been said that was an insult to the House. It seems to me the hon. member is going a little too far in that statement.


Frank Oliver: If your ruling is that 1 withdraw the word-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is my ruling.


Frank Oliver: I certainly will withdraw it, but I wanted to emphasize the idea, which I am sure will be in your mind, Mr. ^Speaker, that my hon. friend did derogate from the dignity of Parliament by the suggestion he made.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster):: I am rather surprised at the lack of perception displayed by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). He surely has not observed the operations of lobbyists around this House of Commons recently. I take exception to his remarks in so far as they refer to the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), who, having spoken already, is not privileged to sneak again. I wish to place upon record the fact that the hon. gentleman has entirely misquoted the remarks of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, giving to them an interpretation and significance which they do not properly bear. I listened attentively to what the hon. member for Portage la Prairie said. He stated that a lobbyist for the banking interests of this country was permitted to occupy a seat within the rail of the Senate, to interfere with the deliberations of that body, and to make suggestions to members of that body as to the course of legislation which they should pursue in respect of the Act under consideration. I was surprised to hear that statement confirmed by an hon. member who seemed to be very conversant with the standing of the lobbyist referred to, and with the brief which he held in this connection. I join my protest with that of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie against permitting proceedings of this kind, particularly when they result, as they appear to have resulted in this case, in nullifying the will of members of this House, ,who, on this revision of the Bank Act, made some amendments in order to protect the interests of the public.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I wish to refer to the amendment made by the Senate to section 54, by which the word ' detailed ' is struck out. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) refers to it as a 'trifling' change. If he will give the matter a little more attention, I am sure that he will come to

the conclusion that his words were spoken without proper consideration.


Frank Oliver: That was the general impression I gathered from the tenor of the remarks of the hon. Minister of Finance. I did not refer to a particular section; I spoke of the amendments as a whole.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The hon. member I
understand, attended the Banking and Commerce Committee fairly regularly.


Frank Oliver: I was never able to attend that Committee. I dealt with the Bill in the House, not in that Committee.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Anyone who was present at this committee's sittings heard the complaints received through different channels to the effect that rates charged by banks were not at all satisfactory. Any criticism of these rates was met by tabulated statements brought forward by leading bankers, showing that the earnings of the banks did not justify a smaller 'spread' between the present 3 per cent paid on deposits and the rates, charged for discount. All their figures were based on the assumption that the profit and loss statement issued by each bank at the end of the year was correct and showed the exact earnings of the bank. Some members of the committee thought these figures did not represent the earning capacity of money used by the banks. It is well known that the figures shown as profit in the statements published annually by the banks are arrived at after deducting not only expenses of management, losses on branches which are unproductive, operating expenses of all kinds and the writing off of bad debts, but a provision for undisclosed losses still sleeping in current loans, so that, without a detailed statement of profit and loss to guide us, it is utterly impossible for an intelligent opinion to be reached as to the rate of interest earned by banks on the money which they handle. Therefore any amendment which tends to disclose the amount of money actually earned by the banks is fundamental and important. Therefore the ' slight ' amendment referred to by my hon. friend from Edmonton turns out to be a very important one.
The bankers before the Banking and Commerce committee pointed out that, if detailed statements of profit and loss were required, a tendency might ensue on the part of some banks to provide insufficient amounts out of earnings to meet losses which must occur and which are at present undisclosed. Therefore it might tend to weaken the position of such banks. This is a matter of great importance, bflt there is another very important matter for us to consider, and that is the interest of the public in the cost to them of banking facilities.
It was in order to ascertain whether or not a lower rate of interest could be charged to borrowers, or a more attractive rate of interest granted to depositors, that I thought it was necessary to have a detailed statement of profit and loss. If the real earnings of the banks, as would be shown in a * detailed ' statement are greater than those shown by the statement of earnings as the banks have published it heretofore, their argument regarding the small value to them of the money they have on deposit, etc., falls to the ground.
The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) dubbed as ' curious ' a number of propositions which were made in the Banking and Commerce committee, many of which were not accepted. Of the many amendments suggested, some no doubt were inadvisable, but a great number of them had to do with different phases of the Bank Act which are at present agitating the	public mind.
I may be pardoned, perhaps, for stating that one 'curious' thing that impressed me m the committee was that nearly all the amendments of a far-reaching nature which were negatived in the Banking and Commerce committee, were negatived by the votes of members of the committee who were present in time to vote, but who had not been sufficiently 'curious' to be present at the discussions.	And, notwithstanding all the discussions and the putting forward of 'curious amendments,' as the hon0 member for Pictou calls them, not one fundamental change was made in the committee, if we except section 54 which has now been amended again by the Senate.
I am satisfied that it is possible to improve several of the important provisions of the Bank Act. Along with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), I went to the Banking and Commerce Committee with hopes-not that radical changes would be made in our banking system, but that changes would be embodied in this measure which would facilitate business and yet make no great disturbance in the operation of the structure known as the Canadian banking system.
But I think the difficulty of dealing with this matter in committee has been impressed upon the members who have taken an active part in the committee's labours. I have about come to the conclusion that the best way to have the work done is by a reference to a small commission which will be more compact, and which, I hope, could achieve some tangible results which will work out, not only to the advantage of the public, but also to the improvement of the system and therefore to the advantage of the banks themselves.
I think that business conditions today are not such as to render violent changes desirable. Especially under



such conditions, it is not well to make sudden changes in our system. Business accustoms itself to whatever conditions surround it. We have been doing business under a certain system for a long time, and the present is not, perhaps, the time for violent change. But it _ seems to me that investigation and discussion should go on with a view to bringing about the changes that are desirable.
It is with reluctance that I feel that I must express my opinions as to the acts of a House of equal jurisdiction to this; but perhaps I may be pardoned for saying that it is my opinion that the changes proposed in the Senate are not such as are desired by the public. The changes proposed in the Banking and Commerce Committee, I am satisfied, were approved by the public. With regard particularly to section 54, I am satisfied the public are desirous of knowing what toll they pay the banking system for carrying on the banking business of the country. In taking ' out this word 'detailed' in section 54, the Senate have, in my opinion, placed themselves entirely in opposition to the public will in this matter, as they already have in other matters.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: 1 accept whatever responsibility rests' upon me for the Bill as it is now going through the House. I took part in the early discussion of the measure and tried to bring before the House what I considered to be a substantial issue in connection with this measure. I stated that we had an old-fashioned system, that there was an absolute need of banking currency sufficient to carry on the business of the country, and that' we ought to consider soon some means of relief. I suggested, in the first speech I	madeand I endorse what my hon, friend from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy) says that there will be no solution of the bank question until we have a commission of competent men to inquire into the matter, to study it and bring in a report on which legislation can be founded. There is nothing now before the people that will cause such disappointment as the form in which this Bill is passed. There is no progress shown in this measure. We ought to have a Bank Act embodying some of the progressive ideas in banking that obtain in Europe and Australia, if not in America. After the United States Congress has dealt with this banking question-and I understand they are about to take it up -I believe this country will be more and more impressed with the idea that a commission should be appointed to study and report on. this question with a view to having another Bank Act for Canada and another Currency Act as well.
Mr. McCURDY.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: I am sorry that I had not the opportunity to hear the Minister of Finance and some of the earlier speakers in this debate. But I was here in time to hear my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens say that far-reaching amendments were voted through by members of the committee who were not present at the discussion. I think I was as regular-


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I said that many of
those who voted against important amendments were not present at these discussions.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am confident that the bulk of the members voting from time to time took a very active interest in the work of the committee. I am surprised at some of the statements I have heard this morning, such as those about men lobbying and having a great deal of influence with members of the commitee. The Banking Bill has been before the committee for months, and I must say that the Finance Minister and the chairman of the committee have made the greatest possible efforts for the solution of the importmit problems that have arisen in connection with the measure. These efforts should be appreciated by the members of this House, as I know they are appreciated by the people at large. I have also heard^ the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) make , the statement that members of the
House are taking chances


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. Hon. members
should confine themselves to the amendments to the Bill proposed by the Senate. It is not permissible at this stage to have a general discussion of the Banking Bill.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am sorry if I have departed from the rules of the House. I was not here at the time the amendments were read; I wished merely to express my opinion as to the position taken by the committee and the work they have done. The amendments proposed by some hon. gentlemen when the Bill was under consideration by the Banking and Commerce Committee were withdrawn by themselves, and I am sorry that they now object because these amendments are not incorporated in the Bill.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


William Thomas White: with regard to such an Act as the Bank -Act is to confine a measure of progrepive-ness with caution because, even although [DOT]we may be very sure in our own minds as to the effect of a certain measure or an amendment to an existing measure, when you are dealing with a matter as complex and as far-reaching as banking, and a matter in reference to which it is so dimcult to estimate in advance all the consequences of legislative action, for my part I adhere to the view that we should proceed as I have said, progressively but cautiously, and that has been the spirit with which I approached the revision of the Act. 1 wish to pay this tribute to the Banking Committee of this House. I do not believe that any committee in any legislative assembly in Canada ever exhibited a greater interest in the subject with which_ it had to deal than div1 this committee in dealing with the Bank Act. I think everyone was impressed with the intelligence and interest with which the several sections were discussed and with the devotion to their public duty shown by all members of the committee. Personally I never sought to influence the judgment of one member with regard to any clause. The discussion was open and fair, everyone had an opportunity *of bringing forward any amendments, and having them discussed on their merits and I cheerfully bear tribute to the interest, intelligence and zeal with which the members of the committee, without exception so far as I know, devoted themselves to the very responsible duties which evolved upon them in the consideration of the Bill as it left this House. The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has stated that there is a lack of currency in Canada at the present time. I would like to say that that lack of currency is not confined to Canada, that condition which he draws to our attention is world-wide. There is a lack of currency all over, tight money conditions prevail in Great Britain, in Germany, in France, all over the continent and in the United States. It is a worldwide condition of financial stringency, and I may say further that lack of currency has been a very general fact since the beginning of time.	[DOT]


William Findlay Maclean: Oh, no.


William Thomas White: It would not be too much to say that lack of currency is coeval and coextensive with mankind, and I think it will always be. It will always be difficult to get money, and speaking personally I think it is a good thing because if you get too much money, if you can get money by a credit system too easily, the tendency 'is to over-expend and you bring about a condition that is not desirable. The history of finance abounds with examples of what I am stating to the House. The revision of the Bank Act itself is of a very complex Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
nature and great and grave care and consideration must be devoted to^ it. So far as my attitude goes I have given to the new Act my most careful attention for a period of two years.. I have welcomed the advice of all who tendered it and sought that of those who I thought could assist me in framing a measure that would reflect credit upon the Parliament of Canada, and I think that on the whole, although I know there is a difference of opinion with regard to it, the Act we have put through is satisfactory. It is an Act, not only of the Government but of the House as a whole, because I never regarded it as a controversial measure, and attempted to deal with all of its sections with the utmost impartiality, as I think hon. members will testify. Thus the Act as it now stands substantially represents the views if not of all, at least of a very considerable majority of the members of the House.
During the year 1912-13 there has been a very great financial stringency. I do not think we have all realized just how stringent the conditions have been. In Canada I think we are not suffering more than in other countries, in fact I am greatly gratified that in Canada we have borne the strain so well. Personally I am of the view that the tight money period will gradually disappear and that in the natural course of things easy money conditions will reassert themselves. I should not be surprised if that would come more rapidly than is generally thought. In a year of this kind to revise the Bank Act has not been the easiest matter imaginable, and, under the circumstances, I feel that in moving this concurrence of the House in the amendments of the Senate for the' reasons I have given, I should express to all the members on both sides my thanks for the great assistance they have given in bringing this legislation to its present condition. It is not bv any means a perfect lot there never will be anything perfect in this world, but I believe we have made substantial progress in it and I believe that that is the view of this House.


Mr. STEVENS:: I understood the minister to say that he was prepared to introduce an Act next year embodying the amendments which have been rejected here.


William Thomas White: No. There is one settion in the Act, I think number 43, in which the committee endeavoured to make provisions under which the courts would hold that the shares, let us say belonging to a shareholder in British Columbia, would not be subject to succession dues levied by the Government of British Columbia and also by the Government of Ontario, if the shares happened to be those of a bank whose head office was in Ontario, because it has been held by a decision of the courts

that the domicile of the shares of a bank is the head office of a bank. What I said this morning was that the amendments by the Senate, I am advised, will not prevent the courts from holding that the domicile of the shares is in the province in which their holder resides, if the section as it left the Commons would cause the court to hold that. In other words, the Senate, as I am advised by the leader of the Senate, were of the opinion that their amendment would bring about precisely the same decision as the amendment proposed by the Commons. What I said this afternoon was that I would consider, between now and next session, whether the best way to meet the difficulty was not to introduce a Bill which would declare, as far as the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction and authority to declare, that the domicile of the shares of a Canadian bank is the domicile of their owner. That is to say that if a Nova Scotia shareholder, holding certain shares, should die, the shares held by him would be subject to -succession dues levied by that province but not to succession dues levied by any other province.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it possible for the
amendments which have been rejected by the Senate to be reintroduced next year or is the Act fixed for ten years?


William Thomas White: This Act-, whfie there is a decennial revision, is -subject to be changed or modified in any or all sections in any year in which Parliament assembles.


William Findlay Maclean: I would
like to say, in answer to the hon. gentleman-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member is not in order.


William Findlay Maclean: What about the previous speaker?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I submitted the question to the House, and it was agreed-
Boulay,	Merner.
Bowman,	Michaud,
Boys,	Molloy,
Bradbury,	Mondou,
Burnham,	Morphy,
Burrell,	Nantel,
Carroll,	Nesbitt,
Carvell,	Neely,
Charlton,	Nicholson,
Clare,	Oliver,
Clark (Red Deer),	l'aquet,
Clarke (Wellington),	Pardee,
Clements,	Pelletier,
Cochrane,	Reid (Grenville)
Coderre,	Rhodes,
Cromwell,	Ross,
Crothers,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Currie,	Shepherd,
Doherty,	Smith,
Elliot, '	Stanfield;
Fortier,	Steele,
Fowler,	Stewart
Fripp,	(Lunenburg),
Garland,	Thomson
G-auvreau,	(Qu'Appelle),
German,	Thornton,
Girard,	Tobin,
Graham,	Turgeon,
Guilbault,	Walker,
Guthhrie,	Wallace,
Hazen,	Warnock,
Henderson,	White (Leeds),
Hepburn, Lancaster,	Wright.-83.
NAYS: x	
Messieurs.	
Bennett (Calgary),	Meighen,
Buchanan,	Nickle,
Kmmerson,	Sexsmith,
Maclean (York, 0.).	Stevens,
McCurdy,	Taylor.-10.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and amendments read the second time, and concurred in.
SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE.	-
House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Resolutions read the first and the second time and concurred in.
William Findlay Maclean: Then there are two
rules to be applied to members of this House.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would like to speak too, if it is open.
House divided on motion of Mr. White:
YEAS:
Messieurs.
Armstrong
(Lambton),
Barker,
Beattie,
Bennett (Simcoe), Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Boivin,
Borden,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Lavallee,
Law,
Lemieux,
Macdonald,
Macdonell,
MacLean (Halifax), McKay,
McLean
(Queen's, P.E.I.),



WAYS AND MEANS-THE SUPPLY BILL.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance), the House went into-Committee of Ways and Means.
['In case the Government contemplate bringing down further supplementary estimates, I have received from Montreal a letter from an old soldier in which he states that the two old military cemeteries at Montreal are being desecrated by boys. The lettering on the tombs has disappeared, the walls and fences are in very poor condition. This old soldier says that we owe to the pioneers of the British system in Canada, the sacred duty of protecting their ashes. It would be a matter of a few hundred dollars, possibly a thousand dollars, to put the two cemeteries in decent condition. I would ask my hon. friend to attend to this at once. This old soldier appeals to me and I am very glad indeed to re-echo his appeal to the House of Commons, and I would like my hon. friend to attend to this before Parliament prorogues. It will really be to the credit of the country to protect the ashes of these old soldiers.\n_ On motion of Mr. Rogers, House adjourned at 1.15 a.m. Tuesday.', 'Tuesday, June 3, 1913.']
William Thomas White: That towards making good the -Supply granted to His Majes-ty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the 31st -March, 1914, the sum of $123,288,860.64 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time, and concurred in.
Mr. WHITE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 242, to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the
[Stage Direction]
public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1914.
Motion agreed, and Bill read the first time.
Mr. WHITE moved the second reading of the Bill.
['That towards making good the -Supply granted to His Majes-ty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the 31st -March, 1914, the sum of $123,288,860.64 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.']
Wilfrid Laurier: The next stage should be taken at the next sitting of the House.


William Thomas White: I thought we could read it the third time, and send it to the Senate.


Wilfrid Laurier: I see no objection, but with prorogation so near why have two Supply Bills?


William Thomas White: My right hon. friend knows that, so far as five-sixths of these estimates are concerned, there is an immediate demand-because of the needs of the public service.


Wilfrid Laurier: If no other Supply Bill were coming, I could understand that. Still, if the hon. gentleman says that it is desirable-


William Thomas White: I understand my right hon. friend's point, but I think it is better to proceed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
["I understand my right hon. friend's point, but I think it is better to proceed."]
Thomas Simpson Sproule: When shall this Bill be read the third time?


Wilfrid Laurier: At the next sitting of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At the next sitting of the House.



[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 239, to amend the Penitentiaries Act.-Mr. Doherty.
Bill No. 238, respecting Pelagic Sealing.- Mr. Doherty.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), Bill No. 211, to amend the Criminal Code, was read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 3-definition of peace officer:
Mr. GERMAN:: This section includes as peace officers:
Any police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process.
This goes very far. Many police officers are excellent officials, but there are some Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
so-called police officers and constables, who, I fear, would not make the best kind of peace officers.


Mr. DOHERTY:: The only change made by the amendment to the section of the previous Act is that of adding the permanent employees of the penitentiary to that class of persons at 'present known as peace officers.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-dangerous weapons:
Wilfrid Laurier: What is the
nature of the amendment proposed by this section?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As the law stands at
present, everyone, with the exception of police officers and that class of persons, is prohibited from carrying any pistol or air gun upon his person unless he has a certificate of exemption. The first change we make is to extend that prohibition to the carrying of pistols, sheath-knives, bowie knives, daggers, stilettos, metal knuckles, skull crackers, or other offensive weapons that may be concealed upon the person, or any air gun or any device or contrivance for muffling or stopping the sound of the report of any firearm. The prohibition as it stands at present applies to the carrying of the articles referred to without having a certificate of exemption from the operation of the section. The amendment says:
' Without having a permit granted under this section.' It seemed to -be more simple to require a permit than to make a law and provide for exemption. The next change is with regard to the authority who may issue what we now call the permit, and which under the old Act was called a certificate of exemption. Under the old Act, any justice of the peace might issue a certificate of exemption. In view of the necessity of restricting the carrying of weapons of this kind, the importance of which, I regret to say, is more and more impressed upon us every day by the number of the crimes of violence committed by the use of such weapons, it has been thought well not to leave this power of issuing permits in the hands of all justices of the peace, but to restrict it to specific officers. The officers who are authorized to issue these permits under the regulations we propose are:
Any officer of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police or commissioner Dominion police or superintendent of provincial police or stipendiary or district magistrate or chief constable of any city, incorporated town or district municipality.
It has been pointed out that there are certain portions of the country where officers coming within this express legislation are not to be found, and that we should make provision for them. For the purpose of pro-

viding for such cases, I move that subsection 2 of section 4 of this Bill be amended by inserting in the fourth line thereof, after the word ' magistrate/ the words ' or sheriff.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I would move to amend subsection 5 of section 4 by adding in the third line, after the word 1 or/ the words ' carried by any.' Without this amendment, there would be no authority for a peace officer to carry arms. Authority is given to the militia and naval officers to carry arms under other legislation of this Parliament, or under lawful regulations or orders respecting them.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-seduction by employer:
William Manley German: It has been suggested to me by a county Crown attorney and other officers of the law that this section is going a little too far. I do not know that there has been any public demand for extending it to other classes, such as domestic servants. I did think that the section as it was had gone pretty far in that we had placed factory girls under its protection. You can understand that when a man seduces a girl employed under him in a factory he takes her away for that special purpose, but it is different in the case of a domestic servant. It opens the way very largely for blackmail. You get a girl of bad repute in your. house, the family may be away, the man may be the most innocent man in the world, she can run out of doors, raise a row, the man does not want to go before the magistrate, and he would rather settle than have his name put before the public in that way. I think this is going a little farther than the law should go. I am saying this not on my own motion, but at the suggestion of gentlemen of the Bar and others who have spoken to me about it. I think it should not be extended to domestic servants.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There has been a very persistent demand, coming from many people-
Sir WILFRID LAURIER. From whom?


Charles Joseph Doherty: From numbers of people who have actively interested themselves in looking after domestic servants and others, especially immigrant girls coming into the country. It is not an offence if the girl be of bad repute, nor is it an offence if the girl be over twenty-one years of age. The law as it at present stands makes it an offence for an employer to seduce or have carnal connection with a girl in his employ in a factory, mill, workshop or store. The modification is simply
to strike out these words and to make it an offence for a man to seduce or have illicit carnal connection with a girl under twenty-one years of age of previous chaste repute who is in his employ. It would seem to me that such a man is a proper subject to be dealt with by the criminal law, and that if a man is guilty of an offence under the circumstances mentioned we should make provision for his punishment. It has been suggested as an objection to this provision that there is the possibility of an abuse of it. If we were to look merely at the possibility of abuse, it seems to me that it is just as possible for the factory girl, or the typewriter girl, or the girl employed in any of these places, to bring an unfounded complaint against her employer under the present law as it would be for the servant girl. If you come to a well-founded case it does seem to me that a man who so abuses the position that a girl occupies as a domestic in his own household, so to speak, a member of his own family, as to lead her astray is perhaps more blameworthy than the man who has mere casual relations with a girl in his employment in the workshop or mill. If the law be justified, and I believe it is, it would seem to me proper to extend it in this way and as against any possible abuse it might give rise to, such as blackmail or any disadvantage that might result from it in that way, we can safely consider that the protection thrown around that class of young women who have to obtain their livelihood by becoming domestic servants, is more than a balancing advantage.


William Manley German: I wish to throw around these young girls every protection that possibly can be given them. You have provided in section 221 for the protection of all girls under sixteen years of age. Section 213 is applicable to girls under twenty-one years of age working in shops. My hon. friend says that there is the same possibility of blackmail in regard to girls who work in shops as in regard to domestic servants. I say 4 no ' because, in the case of girls who work in shops, the circumstances surrounding the whole situation would be such that it would be more difficult to make proof against the person charged. I should think that section 211 provides ample security, and that this new provision is not necessary. My hon. friend spoke of immigrants coming out here. I have in my mind the case of a man who was charged by a girl who had come out here and who was tried in Welland county. I defended him. He was absolutely innocent and was shown to be by the evidence. It was blackmail from the beginning. He was honourably acquitted by the jury, but it was only after

a trial and an exposure which he did not like. I think it would be better to leave this section out.


Edmond Proulx: I agree with the minister that a man who has a domestic servant in his employment is more blameworthy than the employer in a shop or store. But he must remember that it is often difficult to prove the previously unchaste character of the girl. The presumption is in her favour and the burden of proof is shifted to the accused. I do not think we should open the door to any blackmail. I agree with the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) that if we gave more protection in a case of that kind it might open the door to blackmail.
On section 14-neglect to provide for wife and children:


Mr. McKENZIE:: It would seem that under this section the penalty of $500 is fixed, leaving no discretion to the judge to reduce it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: By section 1029 of the Criminal Code, the magistrate is empowered to impose a penalty within the limit fixed, and that section is interpreted as entitling the magistrate to impose any penalty not exceeding the penalty in the section.


Edmond Proulx: Does the minister mean that the magistrate could impose a fine of less than $500?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Edmond Proulx: Then why not say in
this clause, ' not exceeding $500?' Some of the magistrates do not know all the provisions of the Code, and they wouid take this section alone and say they had no discretion to fine less than $500.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The words, ' not exceeding $500,' might make this section more clear, I admit; but there are a number of existing sections in the' Criminal Code which proceed after the same method as this. If we were to add the words ' not exceeding ' in this section, it might be supposed that we differentiated it from the other sections, and that where these words did not appear, there was no discretion given a magistrate but to impose the maximum penalty. If the idea suggested by my hon. friend had been adopted as the general rule in the Criminal Code, it would have been the better way.


Edmond Proulx: I am pretty certain that some magistrates will not know they have discretion to impose less than the maximum penalty, under the reading of this section. As to the penalty itself, as a rule it is not the rich who desert their families, and those who do could hardly pay a fine Mr. GERMAN.
of $500, so it would mean imprisonment for them.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I know it is a very
violent assumption, but everybody, including magistrates, is presumed to know the law.


Edmond Proulx: Does the hon. minister
not think that the maximum is a little large?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think so.


Mr. FRIPP:: I beg to draw the hon. minister's attention to the fact that the section reads. 'not exceeding one hundred dollars.' Why should any distinction be made between section 12 and section 14, which imposes a fine of five hundred dollars? If a magistrate is to interpret that to mean that he can impose a fine of five hundred dollars as the maximum, and that he can inflict any fine up to that, I think that the sections ought to read alike. If a section reads, 'not exceeding one hundred dollars,' I understand that in practice the magistrate is limited to from one dollar up to one hundred dollars. In section 14 the language is different, and I should say that the magistrate would have no discretion whatever.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think both sections should read alike. The reason the words 'not exceeding' are in section 12 is because they were already in the section, and we altered simply what was required to be altered. I think it would be better to strike the words out of section 12 rather than to put them into the other section, because we must remember that these will be sections in the entire criminal code.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the hon. minister will find that the term 'not exceeding' is the more common one, running through all criminal legislation. I would have no objection to this section if it were to be interpreted by the higher courts, hut it is placing jurisdiction in the hands of a magistrate, who is not apt to read a number of sections and draw inferences.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not gone through the whole Criminal Code and put myself in a position to determine which form of expression is most frequently used; but it seems to me that, once we know that in some sections, at all events, the words 'not exceeding' are not used, it is better for us not to insert them in particular sections, because this might give strength to the suggestion that where they are not inserted the magistrate has to impose the maximum penalty., I turn up the Criminal Code and find section 415, which reads clear as follows:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to seven year's imprisonment, Ac.

According to section 1029, that is quite clear.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	My hon. friend finds
himself there in a higher court. In that case I have no objection to make. I do not feel so safe, however, when you are putting jurisdiction in the hands of a magistrate.


Edmond Proulx: That is my contention.
When you go before a magistrate or a justice of the oeace who is not very conversant with the Criminal Code, there may be a danger of his not interpreting the section correctly and thinking that he has to impose the maximum penalty. If the hon. minister goes through the different sections rf the Code, he will find many sections that contain the words 'not exceeding.' Will the hon. minister not insert the words in this section?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I hesitate to do it without first going through all the sections and seeing what the effect would be. When we have a clear statement of law on the matter why do hon. members assume that a magistrate will read this section, and not read section 1029? If I were quite sure that I would run no risk of creating doubt in regard to a large number of other sections, I would have no objection to inserting the words ' not exceeding ' in this section. I submit, however, that, when we have a perfectly clear rule in the law itself, it is not wise for us. because we are afraid that with regard to this section the magistrate will not know the rule, to put something in this section that will make him feel justified in refusing to apply the rule to other sections where the words ' not exceeding ' are not used.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	I always understood
section 1029 to apply to the higher courts. I may be mistaken, but I never knew it to be invoked in a magistrate's court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think it has a general application. It forms part of part 20 of the Code, which is entitled ' Punishment, fines, forfeitures, costs, and restitution of property.' The first section of it says:
In the sections of this part relating to suspended sentence, unless the context otherwise requires, ' court ' means and includes any superior court of criminal jurisdiction, any judge or court within the meaning of part XVI.
Under the heading of ' Punishment generally ' are sections 1027 and 1028, which do not bear upon this. Then comes section 1029 and its terms are absolutely general. (Reading):
Whenever a fine may he awarded or a penalty imposed for any offence, the amount of such fine or penalty shall, within such limits, if any, as are prescribed in that behalf, he in
the discretion of the court or persons passing sentence or convicting, as the case may be.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	There are no limits
here at all. There is no maximum nor minimum; there is only a certain amount given. I think my hon. friend will find that section 1029 has .particular reference to cases where the magistrate can go to either extreme; but here he has no discretion at all; he is told he must impose a fine of a certain amount. My hon. friend may be perfectly right, but I think he will find that as regards summary proceedings in a court, the legislation says:	a fine not exceeding a certain amount.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no doubt it
would be better that all the sections should have the same form. As some of the sections use the words ' not exceeding,' it becomes less objectionable to insert them here, but we are adding still one more section to those which may be invoked as creating a suggestion that section 1029 does not apply to the case with which we aTe dealing, and the magistrate will say:	In
everv other case where there is only a sum mentioned. I shall and will impose the maximum penalty. The hon. member for Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie) says there is no limit. There is no limit downwards, but there is a limit upwards, and all that section says is that the offender shall be liable to a penalty of $200, and if he is liable to a penalty of $200, he is liable for every one of the dollars that make up $200.
On section 15-husband and wife: theft while living apart:


Edmond Proulx: There might be some difficulty in identifying the property carried away by the deserting husband or wife.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will be on the prosecution to prove that the property belongs to the person claiming it. 'If they fail to prove that they will not be able to secure a .conviction.
On section 16-false statements in writing:


Alfred Ernest Fripp: This is a very dangerous
clause to add to the Criminal Code. It seems to me that it is giving power to a magistrate or court that ought not to be placed in such hands, and is making a criminal offence of that which is well known now simply to be the subject of civil action. I am personally opposed to turning our police courts and criminal courts of justice generally in collecting agencies for commercial purposes. In my experience at the Bar, I have found that some of our magistrates are not capable of distinguishing between a statement made in good faith and one made with the intention of committing fraud. Take the Sub-section:

(b) Knowing that a false statement in writing has been made respecting die financial condition or means or ability to pay, of himself, or sneh person, firm or corporation in which he is interested, or for whom he is acting, prpcures upon the faith thereof, either for the benefit of himself or such person, firm or corporation, any of the benefits mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section.
Many a merchant gives a statement to his banker in perfect good faith as to his ability to pay, and six months afterwards the charge may be laid against him that at that time he committed a fraud and is liable to punishment under this section. It seems to me this legislation is going very far and that it would be well for this Parliament to proceed very cautiously in making this a criminal offence.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
will notice that the essential thing to this being a criminal offence is that the falsehood should be known to the person who makes the statement or seeks to benefit by it. It is one thing to make a mistaken statement and another to make a false statement. As the law stands at present, if a man obtains goods by false pretences, he is guilty of an offence, and it is no easier, when dealing with a case of that kind to prove that the man knew the falsity of the statement he was making than in this particular case, I do not see any reason to apprehend that because the making of the false statement is made an offence-not merely the actual procuring of goods-that there is any greater danger, that a man who did not knowingly make a false statement will be convicted than there is under this Act of a man who procures goods by a false statement. In both [DOT]cases it will be on the prosecution-to prove that there is a statement made that is knowingly false. These two section have *been asked for by numerous boards of trade, -and especially pressed for by the credit men's association of Canada which is an incorporated body composed of the credit men of practically all the wholesale firms of this country who ft.id that they are placed in this position: Men make false statements of their assets and liabilities, for instance, showing a solvent condition. They hand them in to different commercial agencies in whose charges they may be scrutinized more or less carefully. On the strength of that they get credit and goods are sold to them. The only difficulty under these circumstances of obtaining a conviction is that you cannot prove the direct communication of the false statement to the man who sells the goods, but the practical result is precisely the same as though the accused had walked into the shop, presented his false statement and on the strength of it got the goods. This section will go no further than the punishment of a man who knowingly makes a false statement with a Mr. FRIPP.
view to thereby obtaining goods, or cash, or credit; and further to make liable to punishment the man who knowing that a false statement of that kind has been made on his own behalf, or on behalf of some firm or corporation or .company in which he is interested or for whom he is acting, avails himself of the false statement that was made for the purpose of procuring the actual delivery of goods. For my part, I cannot connect this change in the criminal law with providing a means to collect civil debt by means of the criminal law. What is going to be punished here is the false and fraudulent statement that a man made, and that alone. It can hardly be said that when you provide a penalty for stealing, you provide a method by which a man may be frightened into paying back what he stole, and that you are thereby providing a means to enforce a civil obligation. There is no doubt that out of every fraud there arises a civil obligation to indemnify the party defrauded, but it does not necessarily follow that there may not 'be sufficient reason to make a criminal offence of certain methods by which fraud is perpetrated, and that is all this legislation proposes.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
At eight o'clock, House resumed and again went into Committee.
On section 24-arrest without warrant for procuring:


Charles Joseph Doherty: This adds to the cases in which persons may be arrested without a warrant, the persons being offenders against section 216 that we passed this afternoon, defining offences in connection with what is generally called the white slave traffic and the procuring of women for prostitution. The necessity of getting a warrant, it has been found, has facilitated numerous escapes. Men are observed under circumstances where there is conclusive, or at all events, very strong, reason to' believe that they are engaged in taking females from one place to another for immoral purposes, and officers have been powerless because they have to get a warrant.
On section 25-summons or warrant for witnesses:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the change ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Section 655 of the
Criminal Code was amended in 1909 so as to provide that the magistrate, when a complaint is laid before him, may hear witnesses. It seems that this has been interpreted as imposing upon him the obligation to hear witnesses. The amendment

merely provides that when a complaint is made the magistrate may, if he considers it desirable or necessary, hear witnesses. This is to make it clear that he is not bound.
On section 26-depositions in writing or by stenography:


Charles Joseph Doherty: The only change is that where there is an official court stenographer, who has been sworn to accurately report and transcribe the evidence, it shall not be necessary for him to testify under oath that in the case of each deposition the transcription is correct.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is hardly worth
while to amend the Criminal Code for such a slight change. It is desirable to leave the code alone as much as possible and not to make changes except where it is necessary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In large centres like Montreal, where there is an official sworn stenographer, it adds very greatly to the work if he has to make a separate affidavit for each deposition. Where you have a large number of cases, and where you have a stenographer or stenographers to the court who are officials and who are sworn to transcribe the depositions correctly, you save a good deal of time and a considerable amount of inconvenience by this amendment.
On section 27-notice of appeal:


Charles Joseph Doherty: The changes that are affected by this section are two in number. In the first place, there is a provision made for a surety justifying under oath of the sufficiency of his bond. But the principal change is that application for admission to bail pending an appeal must be made to the justice who pronounced the conviction. If refused, the application may be made to the judge of the court to which the appeal is directed. If it is impossible to get it from the justice who pronounced the conviction, then application may be made to the judge of the court directly to whom the appeal will go, or in the province of Quebec, except in the districts of Montreal and Quebec, to any judge of the Superior Court. The evil that is sought to be remedied is that persons convicted of offences under the portion of the code which deals with the summary trial of indictable offences may take an appeal, and may then apply to practically any justice for bail. They may apply to a county court judge, the clerk of the peace, a justice of the peace or the clerk of the county court before which the conviction has been made. It has been found that under that system there has been considerable abuse. These people have gone to some justice of the peace
who has no information concerning the case, and. in many cases they have been admitted to bail, where a man knowing all the circumstances probably might have refused it. The particular instances which have made it seem desirable to legislate in this matter have arisen in the city of Montreal, and particularly in the case of prosecutions for keeping bawdy houses. Under this system, when a conviction has been obtained, bail has been put in before some one of these officers, frequently valueless bail has been accepted and the prisoner has disappeared before the appeal came on. This is to ensure that under the circumstances substantial bail shall be obtained.
Mr, McKENZIE:	While there is no
doubt such evils as those which the minister has described should be provided for, this amendment is going to create a good deal of trouble in some parts of the country. Take a case that every lawyer in the province of Nova Scotia meets with. I may go with my client twenty or twenty-five miles to a magistrate in a remote isection of the country in order to have a case tried, and find that the magistrate reserves his decision until the next day or maybe a -week afterwards. I get notice that he has given a conviction against my client, with which I am not satisfied and from which I desire to appeal. Under former conditions I could send my notice of appeal, complete my bonds right in the town in which I live, file them in the regular way and the magistrate would be obliged to send the papers to the Court of Appeal. As my hon. friend proposes to amend the law, I or my client would be obliged to go a distance of twenty or twenty-five miles to that magistrate and then perhaps find that he refuses to accept a bond. I would then be put-to the trouble of going to a higher court. If it is possible to confine this new remedy to the cities, 1 would suggest to my hon. friend that it is desirable to do so. It would not work any great hardship in a city like Montreal where all the parties are, as a rule, confined to the city. In the country districts it would work a very great hardship.


Mr. CARROLL:: The point made by. mv bon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenziel is very well taken so far as the country districts are concerned. There is another point in connection with this section; sub-section iv of clause (c) says:
Upon making a deposit of the fine or costs or entering into recognizance, as the case may he, such appellant shall he liberated from custody.
Sub-section 1 of clause (c) says:
If the appeal is from a conviction or order adjudging imprisonment, the appellant shall

either remain in custody until the appeal is heard by the court to which the appeal is given or shall enter into a recognizance as hereinafter provided; or, if the appeal is from a conviction or order whereby a penalty or sum of money is adjudged to be paid, the appellant shall "deposit the amount of such fine with the justice, together with such further amount as the justice deems sufficient to cover the costs of the appeal, or shall remain in custody until the appeal is heard by the court to which the appeal is given or shall enter into a recognizance as hereinafter provided.
Sub-section iv might mean the costs of the justice who convicts. For instance, a fine of $20 and costs of $4.50 is imposed. That would mean that the appellant would have to deposit $24.50 before he would be liberated. According to sub-section 1, the costs of the appeal might be $10. There seems to be a conflict between these two sub-sections.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think it would be difficult to make it perfectly clear. The intention certainly is that the appellant shall deposit the sum that it is declared necessary to deposit. I would he willing to adopt any form of words that would make the matter clear. I might say ' the deposit above provided for.'


William F. Carroll: All right.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish seriously to impress upon the ' minister the advisability of leaving the law as it is at present, and of providing by some substantive section for such cases as are brought to his attention. It would meet the necessity and avoid the chaos that would be created in the country districts by this radical departure from the practice of appeals from magistrates' courts.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the law at present, a man who has been convicted before one justice may start out and hunt up some other who does not know anything about the circumstances and who possibly is in no good position to appreciate what would be sufficient bail. I apprehend the difficulty suggested by the hon. member. Would it be met if we gave to the man convicted the option of going to the county court judge instead of to a justice of the peace. The law at present gives too wide choice to a convicted person to find his own justice to take the recognizance.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I never knew of a
case in my own province, in my experience of twenty years' practice at the Bar, where any abuse arose because of that privilege extended to the man convicted. In civil matters, the law formerly was that you had to go before the magistrate who tried the case, but that was found to be a great hardship and the legislature changed the law, Mr. CARROLL.
so that you may now in civil cases complete bonds before any justice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps it would meet the objections of the hon. gentleman if the law were allowed to stand as it is, with a provision added prefixing the words: Where the conviction has been pronounced in a city or town?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That would be very
much better. My object 'is to provide against obliging a man to travel long distances. You might add the words: Where the cause of action arose and the case tried and conviction obtained in a city or town.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There might be difficulty in ascertaining where the cause of action arose.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Suppose a North Sydney man is taken to Louisburg thirty-five miles away to be tried for an alleged offence, and he is convicted by the magistrate there,, he is then sent to the jail at Sydney which is twenty-five miles nearer, but still ten miles away from his home. He would have to go back these twenty-five miles _ to Louisburg to make application for bail, instead of going to his own town where he is known and could get his bondsmen all the time he remains in the custody of an officer. Under the old system he could send for two bondsmen to his old home and go before a magistrate in the vicinity of the jail. Tremendous confusion is capable of being created by this amendment.


Mr. CARVELL:: There is much in what has been said by the hon. member. The suggestion that the man convicted should go before a judge of the county court would not be convenient in the maritime pro-mces, where the judge may live one hundred miles away from the locus in quo. In Ontario they have two judges for most of the counties, and in Quebec you have one judge for each judicial district, while the suggestion to go before the county court judge might suit in these provinces, it would not suit in the maritime provinces. I would suggest that the appeal be given to the police magistrates who are located in the towns and who are a very respectable class of men in the maritime provinces. I think he will meet the objection of my hon. friend from Cape Breton North and yet place every person in as good a position as they ought to be placed in in order to prosecute an appeal. Perhaps the minister would not feel like making the change, but I wish he would at least consider that phase of it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not the desire at
all to create a situation under which a person fairly entitled to appeal shall be put under any hardship. I confess, I did not realize the difficulties that have been referred to.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the minister would
pardon me, I would like to make another suggestion. The hon. gentleman has never practised in tile country, and does not know what we have to contend with. In many cases the county magistrate is counsel for the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff comes before him, he feels it his duty to make a conviction, and having made the conviction, does not wish to go back on his client, and will hesitate before he will grant an appeal. That does not apply to police magistrates; they take a broader view of the case. I am afraid the hon. minister is making it almost impossible for a man to appeal. It may be that he ought not to have the right to appeal, but if he is given the right, no obstacles should be placed in his way.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would it meet the hon. gentleman's view if this were confined to convictions taking place in cities, or, possibly towns? The evil sought to be remedied which has been very pronounced, is so far as I know, principally confined to the city of Montreal. You see we have numerous-I might almost say innumerable-justices of the peace, and even among justices of the peace there are some people who are not exceedingly scrupulous. Take the case particularly of a woman convicted of keeping a bawdy-house. These women go before a practically unknown justice, and enter into the recognizance with a couple of their friends, 'and the first thing the convicting magistrate knows, they are out of jail, and that is the last that is seen of them. I want to meet that situation; at the same time, I do not want to do wrong to people situated in the position suggested. It seems to me that we might meet the requirements on both sides if we let the law stand generally as it is, and enacted these two clauses, while inserting some such provision as 'when the conviction has been pronounced in a city.'


Edmond Proulx: Will the hon. minister
add ' ot town ' ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am trying to find
the form of words that-


Edmond Proulx: And better add 'or incorporated village,' because in Ontario we have many incorporated villages in which there is a police magistrate.


William F. Carroll: The amendment will
greatly' improve this new Bill. At the same time it scarcely covers the objection taken by my hon. friend from Cape Breton North. Take that county in which we both reside. We have perhaps eight or nine incorporated towns, some of them forty or fifty miles apart. If the conviction takes place say in Louisburg of a man belonging to North Sydney, the amendment would not allow the police
magistrate of North Sydney to accept the recognizance in this instance,. and the police magistrate in Louisburg might not know whether tire sureties offered were men of straw or good men, not knowing the locality from which the alleged criminal came. If some amendment could be made that would give police magistrates in any town the right to take bail for any person convicted in any part of the same county, the difficulty would be overcome.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps we might let the clause stand. I will see if I can find some formula that will meet the justice of the case, and at the same time attain the object which we seek to attain.


William Manley German: Why is it necessary to make the change in the law? I do not agree with the hon. member for Garleton (Mr. Carvel!) that the justice of the peace is counsel for the prosecutor. So far as the province of Ontario is concerned, our justices of the peace are as absolutely impartial, so far as my experience goes, as the judge on the bench. I have never found they were acting as counsel for the prosecutor. But I cannot see why the minister desires to make the change.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I endeavoured to point that out some time ago. We want to prevent people who have been convicted from picking out some justice of the peace who knows absolutely nothing of the circumstances of the case and making their application before him to put in the recognizance provided for.


William Manley German: They should not be
allowed to do so, and I never heard they did.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the present law they do. The recognizance may be put in before any justice of the peace, and it does work out that people pick out a justice of the peace-not that he is necessarily dishonest or unreasonable or does not want to be impartial, but that he may be an ignorant man, and in many eases when he is not generally speaking an ignorant man, he is apt to be selected by reason of unfamilarity with the nature of the offense and of the people-their one object being to get in the recognizance. These people do not turn up for their appeals; they escape. In the city of Montreal, it is no exaggeration to say, this has become a crying evil.


William Manley German: I do not know why, when a person is sent up for trial by the magistrate-	.	*


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is not the case of a man who has gone for a preliminary inquiry and has been sent up for trial, but

1162ft
of the man who has been sentenced and convicted.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Summarily.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, summarily; and
he has the right to appeal, and he remains in custody unless he gives the recognizance in question. The law provides that he-
-shall enter into a recognizance in form 51 with two sufficient sureties, before a county judge, clerk of the peace, or justice of the peace for the county in which such conviction has been made, conditioned personally to appear at the said court, and to try such appeal, and to abide the judgment of the court thereupon, and to pay such costs as are awarded by the court; and upon such rerecognizance being given, the justice before such recognizance is entered into, shall liberate such person, if in custody.


William Manley German: Then I think he should enter the recognizance before the justice of the peace convicting him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the provision I am trying to make, and I will give him the opportunity, if he cannot go to that justice of the peace, to go to somebody else. I am giving him also the right of appeal, as it were, from the refusal of that justice of the peace; all I am requiring is that in the first instance he should go to that justice. Possibly we might get at this in a more satisfactory way if we defined what constitutes inability to go to that justice. I should think that in the majority of cases the man is before the justice when he is convicted. No doubt there may be some inconvenience under the law as proposed, but on the other hand the law as it exists is certainly exceedingly faulty in so far as the condition of affairs to which I have alluded exists.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It seems to me that the minister should redraft this clause for the purpose of carrying out the principle which he suggests,, namely, that it shall apply to cities and incorporated towns and villages. I am satisfied that if this were done the requirements of the maritime provinces would be met. There is no doubt that in many instances decisions are given by the magistrates before the accused, but in the country districts the parties concerned do not always get full justice in this regard. As the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) pointed out, in many cases great hardship results from the fact that the justices of the peace do not like to decide these cases in the presence of the accused; they" usually look as learned as pos-* sible, take time to consider the matter, and then give their decision.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As I have pointed out, it is sometimes necessary to go twenty, thirty or forty miles to appear before a magistrate who is to try the case. Very Mr. DOHERTY.
often he reserves his decision, and two or three days afterwards we find that he has given a decision with which we do not at all agree. That means that we have to retraverse the forty miles in order to file a bond before him, taking our bail with us. If he is convinced that his own conviction would be sustained, he does not accept our bail bond; then we have to go back over the same forty miles, perhaps returning with another two men, whose sureties he may also refuse to accept. We may then endeavour to persuade a county court judge that the man should be given bail. I have said in the presence of the hon. Minister of Justice that I have never known of a case where this privilege was abused in Nova Scotia. The principle followed in our province is that the right to appeal should be made as easy as possible, and that no impediment should be placed in the way of a man's getting to a higher court. To give a magistrate the power to refuse an appeal is giving him a power he should not have. I am sorry I cannot say for the magistrates in my own province what the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) said about the magistrates in the province of Ontario. We have in our province many magistrates who practise as a profession, and they are not at all generous about granting appeals and giving the higher court an opportunity to reverse their decisions. I must protest as strongly as possible against any change whatever being made in the law as it is now. I submit to the minister that if there are cases for which he must provide, he should provide for them by substantive sections dealing specifically with those cases, and leaving the law as it is. As the law stands it is all right, and the addition of substantive clauses will remove the difficulty with" which the minister has had to contend in large cities.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has the minister considered the advisability of changing the whole method of appeal? I know I could not ask the minister to accept my suggestion to'-night, but I want him to think it over. Under the law as it now stands, an appeal is really not an appeal at all; it is a re-trial. You file your bonds, go before the county court judge and bring up and re-examine all the witnesses, together with any new ones, if you can get them, and really it is a re-trial of the case. I have always thought that this is a rather cumbersome and expensive proceeding, and I think contrary to the general principles of the administration of justice in the lower courts. I have often thought that we should have what we- call the review system, by which a civil case is taken up from a lower court to a higher court in the form of an appeal, and the judge of the higher court having the record	of

the case as tried in the lower court before him, has the right to consider the whole case and decide according to the very right of the matter. If some such systerp could be devised regarding appeals in criminal matters, it would be much more satisfactory than the present system, and if the record of the lower court went up to the higher court, the judge could deal with it and decide the case according to the rights thereof. I think we would get better justice under this system, and that much of the expense and delay and inconvenience of getting these matters before the higher courts and getting an opinion upon them would be dispensed with.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have had before us in the department many suggestions which are not acted upon in the amendment now before us. We realize that there is a wide field for improvement in the Criminal Code, and I hope that some time we shall be able to take it up and deal with it in a more general way, and when that time comes I shall be glad to consider the suggestion of my hon. friend, together with any others he may offer. With regard to this particular section, as I am not in a position to say offhand that there may not be cases such, as those to which my attention has been called, and_ inasmuch as the session is drawing to a' close, I am disposed to drop the latter portion of this section for the present, and to allow to stand simply the amendments to paragraph b of article 750, to which no objection has been taken, and to which I do not think any can be taken. When a party appeals it is required that he give notice to the respondent or to the magistrate. This amendment. modifies that by prescribing that he shall give notice to both. I would move that section 27 be amended by making the verbal changes necessary to express this meaning.
On section 29-appeals in certain cases:


Charles Joseph Doherty: The change here is to
restore the law to the condition in which it was prior to the revision of the statutes in 1906. The practical effect is to provide that when a party is convicted under clauses ' e ' and ' f ' of section 773 of the Criminal Code of theft of an amount under $10, or of the offence of keeping a disorderly house under section 228, and the trial, is had under Part XVI, there shall be no appeal save in the case where his trial is before two justices of the peace. Wherever he has been tried before a magistrate or a judge of a higher court there shall be no appeal.
On section 31-deposition on preliminary inquiry may be read in evidence in certain events: *


Charles Joseph Doherty: The effect of this
amendment is to add to the cases in which
the deposition on preliminary inquiry may be read in evidence, the case in which a witness at the preliminary inquiry, where there has been full opportunity of crossexamination at that inquiry, refuses to be sworn or to answer questions in a subsequent proceeding. One case of this kind that has arisen was in connection with a charge of incest, where a daughter gave evidence on the preliminary inquiry, but on the subsequent inquiry refused to give evidence.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is a law that I think it is recognized in jurisprudence may be capable of producing collusion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is only in cases
where there has been full opportunity for cross-examination in the court below.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But there must be full opportunity in any case, because there could be no preliminary inquiry if the prisoner were not present. Therefore, under any circumstances, this evidence will be admissible.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Just as it is to-day in regard to a witness we cannot find or a witness who is unable to be present. The only change is that under the conditions subject to which a deposition may be taken-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: These are the same as
at the present time?	*


Charles Joseph Doherty: These are all the same but we add one more reason for allowing the deposition to be used and that is when the witness refuses to give evidence.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Refusal to answer is
contempt of court. Our law, both civil and criminal, provides that a person who refuses to give evidence is guilty of contempt of court. Is this witness to escape the penalty for contempt of court?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, the witness will be prosecuted just the same but we have the evidence. Under the system at present you punish the witness but you do not get the evidence. You get the evidence under this proposed amendment but you do not prejudice your right to punish the witness. The ends of justice will not be defeated because the witness refuses to answer.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But a statement by
any person is not evidence while he is subject to contempt of court. Until he purges his contempt, whatever he may say in the course of the inquiry, is not evidence. Thus, a party may continue for a year in contempt and under the common law anything he has said will not be evidence because he has not purged his contempt.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Even anything he said before he was guilty of contempt? This amendment is for the purpose of taking the

evidence, given subject to cross-examination and preventing the person who is in contempt of court by his own contempt, from defeating the ends of justice.


Mr. McKENZIB:: If my hon. friend will so amend it as to provide that there shall be full opportunity for cross-examination by counsel I would not be very much alarmed, but the opportunity for cross-examination in the ordinary procedure is not much.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then I will have to
modify it in every case and I do not propose to do that. ' It has been represented to me that before reporting the Bill it would be desirable that there should be added a thirty-fourth clause providing that this Bill shall not come into force until sixty days after its sanction by His Excellency. The reason of this is that all concerned in the administration of the law shall have an opportunity of taking cognizance of these amendments. I therefore move to add the following section:
34. This Act shall come into force ninety days after it is assented to by the Governor General.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have no way of
knowing what these amendments are until the statutes are printed and made available to the bar throughout the country. I have known instances where these statutes were handed around in the court and advantage taken of them long before they were printed. If the Acts will be printed within sixty days then there is some purpose in providing for a delay of sixty days but the delay should be as long as the time necessary to put the statute into the hands of practising barristers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in a position to say how long it takes. This amendment is one which has been suggested by the law clerk. If my hon. friend thinks it will be safer to say ninety days I have no objection.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it would be
better.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I therefore propose to
substitute ' ninety ' for ' sixty.'


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty, House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Judges Act, chapter 138, of the Revised Statutes, 1906. and to provide as follows:
(a)	That the judge to whom is assigned the district of Beauharnois and whose residence is fixed in Montreal may, conditionally upon Mr. DOHERTY.
the discharge of judicial duties in Montreal when not required in his district, be paid a salary of $7,000 per annum;
(b)	For an additional justice of the Court
of Appeal of British Columbia at a salary of $7,000 per annum;	.	,
(c)	For an additional puisne judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia at a salary of $6,000 per annum;
(d)	For an additional district court judge of the province of Ontario, at a salary of $3,000 per annum ;
(e)	For an additional judge of the county
courts of the province of Manitoba, at a salary of $3,000 per annum;	*
(f)	for an additional junior judge of the county courts of the province of British Columbia, at a salary of $3,000 per annum;
(g)	For four additional judges of the district courts of the province of Saskatchewan, each at a salary of $3,000 per annum;
(h)	That, except where they are entitled to larger salaries, judges and junior judges of county courts and of district courts shall be paid a salary of $3,000 each per annum, from the date of their appointment;
(i)	For an additional judge of the circuit court of the district of Montreal, at a salary of $3,000 per annum;
(j)	That whenever a judge is entitled to the travelling allowance of six dollars per day for attending in court or chambers under the provisions of section 18 of the said Act, he shall be entitled to a further sum of four dollars for each day he has so attached, if such attendance has been in any place which is a city;
(k)	That to every judge of a county court who, having attained the age of 75 years, is compulsorily retired, and to any judge who. having continued in office for a period of 30 years or upwards, is compulsorily retired or resigns his office an annuity may be granted equal to the salary of the office held by him at the time of his retirement or resignation;
(l)	That the provisions respecting annuities under sections 24 and 25 of the said Act shall apply and extend to the judges of the circuit court of the district of Montreal.
(m)	For an additional Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Judicature for New Bruns-swick, $7,000 per annum.
(n)	For an additional puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan, $6,000 per annum.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Edmond Proulx: With reference to paragraph (a), does the judge of the district of Beauharnois sit in Montreal?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The legislature of Quebec has provided that the judge of the district of Beauharnois shall reside in the city of Montreal, and we are providing he shall be paid the salary which is paid to a judge appointed to the district of Montreal, with residence in Montreal. Attached is the condition, that the judge of the district of Beauharnois, being resident in Montreal, shall devote all of his time not required for the service of the district of Beauharnois to the performance of judicial duties in the city of Montreal;


Edmond Proulx: There is a proposition which will shortly be brought before the Bar of Quebec, that all the judges shall reside in Montreal or Quebec, except those appointed to the districts of Ottawa, Montcalm, and Pontiac. Perhaps the minister should wait until he sees what decision is come to on that question.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the particular case of the district of Beauharnois, the Quebec Government has moved one step in the direction of uniting the judges in Montreal, and by this legislation we make clear our approval of that action. Personally I would prefer that the centralization of the judges should be done in a general way, but those familiar with the past history of this question in Quebec realize the difficulties surrounding any government which undertake to centralize the judiciary. There are strong prejudices against that system. For my own part, I should think it would be eminently desirable.


Edmond Proulx: Last year the judges of
Montmagny and Beauce were authorized to reside in Quebec; this year the judge of Beauharnois is authorized to reside in Montreal and some years ago the judge for Terrebonne was also so authorized. You are centralizing them piece-meal, but it would be much better to do it under some general legislation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: For my part I endorse what the hon. member says. I have not the power to bring that about, and apparently the Government of the province which has the power does not consider it possible to do so,, even though it should so desire.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do I understand that the Minister of Justice would favour such a change in the judicial system of the province of Quebec as would bring all the judges of that province to reside at Montreal and Quebec and leave the rest of the province absolutely without judicial representation? I am not sure that such a scheme would work satisfactorily. For my part, I would agree to introduce into Quebec the system of Ontario, under which there would be county court judges in the different districts, and superior court judges in Montreal and Quebec. But, since we have not the Ontario system, I think it would be very unfortunate if all the judges were to 'be brought to the cities of Montreal and Quebec, and the rest of the province left without judicial representation. For example, does the Minister of Justice believe that the cities of Sherbrooke, Three Rivers and St. Hyacinthe should be without resident judges? I believe we have too many judicial districts in the province of Quebec; but unless there is some radical change which would approach the Ontario system, the bringing of the judges into the
'two largest cities of the province will never be satisfactory. I can quite understand the reason for this special exception made with reference to Beauharnois, because Beauharnois is now at the very door of Montreal, and while the judge resides in Montreal, he can give all the necessary time to the judicial work of his district.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not intend to
suggest that all the judges of the province should Teside in Montreal or Quebec. I think it would be better to call it a grouping of the judges in the different cities of the province, rather than centralization in the two largest cities. If I were called upon to deal with the question, I certainly would consider the point raised by my right hon. friend. I believe, however, that if more of the judges were brought into the city of Montreal, it would be of great advantage to the administration of justice. I would not suggest that we should bring a judge from a remote district to reside in Montreal; but there are a number of judicial districts in the immediate vicinity of Montreal, of which Beauharnois is one, and where the judicial business is not very heavy and could be done quite as conveniently .if the judges for those districts were residents of Montreal. The situation to-day is that we have to take the rural judges into Montreal, and their residence being fixed by the provincial authority in different towns around Montreal, when they come to Montreal an extra allowance has to be made them. I quite agree that if all the judges were brought into the cities of Quebec and Montreal, it would probably necessitate the adoption of the county court judge system.
(d) For an additional district court judge of the province of Ontario, at a salary of $3,000 per annum.


Edmond Proulx: Is this for the new district of Timiskaming?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is an error. Instead of providing for one judge, we should really have provided for two. The town of Berlin has reached a population which entitles the county of Waterloo, in which it is situated, to two judges. His Excellency the Administrator has assented to the resolutions submitted to him substantially providing for salaries necessitated during the year. I do not think I shall be going beyond what he asisented to in amending this resolution if the House will waive the absence of previous notice.


Edmond Proulx: 

of these salaries for the county court judge at Waterloo.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the House is not
willing to provide salaries for all the judges which the law of Ontario calls for, I shall have to do something of that kind.


Edmond Proulx: There is a change in the salary which used to commence at $2,500 a year for the first three years. Judges of the other courts commence at their maximum salary. I approve of the change. I would ask the hon. minister, when he makes the appointment for the district of Timiskaming, to note that a large proportion of the population there speak the French language. It would be a great convenience, if the judge knew both languages, as he will have to go to different places, an'd to hold courts which are not courts of record. It is sometimes very hard to get interpreters in all these courts. If the hon. minister cannot find some person in his own party qualified for the position willing to accept it, I think he should be generous enough to accept one from the ranks of the Liberal party. When the Liberal party were in office, they were not too rigid in this regard. They appointed to the Supreme Court of Ontario a man who, I think, never voted for the Liberal party. The appointment was very well viewed, because it was a good one and the man was highly qualified. Last year my hon. friend made an appointment to the Exchequer Court which was not a political appointment, and it was also very well viewed. Some of my colleagues spoke the other day about Mr. Caron, who lost his position as legal adviser on the Intercolonial Commission. If he has not been reinstated, he would be a very good man for this position.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Wherever the circumstances may call for it, I shall be glad to bear in mind the desirability of providing a Judge who speaks both languages. It would be an advantage if all judges spoke both languages. As regards my hon friend's other suggestion, I am pleased to assure him, when the supply in the Conservative party of good men competent to be judges is exhausted, I shall be glad to accept good men from the Liberal party.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Probably my hon. friend means when the supply of good men, who think they are qualified, is exhausted.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Some of the good men do not think they are qualified.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not very much
concerned about that.


Mr. GRAHAM:: You need not be.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am very much disappointed that the hon. minister has not seen Mr. PROULX
his way clear to provide for increased salaries to county .court judges in the maritime provinces. I have discussed this matter pretty fully both this session and last. Great injustice is being done to these gentlemen, who are in a different position from the county court judges of the rest of Canada. They occupy important positions, and they have to travel over large circuits, from one hundred to one hundred and twenty miles in length. It is a pity that my hon. friend does not see his "way clear to remunerate these men properly.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think my hon. friend is more disappointed than I am that it is not possible for me to deal with this matter at this session. We must endeavour to deal with these salaries in some uniform way, or at all events to base ourselves upon some common principle. In the time at my disposal, I found the difficulties in the way of doing that insuperable. I do not want to go into a discussion on the subject; but the positions of the judges in the different provinces vary in so many respects that it is difficult to arrive at a uniform figure that would be just. Some provinces have more judges than they need; some perhaps have not as many as they need; in some provinces judges have sources of earning power which they do not have in other provinces. All these matters require to be adjusted. Before next session I propose to do my best to induce the authorities of the different provinces to endeavour to see what may be' done to bring about a more uniform condition of things. If I can get that done, I shall be glad to act. If, after making my best efforts, I cannot get that d'qne, I shall act, but I shall have tb act as best I can under existing circumstances.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Those of us who are-interested in this question of relieving the anomaly in regard to the remuneration of county court judges in the maritime provinces will be gratified to hear the assurance of the hon. minister that he is considering the matter, and that at a subsequent session he will be able to deal with it. I am quite sure the hon. minister knows that a condition exists that requires a remedy. I hope he will be able to deal .with it at the next session of Parliament.
In connection with the resolutions generally, I can see the reason why there-should be some change in the remuneration paid to judges for attending court at places other than their place of residence. But' when the minister is increasing thatr amount, I do not think it should be limited to cases where the judge is sitting in a city, as apparently is the effect of this-clause (j). I have in mind the case of the judicial district to which I belong. It is made up of .two very large counties, Pictou

and Cumberland. The county town is Amherst which, according to the status fixed in some of the provinces might be classed as a city, and yet in the legal sense it is not so regarded. The learned judge who presides in that district goes to Amherst to hold court, and I am sure the additional expense involved in going to a town like Amherst is as great as in the case of many places technically known as cities under the provincial law. I think it is hardly worth while, when making the increase, to make so fine a distinction, and I would urge upon the minister, seeing that generally he is not dealing with the judges' salaries-that being still in prospectu-he might make this increase of ten dollars absolute.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is not designed to be a remuneration for services, but an allowance for expenses. Generally speaking the judge is allowed $6 besides his cost oi transportation. I think it is within the knowledge of all of us that the judge, or any other man, going to a small town or village will probably not find a hotel that will relieve him of his $6 to take care of him for a day. But when the judge goes to one of our large cities, like Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa, unless he puts up at a second class hotel, he cannot get through on less than $10 a day. If this be applied to the. smaller towns and villages, you give judges in effect additional remuneration. I do not say the judges should not have additional remuneration, but I think that if they are to have it they should be given it directly as such.


Edmond Proulx: This is so much abused
by some judges. I know a judge who draws travelling allowances to which he is not entitled, making his own certificate. I have drawn this matter to the attention of the Department of Justice and they are ready to accept the certificate of the judge. But I know the certificate is false.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would urge the necessity of considering the readjustment of the salaries of the supreme court judges of the province of Alberta relatively to those of other provinces in Canada. The remarks of the hon. member for Carleton apply to the district court judges in the proviiice in which I reside. A salary of $3,000 in New Bruns* wick, I know from observation, is worth much more than $3,000 in Alberta. I do not exaggerate when I say that $3,000 in New Brunswick must be equivalent to at least $4,500 in Alberta, yet the salary which a district court judge in Alberta receives is $3,000. The supreme court judges of Alberta are discriminated against as compared with those in Quebec and Ontario, and I think that calls for
367J
intervention by this Parliament. It would be idle for me to take up the time of the House even to mention the fact that the matter is very difficult of adjustment. There should be some basis on which we could lay down a general rule, and that rule should take into consideration jurisdiction, population, expenses of living, and other matters of that kind. I only wish to bring the matter to the attention of the-minister, and hope he will recollect that the supreme court judges in my province-are affected in this manner. So far as the allowance is concerned, I would join with the hon. member for Pictou. There are in Alberta several cities, so-called by statute, and many towns. A judge happening to go to Maeleod to hold chambers would only get the allowance for visiting a town, whereas if he goes forty miles further by railway to the city of Lethbridge, a little greater in population, he would draw the higher allowance. That is anomalous. I think it would be fairer in my province to make the allowance $10 a day or some other sum.


Edmond Proulx: I think the allowance is sufficient, considering that transportation charges are paid. Of course, I understand that in a city the hotel expenses are higher. The judge gets travelling allowances cn certificate. In the province of Quebec, if he goes to the court of review, he has to have the certificate of the chief justice. There is control there, but in this case the judge sends his own certificate and there is no control. I think the judge's affidavit should accompany the certificate.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I join the hon.
members for Pictou and Carleton who _ expressed their regret that this Bill does not deal permanently with the salaries of judges. Of course, I cannot speak for any judges except those of my own province. But concerning these judges, I can say that they have no other income except their salaries. In Ontario,. I understand, judges are able to make as much again as their nominal salaries as-surrogate judges-judges of probate as we call them-masters, and in other ways. Probably the same is true of the province-of Quebec, also. But in the province of Nova Scotia there is not a cent coming to the judge of a county court except his bare salary. The only ray of hope or pleasure about this matter is that next session the minister is going to take up this subject and deal with it generally. I understand that in the province of Ontario they have two county judges for each county.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not for each count}7, but in some counties.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am told by Ontario people that they have not work enough.

for one judge in any of these counties. In that case, one way out of the difficulty would be to superannuate one of these men and to give a decent salary to the man who remains. In Nova Scotia, we have eighteen counties, but we have only seven judges, and the minister will understand that each judge has more work than a judge in Ontario. If there is nothing that can be done in a general way for the province of Nova Scotia, one thing I wish specifically to call to the minister's attention. We have two judges in the province, of Nova Scotia who are recognized as having more work than any of the others in Nova Scotia. These are the county court judges of the city of Halifax and the judge of "the county court of Sydney. I am "sure the county court judge of Halifax will not be offended when I say that the county court judge of the city of Sydney does far more work than the other. He has a larger district and a greater population to look after, and he has to do a great deal of Supreme Court work. Halifax is the home of the judges of the Supreme Court, and the work is done by the judges themselves, but in Sydney there are no Supreme Court judges, and the judge there, as master of the Supreme Court, does an enormous volume of work-more than does the ordinary judge of the Supreme Court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: And gets no remuneration ?	[DOT]
Mr. MoKENZIE: Not a cent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He is not our officer.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When the county court judges were first appointed they had very slight jurisdiction in criminal matters, simply appeals, but this Parliament has imposed many duties on them as special trial judges in the criminal court, and in the county of Cape Breton an enormous volume of business is done by the county court judge. I think I am safe in saying that the county court judges in Cape Breton sit every day of the week trying civil or criminal cases. In 1905, when the present Judges Act was passed, it was agreed that the county court judges at Halifax and Sydney should receive $500 more than the other judges. The county judge of Halifax got that amount, but by some slip in the Act, the $500 for the Sydney judge was left out. I made repeated efforts to have this adjusted until I went on the bench myself, and of course throughout the three years during which I held office, I said nothing about it, but when I came to Parliament I tried to get this $500 for the gentleman who is now judge of the county court at iSyclney. It was distinctly understood that the Halifax judge and the ' 'Mr. McKENZIE.
Sydney judge should be on the same footing, and it is absolutely fair that they should be. I think it is not treating the Sydney judge fairly that this $500,should not be given to him when it is given to the judge at Halifax. Anyone who is familiar with the conditions in the province of Nova Scotia knows that it is cheaper by far to live in Halifax than in Sydney. In view of the arrangement made in 1905 that this $500 should be paid to the judge at Sydney, I think it is not fair that he should be deprived of it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: An additional comity
court judge is not required in 'Manitoba; the insertion of the word ' Manitoba ' in sub-section e was an error. I would suggest that sub-section d be allowed to remain as it stands at present, and I would move that sub-section (e) be amended by substituting the word ' Ontario ' for the word ' Manitoba.'


Edmond Proulx: Last year when we were passing the Bill to amend the Judges' Act, I suggested to the hon. Minister of Justice an amendment to the Act having regard to the residence of the county court judges. As the law is at present, they must reside within the county or union of counties within which the courts are established. I suggested that,'an amendment should be made that the judges must reside at the county town. In, my district we are subjected to great inconvenience by reason of the fact that we have not a judge residing at the county town. The senior judge lives in Ottawa, entirely outside of the district, and he is violating the law in doing so. The junior judge lives within the district, but not at the county town. When he was appointed the senior judge was living at the county town, and it was not necessary that the junior judge should reside there, but when there is only one judge I think he should reside at the county town. Where there are two, a senior and a junior, the senior judge should reside at the county town. The county court and district judges are also local judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, and most of the legal work is done at the county town. I would suggest that the hon. minister amend the Act" in this regard, wdth the view of providing that the county court judge shall reside at the county town, and in, districts where there are two, that the senior judge shall reside at the county town.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no .authority to deal with this phase of the matter. The Government of Canada can name, appoint and pay the judge; the. Parliament of Canada can impeach the judge, but witn regard to other matters concerning him, my hon. friend must go to the legislature of Ontario:


Edmond Proulx: How was it that this
Parliament passed section 7 of the Judges Act:
'Tlie judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature for Ontario shall reside at the city of Toronto or within five miles thereof, hut leave to reside elsewhere in the province for any specified time may he granted from time to time by order of the Governor in Council.
If this Parliament could fix the residence of the Supreme Court judges why could they not fix the residence of the county court judges? The statute provides where the county court judge shall reside. In appointing a county court judge the condition is inserted in the letters patent that he shall reside in the county or union of counties for which he is appointed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Those sections, I understand, are inserted because they are in accordance with the laws of Ontario. This Parliament cannot create a power to itself by legislating about subjects which are relegated to the provinces. Under the British North America Act, this Parliament has the power to appoint judges and to pay their salaries and judges are also liable to impeachment by this Parliament, but the provincial authorities control the administration of justice and the purpose for which the judges are appointed is to administer justice. In Quebec, the province has directly and expressly legislated fixing the residence of judges.


Edmond Proulx: The senior judge of Prescott and Russell, who now resides in Ottawa was appointed in 1900, and there is a condition in the patent appointing him that he must reside in the united counties of Prescott and Russell. An amendment was passed by the legislature of Ontario to the County Court Act, providing that the Lieutenant Governor in Council by Order in Council could permit a judge to reside elsewhere. Would such an Order in Council be constitutional, changing the condition of the patent appointing the judge?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would not undertake to pronounce offhand on all these questions but as I understand it the legislature of Ontario has a right to say where the county court judges shall reside, and if they have that power I would understand that they have power to provide that the Lieutenant Governor in Council might fix the place of residence.


Edmond Proulx: The Order in Council oi the Government of Ontario permitting the judge to reside outside the district and thereby changing the conditions of his appointment has not been passed. I believe that the Government of Ontario doubt its constitutionality and so do I. Judges are appointed for the convenience of the public, to administer justice and not to suit
their own convenience and it would be to the convenience of the constituents of my district that the judge should reside at the county town and not outside of it, so that he would be within reach of the lawyers practising in the district.
(e)	For an additional judge of the county courts of the province of Manitoba, at a salary of $3,000 per annum.


Frank Oliver: In what part of the province will this judge have jurisdiction in?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that the
necessity for this appointment arises from the taking in of the new territory. We had a stipendiary magistrate when the Keewatin territory was under our jurisdiction but the annexation put an end to his court and it will be necessary for a judge to take his place. The stipendiary magistrate lived in Le Pas.
(f)	For an additional junior judge of the county courts of the province of British
Columbia, at a salary of $3,000 per annum.


Frank Oliver: What part of the province will be under the jurisdiction of this judge?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a junior
county court judge for Vancouver.


Frank Oliver: Which part of the province will be specially under the jurisdiction of this county judge, and what was the occasion of his appointment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In 1913 the County
Court Act of the province of British 'Columbia was amended to provide foT the appointment of more than one junior judge for Vancouver, and this is to provide a salary for that junior judge.


Frank Oliver: For Vancouver city?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.
(g)	For four additional judges of the district courts of the province of Saskatchewan each at a salary of $3,000 per annum:


Frank Oliver: I would like to ask the
same question in regard to these judges.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Saskatchewan legislature provided for nine additional districts, which will ultimately call for nine additional judges, but I understand that the attorney general of the province says that four will be sufficient at present.


Frank Oliver: How many district judges will this make for Saskatchewan?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There were eight district court judges. The new legislation divides the province into seventeen districts. There will be twelve judges with the four that are now being provided.


Frank Oliver: Has the province of Alberta taken any steps to increase the judiciary there, or have any representa-

"tiong been made to the Government in that regard?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Alberta passed legislation providing for an increased number of judges and also that the legislation is to take effect by proclamation. That proclamation has not been issued so that the legislation has not come into force.


Frank Oliver: Was that in regard to
district court judges or had it any relation to the Supreme Court?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I believe they provided for Supreme Court judges, and I think also for some district or county court judges.
(h) That, except where they are entitled to larger salaries, judges and junior judges of county courts and of district courts shall be paid a salary of $3,000 each per annum, from the date of their appointment;


George Perry Graham: If a judge now holds
[DOT]office, will this increase date from the time of his appointment? is ,it retroactive or for the future?


Charles Joseph Doherty: For the future. When a person is appointed a judge of the county court, he gets a salary of $2,500 a year for the first three years, and then he gets $3,000 a year. I could see no good reason for discriminating between a judge in his first year and a judge in his fourth year. The salary is small enough in any event, and the intention is that from the going into effect of this legislation, judges shall have $3,000 a year from the date of their appointment. As regards judges appointed before this Act was passed, who have not yet completed their three years, the effect of this Act will be to entitle them to $3,000 from the time of the passing of the Act.


Edmond Proulx: I would like to ask the
*minister if it will not apply to those appointed last year? They get $2,500 for the first three years. Will this $3,000 apply only to those who are appointed in the future and not those who have been appointed within the last three years.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that it
will apply to judges appointed in the future, but it will apply to judges appointed within the last three years, to the extent that from and after the passing of this Act their salaries shall be $3,000 a year.


George Perry Graham: Do we understand by
the word ' salary " what the judge receives -from fees and other sources besides his salary, or does this refer only to the salary paid by the Dominion?


Charles Joseph Doherty: All we can deal with is the salary we pay.


Frank Oliver: I just wish to call the attention of the Minister of Justice, in con-Mr. OLIVER.
nection with this paragraph, to the same point I brought to his attention in connection with penitentiary officials, that the rule which permits of increased railway rates and increased bank interest to be imposed upon western people, does not seem to be applicable when it comes to paying salaries to western judges or to western penitentiary officials. I see that my hon. friend is very thoroughly established in the view that there should be equality of payment throughout the Dominion, as far as the department is concerned. At this stage of the session I am not going to ask him to reverse that policy, but I am going to urge upon him again the propriety of joining forces with myself and those in the West who are asking for equality of treatment on behalf of western people when that equality means reduction of cost to them.
(k) That to every judge of a county court who, having attained the age of 75 years, is compulsorily retired, and to any judge who, having continued in office for a period of 30 years or upwards, is compulsorily retired or resigns his office an annuity may be granted equal to the salary of the office held by him at the time of his retirement or resignation.


Edmond Proulx: That changes the date of compulsory retirement from the age of 80 to 75?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Edmond Proulx: What is the reason of
the change?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It has been found by
experience that gentlemen who were not possessed of the vigour that they previously had, and were consequently not as well able to perform their duties, finding that unless they stayed until they were 80, when they could be compulsorily retired, they could not retire on full pay, remained; and it has happend in some instances the administration of justice has suffered. Ws have thought that if we have the power to retire the judge at the age of 75, and his retirement will not prejudice his rights because he will retire on full pay, the public interest will be served by relieving him of further judicial duties.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This is a wise provision. While there are many men who retain their mental vigour at seventy-five or eighty years of age, yet it is not the rule. The minister ought almost to have the right to retire a judge at seventy-five years of age, if in his opinion it should be done. However, if a man were appointed at sixty-five, and retired compulsorily at seventy-five, it is a question whether he should get the full retiring allowance. I hope the minister will not appoint any men so old to the bench.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would rather bring the remedy to bear at the other end, and ap-

point them before they get to be sixty-five years.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why does not the Minister of Justice provide for retiring Supreme Court judges, as well as County Court judges, at the age of seventy-five?


Charles Joseph Doherty: High Court judges are entitled to retire at the age of seventy-five with full pay, if they have served twenty years on the bench. There has never been .any age fixed at which you can compulsorily retire a High Court judge.
Mr. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton) Would it not be wise?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The suggestion is worthy of serious consideration in connection with any measure dealing generally with High Court judges, and their remuneration.


Edmond Proulx: There is another provision which says that judges can be retired on full pay after thirty years services. If a judge were appointed at the age of thirty-five he would be entitled to the full retiring allowance at the age of sixty-five.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The intention is to provide that a County Court judge who has served thirty years is entitled to retire with his full pay, irrespective of his age, and that is the provision which now applies to the High Court judges. When a man has served thirty years it would be undesirable to compel him to stay on for the purpose of growing old enough to get his full pay. The cases where men serve thirty years and are under seventy-five would be very rare indeed.


Edmond Proulx: I think there should be a pension fund to which the judges would contribute, as is the case with the civil servants. You are making of the judges a privileged class, and there should be no privileged class in this country. In the United States they do not pay any pension to judges, and I think the principles of democracy should prevail in Canada. The [DOT]Government has an annuity system, and the judges might buy annuities under that system.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That might be considered when we come to deal in a general way with the judiciary. I suppose the hon. gentleman would not suggest that the principle he speaks of should apply to men who have already been appointed to the bench and who accepted under a law by which certain rights accrue to them. If it were decided to carry out the hon. gentleman's suggestion it would be just to take it into consideration in connection with the question of the salaries paid to our judges.	. |; I


Edmond Proulx: In looking at the estimates I was struck with the great number of judges on the retired list, and to whom the country is paying a large amount annually. There were more in Quebec than in Ontario, but in Ontario one judge retired some years ago, drawing his full salary of $7,000 a year, not because he was unable to perform his duties, for he is now general manager of a trust company, and probably is receiving as large a salary as he did when actually on the bench. When a judge is permanently disabled he should have some allowance, but judges should be on the same footing as civil servants, and should contribute to a pension fund.
(l)	That the provisions respecting annuities under sections 21 and 25 of the said Act shall apply and extend to the judges of the circuit court of the district of Montreal.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What court is this?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the district of Montreal there is a circuit court composed of three judges. Throughout the rest of the province, though the Circuit Court exists, the entire original civil jurisdiction is in the Superior Court, whether the amount be one dollar or one million dollars. In the district of Montreal it was found that the number of cases of $100 and under, which previous to the appointment of the circuit court judges were within the jurisdiction of the circuit court, presided over by judges of the Superior Court, had grown so numerous that it was impossible for the judges of the Superior Court to keep up with them. This circuit court was consequently established, and this resolution proposes to increase the number of judges by one. It is just to the circuit court judges to say that while their jurisdiction is limited to $100 in ordinary claims, they have jurisdiction in cases for the recovery of school taxes and municipal administration for a larger amount. The work of these judges is exceedingly heavy from the point of view of the number of cases that come before them.
(m)	For an additional Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Judicature for New Brun-wick, $7,000 per annum:


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to register my protest, in as gentlemanly a manner as possible, against this. In the first place, I can see no earthly reason for an additional judge in New Brunswick. It is well known what gentleman at the New Brunswick bar will get the position, and I have no objection to him whatever. I think he is as good an appointment a3 could be made in the province. We have a population of only 350,000, and

it is not increasing very rapidly. Every member of the New Brunswick Bar knows that our judges not only are not overworked, tout have not enough work to do. The equity judges, who are now the chancery judges, are doing a large amount of work, and probably one or two others are doing a considerable amount of chamber work; but. as a rule, the six judges not only could do all the work required of them, but would be the better for having it to do. We have got as good a court in New Brunswick as any in the Dominion of Canada. It has always been of a very superior character, and its judgments are substantiated to a greater extent than any other appellate court in the Dominion. I attribute that very largely to the fact that our judges go on circuit, and also have the privilege of sitting en banc on appeal. That is what makes them the splendid jurists which they have always turned out to be. I am sorry to see a departure from that principle, which is the old English principle and which has been the principle in New Brunswick since its organization; it is also the principle in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. If the legislature of New Brunswick thought it necessary to appoint another judge, that is only a question of a salary of $7,000. Now they are creating an appeal court. Three judges will sit on appeal and four will go on circuit. The latter will never have the opportunity of sitting as an appellate court and of hearing these matters discussed. I am afraid we not only will do nothing to assist the jurisprudence in the province but will very materially reduce the standard of the judges in the future.


Mr. FOWLER:: What my hon. friend
from Oarleton (Mr. Carvell) objects to is legislation passed by the province of New Brunswick. This Parliament has nothing to do with that; *ve have simply to provide for the salary of an additional chief justice, and to appoint a chief justice to the Supreme Court of Judicature. The legislation passed at the last session of the New Brunswick legislature was really a revival of .egislation passed some years ago when the present hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) was Prime Minister of that province. That legislation was not acted upon until this last session of the legislature, when it was re-enacted and became law.
I cannot quite agree with what my hon. friend has said with regard to the present system of judges acting on cases of appeal. The principle which my hon. friend has adduced has not been acted upon in recent years, because the judge who has tried a case does not sit in appeal on it. Therefore, he is not in a position to give his Drother judges his understanding of the witnesses and of the circumstances that Mr. CARVELL.
transpired during the trial, and they must take that from the record. Consequently I do not see any reason why the mere going on circuit would give judges any better knowledge in deciding these questions of appeal than if they sat as an appellate court, as is done in the other provinces of Canada, with the exception of Nova Scotia. Some judges are better fitted for the conduct of cases on circuit than are others. Others are better fitted to act as judges of appeal.
My hon. friend has paid tribute to the standing of the courts of New Brunswick, a tribute that is very well deserved. It has always been a splendid court, and has not taken second place to any other court in Canada.. In fact, I do not think it takes second place to the Supreme Court of Canada. By this legislation we hope not only to keep up the standard but to improve it, if we by this means give these judges an opportunity better to study up the eases on which they are to pass judgment, than if they had to go on circuit. They will only have to attend to the chancery work of the province and to the hearing of appeal cases. Therefore, upon the question of the improvement of the bench itself and from every standpoint, I think that the legislation passed by the legislature of New Brunswick is a step in the right direction, and I am glad to see that the Government is implementing it by providing the salary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend hardly understood the line of the argument I was making. I am quite aware that .New Brunswick has the right to create the court, and that all this Parliament has to do is appoint the judge, but this Parliament could do what they did for some two or three years in the case of Ontario, when they considered that unnecessary judges were provided for by that province; they could refuse to grant the salaries. My point is not that the appeal judge does not have the opportunity of discussing cases with his brother judges; it is the judge who goes on circuit that I am afraid will deteriorate. The judge who goes on circuit now has the opportunity of sitting in appeal on all cases except those which are against his own decision. I am safe in saying that in four-fifths of the cases that are argued before the Court of Appeal, he has the opportunity of discussing them with his brother judges. He gets the benefit of their learning. By getting together in this way they become abler and broader-minded jurists. It is the man who . does not have the opportunity of doing this that I think will not come up to the standard he has occupied in the past. I have no doubt that the three gentlemen who comprise the Court of Appeal will have probably as good opportunities to benefit them-

selves as they have at present. -But I think great benefit comes to the man who goes on circuit, and that benefit would be taken away under present conditions. Add to that the fact that we do not require a seventh judge in New Brunswick.


Mr. HAZEN:: I do not rise to take part in the discussion, but as the Supreme Court o' the province of New Brunswick is being discussed, I want to tell the hon. member for Carleton that His Majesty has been pleased to bestow honour upon the head of that court, the Chief Justice. I am sure no one will be more pleased to hear it than my hon. friend.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I heard that just half
an hour ago, and I wish publicly to add my tribute to the merits of the gentleman who occupies the place of Chief Justice. No abler jurist occupies a position on the bench of any court in Canada, or, I believe, in the Empire. The distinction which has come to him he has earned by his learning and attention to business and I hope he may long be spared to enjoy the honours he has won.	' .


George William Fowler: I congratulate the province, and the Bench, and the Chief Justice himself upon the fact that His Majesty has seen fit to confer honour upon him, an honour that is well deserved. But I would point out to the member for Carleton that the Chief Justice himself is a proof of that fact that it is not necessary for a man to go on circuit to be a great judge.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has not the Chief Justice tried more cases in the last ten years than all the other judges in New Brunswick put together?


George William Fowler: He has heard chancery
cases, but he has not gone on circuit.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But he has had the experience.


George William Fowler: He has not had the slightest practice of criminal law or common law, but has been confined to chancery cases. Yet, he has proved a great common law judge as well as an equity judge. With regard to the argument that it would be a great loss to these judges not to go on circuit. 1 would remind my hon. friend that they would .still have the great advantage of hearing before them the flower of the Bar of New Brunswick of which my hon. friend is a distinguished member, which will assist them in acquiring a further knowledge of the law.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I wish to impress upon the Minister of Justice the importance of placing the Supreme Court judges in the same position as that in which he is placing the County Court judges. The Supreme Court judges who
are trying most important cases, cases in which men's lives are at stake, great industrial disputes, continue in their position until they are a hundred if they live so long and wish to continue. We have men now on the Supreme Court bench of Ontario who are eighty years of age.


Edmond Proulx: And they are the best.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That may be the
hon. gentleman's opinion. I am not finding fault with men of that age; but lawyers in general do not care to take the position I am taking here on this subject. As a layman I feel free to express my opinion, and I am confident we should have an age limit in the case of the Supreme Court as well as the other.


Edmond Proulx: There is no necessity for that. There are old men on the Bench of Ontario, but I do not think the profession has ever complained of their incompetency or of the manner in which they perform their duty. The Chancellor could retire on full pay if he wished to do so, but if he prefers to work, why should he be retired. I believe the pensioning of judges has gone too far; the minimum, of service of the Superior Court judges is too low. A judge can be retired on two-third salary after fifteen years' service. And in the province of Quebec men have retired who were able to continue to perform their duties. They are practieising law. One of them draws over $5,000 a year-two-thirds of $8,000. Yet he has a law office competing with other lawyers. Is it just to the members of the profession that they should be compelled to compete with a man who draws over $5,000 from the public treasury? Besides these gentlemen get a certain reputation through having been on the Bench. I think the period should be extended and judges should be pensioned only if necessary because of their age or incapacity to perform their duties.


Mr. EMMERSON:: I heard with delight the news announced by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen). The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the province of New Brunswick holds a high position on the Bench of New Brunswick, and I think he has the confidence of everybody. The distinction is well deserved. I am sure he is to be congratulated, and more than that . the people of New Brunswick are to be congratulated upon having so distinguished a head, and of having the gentleman who is the head recognized in the fashion indicated. This is not the place to criticise legislation of the province of New Brunswick. But the legislation which was enacted some few years ago certainly did not meet with my approval, and I can only say I have not been convinced that there

was any occasion for the renewal of that Act. I think it is recognized by laymen throughout the province, by the Bench and the Bar, that the paucity of business coming before the Supreme Court arid before the court en banc has been such during the past four or five years that it is becoming a by-word and a reproach. I think it the height of absurdity to ask for an additional judge. I have no comments to make with respect to any one likely to take that position. J have heard several gentlemen named, any of whom would reflect upon the Bench; but in my_ opinion, however eminent, however qualified, nobody is required. There are -enough judges there to do the business, and the fact of the matter is that those who are there today are simply rusting out. The Chief Justice, so far as the chancery side of the court is concerned, has done a good deal of business, he and Mr. Justice McLeod. But anyone who practises in the province of New Brunswick must recognize the fact that there is hardly a circuit court meeting in any county to-day that lasts more than one or two days. In nine cases out of ten the court adjourns on the very day upon which it opens, and it is seldom that it lasts more than two or three days. It has certainly been many years since a circuit court has lasted more than a week. In the county of Westmorland, from which I come, there used to be a very heavy busi. ness before the circuit court, but to-day only a few criminal cases, ever come before it, and hardly any civil cases. I think I am not extravagant in making the statement that the judges are rusting because of the want of exercise of their powers in the trial of cases.


Edmond Proulx: The conditions existing
in New Brunswick last year in that regard may be similar to those in Ontario. We voted salaries for two judges last year, for instance, and almost all the judges in Ontario said they were not needed.


Mr. ROCH LANCTOT:: As a representative of the farming community, I also, Mr. Chairman, wish to make a few remarks on the salaries of judges and on retirement allowances paid to them by the Government. It appears we have this year a surplus of 55 millions, and to hear the hon. members who have spoken during the last few days, it would seem that an effort is being made to reduce that surplus, first of all by paying the members themselves an extra indemnity of $1,000 or $1,500 each for the present session.
I will now take all of these government pensioners, and I may say that -the farming class is strongly opposed to all the high salaries we are paying.


Mr. RAINVILLE:: Is the farming class
Mr. EMMERSON.
equally opposed to the ten millions we have just voted for them?


Roch Lanctôt: It will take ten years
to pay that amount. I am now speaking about the judges. We have in the province of Quebec fifteen judges who are receiving a pension from the Government, and that is costing us $90,500 per annum. The great province of Ontario is only having $15,000 under that head.
I take the case of a judge who resigns his position at the age of 50-for quite a number of men live to the age of 80, and even more-but let us suppose that this judge is going to live until he is 80 years' old. He will be receiving a pension during 30 years. Should his salary be $7,000 a year, that pension will be $4,666 a year. Multiply that 'by 30, and you will have the fabulous sum of $140,000 of pension. Now, add to that compound interest at 7 per cent-because I presume the judges who have resigned, not on account of sickness, but in order to keep their position in financial institutions and big estates-have resigned because they were businessmen, so that that money brings them at least 6 per cent. I therefore conclude that such a judge at the age of 80 years shall have received at least $300,000 from the Government.
I find no words to qualify such an abuse. I will take the case of the Minister of Justice himself, who is drawing in the first place a pension from the Government as a retired judge, a salary as a minister and still another as a member of Parliament. Will not the hon. minister find some means of amending the law in his own case, by abolishing his own pension at least during the time he holds his position as a minister and a member of the House?
I say that if the fanning community was posted on all these matters, they could not tolerate in power a Government under which such abuses are allowed. Farmers are the people who do the greatest amount of work. There is no pension for them and they ask for none.
Why could not a judge on the bench, with a salary of $7,000 a year, provide for his old age by means of an insurance? With such a salary it should be an easy matter for him to take an insurance of $25,000. That is just what we are doing ourselves when we join the mutual benefit societies, such as the Independent Foresters, the Catholic Foresters, and the National Alliance, for instance. Why should they not do like us and buy life annuities?
No; pensions must be paid to these gentlemen. But that is not all. Those who come down from The bench are making places for other favourites. I have been repeatedly told that it was very difficult to get judges nowadays, because lawyers were making a great deal more in their profession. I will

take the case of Mr. Simeon Beaudin, who was a candidate against me in the last election. It was currently said_ in the county that he would not accept a judgship, when he was making $100 a day with his profession. He was a candidate, and I am told that it was the present Premier who forced him to run.
What did happen after the present Government came into power?
Mr. Beaudin was appointed a judge of the Superior Court. He left his $100 per day to become a judge at a salary of $7,000 per annum.
It is said that some lawyers refuse to be appointed judges. I see on the other side of the House, and on this side, for that matter, hon. gentlemen who would be very glad to become judges to-day, and if the hon. Minister of Justice wishes to appoint them he will find enough of them to supersede the whole bench in Montreal and all through the country.
I think the hon. minister should introduce a Bill to amend this law so as to give a pension only to those judges who become incapacitated, even when they have just been appointed to the bench; but I object to the Government paying them a pension which enables them to get rich.
After all it does not cost more to feed a judge than it does to feed a civil servant. Very few are the civil servants who are getting high salaries. The hon. Postmaster General has 900 officers in Montreal only. Very few of them get as -much as $2,000 per annum, and there are quite a number who receive less than $1,000. These young men, like the judges, have their families to support, their children to educate. For them there is no pension varying from $4,000 to $8,000 per annum.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that if the people knew all those particulars, they would severely punish the Government who are perpetuating such a state of things. I am not specially blaming the present Government; I say that both parties are guilty.
It is very well known that it is the lawyers who made the laws. We, farmers, hardly dare to raise our voices here, especially during the first years. The lawyers generally join hands to out for themselves good substantial pensions after they shall have been appointed as judges.
Sir, I do not wish to take up the time of the House any longer, but I enter my protest against this abuse of taking the people's money to pay pensions to men who have absolutely no need of them.
I believe that our duty as legislators should 'be in the first place to increase the pay of the poor employees, of those who are working 300 days during the year, who never have any holidays and who, whenever they lose any time-except through sickness-also lose their salaries.
It is altogether different with a judge who happens to have a slight headache. He immediately applies to the Minister of Justice for a holiday, which enables him to take a six months' trip to Europe, and such an application is seldom refused.
And after that the lawyers in Montreal and elsewhere will say: We have not a sufficient number of judges. That may be true, but there are always two or three travelling in Europe.
I therefore say, Mr. Chairman, that next year, if the hon. Minister of Justice does not bring a remedy to this state of things during the present year, and if he is still at the head of this department, I shall introduce a Bill to amend this ill-omened law and to prevent the paying of pensions to people who have no need whatever of them and are drawing other salaries as in the case of the present Minister of Justice.
(n) For an additional puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan, $6,600 per annum.


Frank Oliver: Where will this judge he located?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The legislation of Ihe
province of Saskatchewan provides for an increase in the number of judges by one judge of the Supreme Court. The legislation does not specify where he is to be located. I am not clear whether under their legislation the judges are distributed through the province.


Frank Oliver: How many are there now?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is a chief justice and four puisne judges. This will make a chief justice and five puisne judges.


Frank Oliver: I see that the salary of the judge for the Supreme Court in Saskatchewan is $6,000, and in the resolution providing for an additional judge for New Brunswick the salary is $7,000.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The judge provided for in New Brunswick is an additional chief justice. This is made necessary owing to the reorganization of their system.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to quote from ' Hansard ' in support of a statement I made earlier in the discussion in respect to the county court of district No. 7, which includes the city of Sydney. On the 18th of July, 1905, when the subject of the salaries of judges was before this House, a resolution was introduced by the then Minister of Justice, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, as follows:
Nova Scotia. That judge of the county court of the county of Halifax, $3,000 per annum; the judge of the county court for district No. 7, $3,000 per annum.
District No. 7 includes the city of Sydney. Before that resolution was introduced, I

had a promise from the then Minister of Justice that instead of $3,000 for each of those judges, the salary would be $3,500. I said:
I understood the Minister of Justice to say that he would reconsider the matter of the judges of the Halifax district and of district No. 7. I certainly think the salary should he more than $3,000.
The Minister of Justice: There are three or four county court judges who are in receipt of different salaries from those drawn by the other judges. 1 forgot the cases of these three or four judges. I shall have to consult my colleagues, and shall probably be able to make a statement this afternoon.
When the afternoon came, nothing was done, except that the judge at Halifax received $3,600. I hope the Minister of Justice will now rectify the injustice done on that occasion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When we come to deal, as I hope to deal, with the general subject, I shall endeavour to rectify any error that may have occurred.


Frank Oliver: What are the salaries of
the judges of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, other than the chief justice?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 

Resolution reported, read the first and the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. DOHERTY thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 243, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and the second time.


BOUNTY FOR MISS HUTCHINSON.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 32, to make further provision respecting Grants of Land to members of the Militia Force on active service in the Northwest-Hon. T. W. Crothers-read the second time, considered in committee, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Nantel moved the second reading of Bill No. 321, to amend the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act. He said: Under the provisions of section 23 of this Act, all petroleum imported into Canada must be inspected, and any which does not conform to the requirements of the Act must be 'branded with the word 'rejected,' and must be exported within ten days after the inspection thereof. Under the amendment these provisions apply to petroleum for consumption in Canada and not to imported petroleum intended for exportation.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.	.
Mr. McKenzie.
On section 1-entry of petroleum and naphtha:
George Perry Graham: What does- the word
'naphtha' cover?
Mr.	ARMSTRONG	(East Lambton):
Benzine:


George Perry Graham: I was wondering if in
the technical sense naphtha has anything to do with gasolene.
Mr.	NANTEL:	No.Mr.	GRAHAM:	In	the	interpretation
clause naphtha might cover such things as gasolene.
Mr.	NANTEL:	In	the	interpretation
clause of the Act respecting the inspection of petroleum and naphtha it is stated that:
' Naphtha ' means and includes all the refined products, by distillation, of rock or mineral oil, coal, coal tar, or any other mineral substance and having a specific gravity of less than seven pounds and seventy-five hundreths of a pound.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


ADULTERATION ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Nantel moved the second reading of Bill No. 222, to amend the Adulteration Act. He said: This Bill is for the purpose of incorporating turpentine in the fourth schedule of the Adulteration Act. By sections 26 and 27 of this Act the Governor in Council is -empowered to cause the establishment of standards in -connection with the lists of articles from this Act, and may also add any articles to the fourth and fifth schedules thereof and determine the standard of purity therefore. Having established by Order in Council, on the report of the chief analyst of the Department of Inland Revenue, the standard of quality and purity for turpentine, and as this Order ini Council will only remain in force until the end of next session, it has been deemed necessary to introduce this Bill in amendment to the Adulteration Act-. .
George Perry Graham: The schedule also contains dry white lead and white lead in oil.


Mr. NANTEL:: Dry white lead and white lead in oil are already in the fourth schedule, and this Bill merely adds the word 'turpentine.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
On section 1-schedule amended:
George Perry Graham: I do not understand
this description as it appears in the schedule, and perhaps the minister could explain it. I See that under the head of

turpentine, when not sold as a drug it is provided that:
Unless sold as wood turpentine, it shall absorb not less than 340 times its weights of iod'ine (Hubl Solution and Method). If sold as wood turpentine it shall absorb not less than 240 times its weight of iodine by same method.
, A question might be asked: What is the difference between -wood turpentine and other turpentine?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: This is a technical question, and I really have to depend upon the chief analyst in a matter of this kind. This standard has been established by Order in Council, and the law says that the Order in Council Iras effect only until the end of next session. For that reason, I introduce this Bill to give effect to the disposition of the Order in Council.


Mr. BORDEN:: The report was made to council on the recommendation of the analyist that turpentine while not sold as a drug, should have the qualities which are set forth in this Bill. An Order in Council was passed to that effect, but that Order in Council has no force beyond the end of the next succeeding session, and if the standard is to be maintained, it is for Parliament to enact this Bill.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


DOMINION FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Crothers, Bill No. 209, to amend the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act, was read a second time, and the House went into Committee thereon.
Frank Oliver: We were to have some ex-idanation of this.


Mr. CROTHERS:: 
Frank Oliver: There was some serious
objection to the withdrawal of those two half townships from the Riding Mountain reserve. As that is dropped out of the Bill, the principal objection is removed.
Before the Bill is agreed to, I wish. to say that on looking over the map, it seems 'o me that the Government has erred rather on the side of liberality in taking land into the forest reserves. My opinion is that there is a large amount of land in what is called the dry belt of British Columbia. which is included in the railway belt and which my hon. friend has included very liberally in additions to existing forest reserves or to new ones, that is at a very sufficiently high elevation to attract enough rain to make it suitable either for agriculture, or for grazing purposes, and should not, as a matter of sound public policy, be withdrawn from occupation. If it is an error, however, it can be remedied by subsequent legislation, and I would not desire to delay the committee more than to state my opinion.
There is also an unnecessarily large addition to the Rocky Mountain forest reserve in the territory immediately west of Edmonton. The reserve at present is very large; it has a width of about one hundred miles. To add still further to that large area is, in my opinion, questionable policy. I quite approve the policy of establishing, as forest reserve, land that is not available for settlement; but I certainly do not approve the establishment as forest reserves of land that is available for profitable occupation by settlers in large quantities, as is the case here.
It mav not be known to the Government; but as a matter of fact the low elevation of the country, which is the cause of the Yellowhead Pass being so attractive as a railway pass, extends very close to the foot

1165&.
of the mountains. There is not a very large area of foot-hill country. For that reason I do not think it is necessary or wise to give such a large extension to the eastward of the Rocky Mountain park. As in the case of the British Columbia reserve, however, that is a matter that can be adjusted by subsequent legislation.
There is one particular reserve that I wish to speak rather strongly of, that is, the reserve northwest of Edmonton, between Athabasca river and Lesser -Slave lake. There is a large area of very high land there known as Swan Hill.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: What is the name of that reserve?
Mr. -OLIVER: I do not know what name is given to it. It is south of Lesser Slave lake.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There has been, no reserve there up to -the present.


Frank Oliver: I am willing to say that the area of land which we know as Swan Hills should properly be included in a forest reserve; but I am strongly of the opinion that the minister has included within that reserve an area that is entirely unwarranted owing to the elevation of the country. The country is largely timbered; but the timber is not, generally speaking, of a character to give it value. Under conditions such as prevail there, when the greater part of the land is wooded, the mere fact that this particular area is wooded is no reason why it should be set apart as a forest reserve. The only reason for setting apart as a reserve an area in a generally wooded country is if it is at such elevation, or is of such broken character that it would not be suitable for agriculture or grazing. On that ground I think the minister has erred very considerably in including an area so much larger than that which is occupied by the actually elevated country that would not in the ordinary course of events be suitable for agriculture ox grazing.
May I draw the minister's attention to the desirability, so far as it is reasonably practicable, of expanding the forest reserves on the Cypress hills? I notice that no addition has been made to that reserve. Now, if there is any one locality in the western country that calls for the attention of the forestry branch of the Department of the Interior, that calls for the establishment of a forest reserve and for forestration, it is the summit of the Cypress Hills. This is a tract of high country in the dry area of the Northwest. The ridge oi hills attracts rain which is the source of many creeks that run down to the plains on both sides of the hills. There is every reason why the Government should go to trouble and expense to expand as far as practicable the forest area on the high land of these hills-not for Mr. OLIVER.
the sake of the forest but for the sake of the water that would water the plains both to the south and to the north of the hills where water is the great necessity for agricultural occupation. By the homestead map there are still considerable areas on the Cypress hills not occupied by settlers. I would advise the minister to make closer examination of this area than has yet been made and to take means to make reservation of land there and even to buy out settlers in order to establish an important forest reserve in that locality. There is another area, one with which I am not so familiar, Woody mountain, or Wood mountain. I know that it is an elevated country, the source of water flowing both south and north, and flowing through a rather dry country. I do not know to what extent these hills are forested, never having visited them. But I think the minister would do well to have his officers visit Wood mountain. The. importance of having reservation of such portion of the area as would seem to be necessary to preserve timber, and to establish timber growth when practicable.
The value of forest preservation or forest protection, with a view to meeting the conditions of the open plains as. regards water cannot be exaggerated. It is a work which is worthy of the best attention of the Government, and while it is very largely experimental up to the present, and while we cannot measure in definite dollars exactly the result that is to follow certain expenditures, still the conditions are such that the Government is warranted in making liberal expenditures to preserve the forests now existing on these isolated prairie watersheds and protecting the forests upon them where they are adapted to such protection.
But that condition does not exist in the northern parts of the country where the country is, generally speaking, already timbered. While it is desirable that there should be proper reservations, the conditions of the prairies do not apply. I maintain that my hon. friend would not be warranted in setting apart Very large areas of forest reserves simply because the land at present is covered with timber. If the land is suited for agricultural purposes and the timber is not valuable, unless the timber is necessary as a means of conserving the water, it is not good economy to prevent the acquiring of that timber and the establishment of settlers. The principal of the forest reserve is to preserve the forests for the sake of the water supply, not simply to preserve the forests for the sake of having forest instead of field. So, when reserves are, as I understand some of -them to be in the northern country, set apart rather because the country is forested than because it is necessary to preserve the

forest in order to preserve the water supply, I think the Minister of the Interior is not in such cases following the policy that is the very basis of the Forest Reserves Act.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The general scheme
followed in setting aside these forest reserves is not to include the agricultural lands but lands that are non-agricultural. Perhaps I may, for the information of my hon. friend, give him the statement I have received from the officers who have examined these various reserves, regarding one or two of them. Take for instance, the Lesser Slave forest reserve. The information I have received concerning it is as follows:
This tract covers a range of hills with an elevation of from 3,060 to 4,000 feet. The land is rough and broken on the edges of the hills, and the summit is fiat and covered with muskeg. None of it can be classed as agricultural land. The timber is black and white spruce, lodge-pole and jack pine. Fires have at different periods run over a large part of the tract and there have been large fires within the last fifteen years; the timber grows with good, average rapidity, and this should in time be one of the most important timber areas in Alberta. With the increase of immigration into the Lesser Slave and Peace river valleys there will be a great demand for timber in the near future. There are no) settlers in this tract proposed to be included.
My hon. friend spoke of the large increase in the Rocky Mountain reserve. As to that my information is as follows:
The tract added to the east of the reserves from the North -Saskatchewan northward, is rough, broken country, traversed by deep valleys of a number of rivers. The general elevation is over 4,000 feet _ above the sea; level. In general the soil varies from sandy to clayey gumbo, the latter underlying the muskegs. This tract has suffered severely from fire. Only about eleven per cent of the area is covered by mature timber and thirty per cent by timber of pole size. The Brazeau region included in this district is estimated to contain 1,400,000,000 tons of bituminous coal, the mining of which will require about two billions cubic feet of wood for mine timbers.
That is the description of the piece that we propose to add to the Rocky Mountain reserve.
On section 7-schedule amended:


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I move that the first twenty lines of section 7 be struck out, and that the words ' the said ' and the word * further ' in the* twenty-first line thereof be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thomas Wilson Crothers: I move that paragraph 7 of section 7 be struck out in its entirety.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. WARNOCK:: Has the minister any report on the Porcupine Hills addition to the Rocky Mountain reserve ?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There are three hundred and sixty square miles in that reserve at the present time; it is proposed to add two hundred and four square miles, making a total of five hundred and sixty-four square miles.


Frank Oliver: This reserve is marked on the map as the proposed addition to the Rocky Mountain reserve. It is in townships 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, east and west of the fifth meridian.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The Porcupine Hills comprise an area of one hundred and ninety-eight square miles. They are separated from the main Rocky mountains by a narrow valley, and rise to a height ol between five thousand and six thousand feet above the sea level. They are-forested with spruce, Douglas fir, larch,-pine and poplar. The stand of timber is not continuous, but is good in places and natural reproduction is satisfactory. The hills are surrounded by a range of agricultural country, which is supplied with timber therefrom and which depends on the streams from the hills for its water supply.


David Warnock: There are quite a number of settlers in these hills, many of them farmers. Is it proposed that they shall be transferred ?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think it is intended that, where there are settlers in any of these reserves, an arrangement will be made with them to move elsewhere.


David Warnock: There are quite a large number of settlers in that portion of the country known as the Porcupine Hills, Maeleod district, and I think there will be-a good deal of objection on their part to moving.


Frank Oliver: I am not personally
familiar with this locality, but as the hon.. member for Maeleod (Mr. Warnook) says, there has been a settlement there for twenty-five years. It is well established, and while not largely agricultural it is, I suppose, the best and most thoroughly established grazing area in all the West. There is agriculture accompanying the grazing, and I must say, if I am not mistaken as to the area covered, that my hon. friend is heaping up a good deal of trouble for himself in undertaking to establish a reserve covering the whole area. I am not suggesting that it would not be right and proper for him to make reservation of certain areas within that area; it is quite-possible that a careful examination would show that there are smaller areas that might possibly be reserved, but to abso-

lutely blanket six or eight townships where people have been living for twenty-five years is assuming a rather serious responsibility, and I would not like to let this section pass without entering my formal and most emphatic protest.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have not before me any information as to the number of settlers that there may be in this district, but I do not think the officers who have personally examined the reserve, and who recommended these additions, would do so if they were aware that it was inhabited by a large number of people. In some cases a few squatters were found in some of the reserves as at present constituted and we have made arrangements with them to move to other places, and have paid them for some improvements they have made. If anything of that kind turns out, they will not be disturbed in the meantime, and an amendment may be made next year.


David Warnock: Some years ago every homestead or fractional part of a homestead in that part of the country was taken up. There are many ranchers and farmers in there, really mixed farmers now, who have been in there for over twenty years. They have good buildings, considerable improvements and good fences, and I think there will be a good deal of reluctance on their part to move. I certainly think that a considerable portion of this land is private property, the property of the Waldron Ranch Company. I know that their land lies pretty well on to the side of the Porcupine Hills.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am told by the officer who has charge of the matter that there are no settlers in the portion it is proposed to add to this reserve, and that it does not include the Waldron ranch.


Frank Oliver: This information does
not coincide with the information on the homestead map, so the two branches of the _ department will have to fight it out. It is true that there is a considerable portion of the area absolutely vacant, but there are portions of it that have been taken by settlers.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. L. P. Pelletier (Postmaster General), Bill No. 188, to provide for more advantageous Telegraphic Communication between Canada and the United Kingdom and other parts of the British Empire, was read the second time, and the Mr. OLIVER.
House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-short title:
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Whilst I am quite willing to give a chance to the Poulsen Company to implement by deed what it promises by words, I cannot help saying that the Bill is a deception for all those who have favoured so far the principle of the state ownership of cables. There is no interest taken in the present measure in the country, and my hon. friend must have noticed, ever since he introduced his Bill, that the public has not been responsive. The public expected something substantial, and they get only what I call a speculative enterprise. Notwithstanding what was stated by my hon. friend when he introduced this legislation, wireless telegraphy is yet in its infancy. There is nothing final yet in this wonderful discovery. Marconi himself, the leading authority in the world, admits that there are many and many steps to be taken before this notable invention is perfected. An exhaustive investigation of the Marconi Wireless system has recently taken place in England. As my hon. friend the Postmaster General will remember, some years ago, Mr. Samuel the British Postmaster General, made an agreement with Marconi to equip all the ships of Great Britain w'ith the wireless, and he dotted the coast around the United Kingdom with stations in order to give the British navy the benefit of that wonderful invenr tion. But whilst wireless telegraphy is certainly' a great invention, which to-day in all civilized countries is obligatory upon ship-owners for the protection of lives and the safety of navigation, in the distribution of news or the transmission of messages, the cable is still the instrument which finds favour with the public. I stated the other day that the Poulsen system, excellent as it may be was somewhat criticised among the scientists and specialists in wireless. I have the evidence of Marconi himself taken only a few' days ago in London. I stated, when the minister introduced his Bill, that the trouble with this Poulsen system is that atmospheric conditions interfere with the proper working of the wireless. Mr. Marconi says in his evidence:
Lecturing before tiie Royal Institution on May 24, 1907, (copy of which lecture I have produced), Professor Fleming stated in regard to the Poulsen arc:
' No one who has worked practically with the apparatus can say that it is a simple and easy one to use. A very little want of exact adjustment causes the arc to be extinguished or ehe fluctuate greatly in current, and, compared with the extremely simple appliances required for spark telegraphy, the advantage in ease of working is largely on the si-de of the spark.'
An interesting and practical proof of the
opinions just quoted was demonstrated in a competition which was conducted by the

Turkish army in May, 1911, when the Tele-funken system, the Poulsen system, and the Marconi system were in competition tor the purpose of demonstrating which was the most efficient system for the Turkish army to adopt. Trials were carried out during a period of ten days. The Telefunken system failed to get a complete message through until the last two or three days of the trial, and then only at night time; the Marconi system maintained good communication throughout the whole period; the Poulsen apparatus failed entirely; their arc hlew out on the average once a minute. The Turkish army adopted the Marconi system.
Major Cochrane, late of the British army, was present at these trials as engineer on behalf of the Marconi Company, and I produce a letter signed by him confirming what I have stated, and he is available to corroborate in detail before this committee what I have said should he be required.
I would draw particular attention to these tests in view of the evidence which has been given before this committee, that the Poulsen system is believed to be more simple and efficient for short-distance communications. It is unnecessary for me, perhaps, to state that the first essentials for military stations are simplicity, efficiency, and reliability, and military stations such as these are short-distance installations.
Then, it goes on to deal with the various instruments. My hon. friend will probably say that Marconi is interested. Of course, his invention is decidedly the best in his own judgment, and he does not care to see Poulsen or Telefunken take precedence over him. I quoted the other day the opinion of Charles Bright who is a world-wide authority and the son of the gentleman who, some seventy years ago, laid in the Atlantic ocean the first cable and who has, during his lifetime, made a specialty of this question of telegraphy, by both cable and wireless. I would also invite my hon. friend to .read the London Times of the 8th of May last which contains a long article -on this question of wireless and which he might find useful. According to all the authorities, the cable is unquestionably the best medium for the transmission of news and messages. I shall not weary the committee by quoting at length the expressions of leading Canadians and people high in authority in England who for the last fifteen years have vainly clamoured for a state-owned cable. Although there were forebodings when the Pacific cable was established, and it was said it would not pay expenses, the fact is that there is now a surplus every year, and thete has been a steady reduction in the cable rates. These reductions have not only been valuable to the commercial world, but from the Imperial point of view they have drawn closer together distant portions of the Empire with the Motherland. With our leased wire between the Pacific ocean and Montreal, it seems to me that we could easily cover the last gap between Montreal and the Atlantic coast by using the Government line along the St. Lawrence to Labrador. It would not cost $2,500,000 to lay an Atlantic cable, including the stations and the repair vessel. At the conference of 1911, when the wireless systems were as well known as they are to-day, the conference, led by Mr. Asquith, Sir Wilfrid. Laurier, Sir Joseph Ward and other Imperial statesmen, expressed the opinion that it was not the wireless system, but a cable which was needed in order to give the British Empire cheap telegraphic communication. The resolution passed by the conference was to the effect that if the cable companies did not materially reduce their rates, the Imperial Conference was of the opinion that the time would soon come when an Atlantic cable should be laid on the same principle as the Pacific cable. It is true the cable companies have somewhat reduced their rates, but I agree with my hon. friend that the reduction is only infinitesimal. We are told that a cheaper rate will be given under this legislation and that a guarantee deposit will be made by the Poulsen Company, but the more I read the Bill and the agreement, the less I see the permanency of that deposit. They deposit the money, it is true, but it will soon vanish, from what I gather in the contract. I have no objection to giving the Poulsen system a trial, but my hon. friend should not think that it is, as they say in Paris:	le dernier cri. I am afraid
we will have a conflict between the Marconi wireless and the Poulsen system. Although each company will guarantee that it will not be troubled by the waves of the other, yet in the wireless world there is continual interference. I would infer from the remarks made by the Postmaster General that the Poulsen concern is a British concern, but I am informed that it is an American corporation. This Bill contains the usual clauses. There is a contradiction between clause 3, which creates the Government Ocean Telegraph Board, and clause 9, which gives certain powers to the Eailway Commission. It seems to me that the members of the Cabinet have already so many duties to perform that they should not take upon themselves the administration of a department which is so very technical in its nature, but that they should rather leave to the Railway Board to deal with the wireless. I think the Railway Board has the necessary powers, not only to deal with railways, but with cables and telegraphs, and I* think wireless.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Not cables.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, I myself passed
the legislation.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It was conditional.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, but we gave the
Railway Commission the power in case the


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: You control the licenses?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes. One of the other important parts of the Bill is that it does not refer only to the wireless system, but the board we are creating is to have control of the business of the cable companies so far as Canada is concerned. As a matter of fact, we do not need the board so much for the wireless as for the cable business. Having the responsibility of this matter, desirous as I am of breaking the prices which Canadians have had to pay in the past to the cable companies, I do not see my way clear to disagree with Mr. Samuel, the British Postmaster General, when he tells me, with his wide experience and with the first-class officers he has in his department, that this is not the time to lay a state-owned cable. For they see

far ahead of them, and they believe that the wireless, as my hon. friend has put it has not said its last word. the wireless seems to be advancing by leaps and bounds, and in the near future it may be not merely as efficient as the cable, but more efficient; instead of the present rate of forty words a minute, this company guarantees double that amount, and if they do not carry out their guarantee, they lose all their privileges. The more stringent we made the regulations, the more emphatically they said: Our system is so good that you can place upon our operations all the restrictions you like. If this succeeds, my hon. friend will not ask us to invest a large sum of money in a cable, the usefulness of which may be equalled or surpassed by this wireless system. The British Government has sufficient faith in this company to grant them a license, and they say that the moment everything is _ in _ shape they are ready to give us a service in a few months. We are not bound to these people either financially or morally. So far as ocean business is concerned, the Marconi has not been a success. I do not want to cnti-cise the Marconi system, but for some reason they have not been recognized or looked upon as successful competitors of the cable companies. I am bound to say that they are improving their system, and suppose that in the near future, instead of having the cables alone, we shall have the Marconi, the Poulsen, and the cable, and this country will then be free from the very heavy charges to which we have been subjected. If not, I shall have to come to this House before long, because the experiment will be short, and ask for authority to expend the necessary money for the establishment of a through telegraphic connection between Canada and the British Empire.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I wish to congratulate the Postmaster General on the great amount of effort he has put forth in bringing this measure before the House, and I sincerely hope that he will bring about all that he anticipates with regard to the transmission of messages across the Atlantic. I desire again to put myself on record as being strongly in favour-more strongly than I have time to express myself tb-night-of the appointment of a commission to look into the matter of wireless telegraphy, with a view to deciding on the system which we could best make use of in this country. I am satisfied that there will be a great duel of coniiiction of interests between the Marconi system and this system if they both operate. I do not wish to take up the time of the House tonight discussing this matter at length; I merely wish to place myself on record as being strongly in favour of a state-owned Mr. PELLETIER.
cable between Canada and Great Britain, and I firmly believe that the day is not far distant when we will have one. I shall not have time during the present session to take up the matter of trunk, telephone and telegraph lines in this country, but I am confident that the time will come when, instead of having five hundred independent telephone companies in the province of Ontario, trunk lines will be established by the Canadian Government for the Jj.enefit of the people.
On section 2-cable stations and land lines:


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I move that sub-section e of this section be struck out. This sub-section, which has regard to radiotelegraph, is already embodied in our law, and is not necessary to have it here.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 4-regulations:
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I move that the words ' or radiotelegraph stations ' be struck out of sub-section c, and that the words ' or radiotelagraphy ' be struck out of sub-section d.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 8-agreement in schedule confirmed :
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I move that the following words be added to this section:
But cannot be interpreted as authorizing the use of any other wireless system than the one known as the Poulsen.
I would move also that the following sub-section be added to section 8:
3. The Government may assign to the hoard any of -the powers which it has under the said agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Under the agreement the Government has the right to consent to the location of these stations, and we say that the Government may transfer its rights under the said agreement to the Ocean Telegraph Board.'
George Perry Graham: Will this board have
authority over any other company, or this -one only?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: All ocean wireless or cable systems.


George Perry Graham: We have an Act, I think, to put them under the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, that was passed by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), but it was conditional on the British Government passing a similar Act. They have not passed that Act and will not.

Section as amended agreed to.


George Perry Graham: I would call the attention of the leader of the House to the fact that in this Bill the Government have adopted the suggestion once made by the late chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, the late Mr. Justice Mabee, in connection with ocean steamship traffic to be found in the correspondence, I think, in the Department of External Affairs. He made a report at my request suggesting that the rates on ocean traffic should be governed by the licenses to all steamship companies touching Canada so that the rates could be controlled through the giving of the licenses.


Mr. ROGERS:: I understand this was to be referred to some officer or to a certain department of the Imperial Government.


George Perry Graham: Certainly. He made the suggestion for Canada. There was some correspondence with the home authorities and they were to appoint some officer to deal with it, but they never got any further than that.
Bill reported.


MONTREAL MILITARY CEMETERIES.
Rodolphe Lemieux: In case the Government contemplate bringing down further supplementary estimates, I have received from Montreal a letter from an old soldier in which he states that the two old military cemeteries at Montreal are being desecrated by boys. The lettering on the tombs has disappeared, the walls and fences are in very poor condition. This old soldier says that we owe to the pioneers of the British system in Canada, the sacred duty of protecting their ashes. It would be a matter of a few hundred dollars, possibly a thousand dollars, to put the two cemeteries in decent condition. I would ask my hon. friend to attend to this at once. This old soldier appeals to me and I am very glad indeed to re-echo his appeal to the House of Commons, and I would like my hon. friend to attend to this before Parliament prorogues. It will really be to the credit of the country to protect the ashes of these old soldiers.
_ On motion of Mr. Rogers, House adjourned at 1.15 a.m. Tuesday.

Tuesday, June 3, 1913.