[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GAUVREAU:: Now that the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) is in his seat, may I be permitted to ask that he will recommend to the clemency of His Excellency the Governor General the case of a young farmer of Temiscouata, Esdras Berube-who was shot and wounded and spent two months-


Mr. SPEAKER:: This is a request which should be conveyed in the ordinary course by letter. It is not a matter of policy and should not be brought up on the Orders of the Day.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: It is such a bad case that I shall insist on putting my question if allowed.
Mr. iSPEAKER: The hon. gentleman's request must take the course I suggest.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply -Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Government shipbuilding programme-amount required for the construction of vessels in ac, cordance with the Government programme, $30,000,000.
['I hope my amendment will prevent that.']
Mr. MURPHY:: In the discussion yesterday, the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) was good enough to give the Committee certain information with regard to the carrying out of the obligations assumed by the Dominion Steel Company in connection with the contract that was referred to. May I now inquire if the hon. gentleman will tell the Committee how much money was expended by the Steel Company in fulfilling their obligations under the contract up to the most recent date in regard to which the hon. gentleman has information?


Mr. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine):: I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend (Mr. Murphy) the information that he has asked for. The buildings are only partially up and I have asked the Dominion Steel Corporation to let me know how much money they have expended. For the moment I have not the information, but it cannot be a very large sum.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: il would like to know
positively from the hon. gentleman if, in any of the pourparlers which he has had of late with the representatives of the company, these gentlemen have agreed to have the terms of the contract altered if need be.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I thought I made
that quite clear yesterday in answer to the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux). Last week the President and the Vice-president of the company met me in a very broad and generous spirit. If we do not modify the contract in conformity with the present price of steel in the United States the Government are at liberty to cancel it. The matter is not yet settled, the negotiations are still going on, but when they are finished I will be glad to give the particulars to the House.


Mr. McKENZIE:: In so far as this mill is concerned, I would certainly urge upon
the minister the desirability of seeing that it is erected and put into operation. I think every Canadian will say that we should have a plate-producing mill in Canada somewhere, and if we are to have it at all I 'think we should have it in connection with one of the big institutions of that class. The biggest steel-producing plant in Canada to-day is the Dominion Steel Corporation. There may be bigger ones later on, but at the present moment that is the largest in Canada producing steel of the very best class, as has been shown by what they were supplying during the war and what they have been doing in rail production. I think the Dominion Steel Company have produced as good a rail as is produced anywhere on the American continent. It was well understood last year, and I think it is still understood, that the Government were to build that plate mill and that arrangements had been completed for that purpose. The mere fact that a difference has arisen in price one way or the other is not a sufficient reason to disturb the policy agreed upon by the Government, considering that the production of steel plates within our own borders is such an important matter to the whole country. These plates are to be produced at tide water. The mill willlje within a stone's throw of tide water of Sydney harbour, from where both coasts and inland by rail can be supplied. The ships are to be built in Halifax, and by steamers from the shores of Sydney harbour to Halifax the transportation of these plates is not a difficult proposition. It would be better, one would think, if both were going on at the same place, and the natural place for shipbuilding would be Sydney harbour, but the Government have decided otherwise, and they having so decided, I have no criticism to offer. But I certainly think it would be a retrograde movement to abandon the idea of producing these plates, and I trust the minister will determinedly carry forward the policy upon which he launched in connection with the erection of a mill. I am glad to find that Mr. Workman, president of the company, has met him in a conciliatory and businesslike spirit on that point, and I hope that nothing will interfere with an advanced programme in connection with shipbuilding and the furnishing of facilities for producing plate within our own country.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Would the minister be good enough to state what he estimates the price of the plates will be to the Government at Sydney under the contract?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am very glad indeed to hear from the leader of the Opposition the words of commendation that he has been good enough to utter in regard to the contract made between the Government and the Dominion Steel Corporation to manufacture two hundred and fifty thousand tons of ship's plate. The best price for the Government that could be agreed upon over a year ago' was $4.15 per hundred pounds, based upon the price at which steel billets were selling at that time, viz: $25.50 per ton. Hon. members no doubt are aware that ship's plates are made from steel billets, and in talking with the president of the company I learned that steel billets would not in any event decline in price more than $10 a ton. When the Government entered into that contract with the steel corporation it was as a war project; as I stated in the House yesterday you could not get steel from the United States; and notwithstanding the fact that we had placed an eighty thousand ton contract there, we were only able to obtain six thousand tons. Other countries at war, such as Britain and France were depending on the United States for stqgl, and Japan was also getting steel from that country. The United States, having a huge mercantile marine programme themselves to carry out, naturally were going to serve their own necessities first before they supplied the needs of others; therefore, to make shipbuilding a self-contained industry in Canada, and to enable this country to get ships during the period of the war, it seemed to the Government that there was no other course open but to enter into the best contract we could to have the steel plates made here. It is greatly to the credit of the steel corporation that they were able to place before the Government a more favourable proposal than we could get from' the United States. Another thing in its favour, and which is gratifying from a patriotic point of view, is that the ore used by the steel company to make the pig iron originates in British territ'ory, and comes from Newfoundland, so that all the materials used in production are obtained on British soil. But after the armistice had been signed, the price of ship's plates being 2| cents in the States, against possibly a minimum price of $3.75 under the Dominion Steel Company's contract and the Government 'being obligated to take no less than fifty thousand tons per year for a period of five years, making two hundred and fifty thousand tons in all, it seemed to my colleagues and 
to me that we could not very well afford to pay that price. The arrangement looked very favourable a year ago when plates were selling at from four to ten cents a pound, but it does not look so favourable now.
I quite agree with the leader of the Opposition that to make Canada's shipbuilding programme permanent, the industry must be on a self-contained basis in this country, and that we ought to make our own ship's plates. I am quite satisfied that the Dominion Steel Corporation could carry out the contract, and I am also well satisfied that Sydney is a very good point at which to make these plates. No definite conclusion has yet been arrived at, but the company fairly stated that if they had completed their plant and installed the machinery necessary it would have been at a capital cost of 15,000,000. Therefore, if they are to meet the American price it would take them many years before they could do so, and possibly they might never be able to write off the initial cost ol the plant, or a portion of it. If the Steel Company would give us a more favourable price, the Government would be more inclined to go on with the proposition than it is to cancel it. If, however, the company cannot see their way clear to modify the price, I think it is in the best interests of the country to cancel the contract.


Mr. DUFF:: The minister has told us
that the Government has only received delivery so far of six thousaiid tons out of the eighty thousand tons contracted for. I understood him to say yesterday that the contract with the United States was based on a price of 31 or 31 cents per pound?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 3J cents.


William Duff: 
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Replying to the hon. member yesterday, I had the privilege of informing him, in regard to the forty-five ships under contract for the Dominion Government, that the prices were based, not on the contract made with the Dominion Iron & Steel Company, but on the agreement made with ithe United States at 3J cents per pound. I also stated yesterday that the Steel Corporation had not imported any of the required machinery at all. All they have done so far has been to partially erect the building; it contains no plant in the way of machinery, engines, and boilers.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: It is possible to take another view of the question which has been touched on by the minister and by the leader of the Opposition as to the wisdom of importing steel plates if the object is to build ships successfully and profitably. I remember hearing Mr. Lloyd George address a very enthusiastic audience in the Old Country and he was meeting the argument that had been advanced at that time, which was some .years before the war, that free trade was hurting Britain because certain steel plates had been imported from Germany to Barrow-in-Furness. I am sure this Committee would listen to Mr. Lloyd George upon such a question with interest, and possibly with instruction. Mr. Lloyd George said that the person who complained of those steel plates coming ito Barrow-in-Furness didn't know quite enough about 'his subject, and he pointed out that Sir Hugh Bell, one of the greatest iron-masters in the north of England, had taken the trouble to trace the history of the steel plates after they arrived from Germany at Barrow-in' Furness. It is quite true, said the great statesman, that those steel plates came to Barrow-in-Furness from Germany, but Sir Hugh Bell traced what happened to them, and it was extremely interesting, Mr. Chairman, as showing how the Old Country succeeded in shipbuilding. He said those steel plates came from Germany, and they enabled a firm of ship builders to take a contract for shipbuilding at Barrow-in-Furness against the world's competition. They converted Germany's steel plates, which they bought cheaply, into ships, and sold the
steel plates in the form of ships back to Germany at a handsome profit. Well, that didn't seem a bad transaction-to employ the highly paid shipbuilding industry of Great Britain at Barrow-in-Furness upon the half finished articles of the less well-paid artisans of Germany, put them into ships and sell them, against the world's competition, back to the country that had sold to Britain the cheap steel plates. I merely mention this incident to show that it is possible to take a contrary view to that which has been expressed by my hon. friends on opposite sides of the House. It is possible to take that contrary view and to hold it very strongly if we look to the interests of Canada instead of to some provincial interests which may be helped by the spending of money locally.


Mr. BURNHAM:: There is a disposition in this country to urge provincial interests, but I think national interests and wide economic interests should be more especially regarded. It will suit a particular case sometimes in order with considerable cunning to draw a general conclusion, but it is a practice that must be guarded against. We are not here for the purpose of being beguiled by any such form of reasoning. The fact of the matter is that if you lay down the proposition that has just been outlined, you must also lay down the proposition that cheap products and cheap labour shall have free access to this country. The result would be that you would ruin production and reduce the producer to the level of the foreigner. That is the true general conclusion to be drawn from such a statement. In the particular instance which has just been developed it may quite reasonably have occurred just as outlined; but, as I say, to draw a general conclusion from it is both dangerous and harmful.
We cannot do anything of the sort, if we wish to develop Canada. I might say in particular that if you put a Chinese wall seven hundred feet high around this country and balanced consumption and production, you might well raise this country to the highest possible degree of economic equilibrium, which any man who knows anything about the science of economy is aware is quite possible. But he would also know that if you reduce that wall, if you disturb the equilibrium and destroy the balance of your own resourceful country by admitting cheap labour and cheap labour's products, you must ultimately reduce the country and the people to the level of China and the Chinese coolie.


Michael Clark: How does my hon. friend propose to get his ships over his seven hundred foot wall?


John Hampden Burnham: I might answer my hon. friend by saying that in the case I supposed we would not need to get them over the seven hundred foot wall. That is just where the error of such reasoning as my hon. friend's comes in. We would have the ships employed within our own country; they would get all the employment they required. We would have the farmer raising no more than was necessary for the sustenance of the people, and we would have the manufacturer making no more than was necessary for their requirements, and we would have the administration employing its arts for preserving the admirable balance of trade in this country. Then we would have such complete immunity from confusion that there would be plenty of time to study economic subjects and bring into this House better conclusions than we have just heard announced.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is no doubt that there are two sides to every question. I have no doubt that in order to build up any country its resources should be developed first to the fullest possible extent, and if we can have further expansion to permit of export, so much the better. But my good friend from Red Deer has been telling me lately that he is devoting a great deal of his attention to the reading of the Holy Writ, and I am sure in that sphere of study he will find no writer more congenial to his close reasoning than the Apostle Paul. He talks to me about provincialism and sectionalism. But if he will read Paul he will find that the Apostle tells us that we are members one of another. Paul says, "Will the eye say to the nose, 'I am not of the body because I am not the nose'? Will the hand say to the foot, 'I am not of the body because I am not the foot'?" Paul reasons that out and concludes that we are members one of another, and of the one body. That magnificent philosopher of former days has many points in common with my good friend from Red Deer and yet sufficient divergency of view to be distinguished from him, and I am sure we will be safe in following Paul's reasoning. And when I advocate the manufacturing of plate at Sydney Harbour it is not because Sydney Harbour happens to be close to my home town in the Gem of Canada, the province of Nova Beotia. I had nothing to do with the 
placing of that contract, I was not consulted; the Government of this country- and among the many things of which I accuse them I do not include sectionalism- in their wisdom selected Sydney as the place where those plates should be manufactured. All I am asking is that they shall continue to implement their decision.
While I am not a very high protectionist, I am not in favour of the tremendous wall that my friend from Peterborough would like to build; but I cannot help knowing that protection of certain industries has done much for this country. I cannot help knowing that in connection with this very plate industry we are talking about and the institution of the steel works at Sydney those steel works have furnished a market for our Nova Scotia coal and employment for thousands of colliers who to-day would not be employed were it not for the assistance which the Government in the early stages gave to the development of our steel and iron industry.
Now, if there is to be a further development of that industry and of the coal industry by the manufacture of plate and the building of ships in this country, I think that it is a wise move. I do not think any one is preaching any political hearsay when he advocates the development of whatever resources we have within our own country and making ourselves as far as possible self sustaining and independent. I have no doubt the day is not far distant when we shall harve a navy of our own, and I want this country to be able to build its own warships, from stem to stern, with what we can ourselves produce. That is the policy I wish to advocate. As I said, I ram not a high protectionist, but I am prepared to deal with facts and circumstances and not with any theory which may suit .somewhere but not elsewhere.


Michael Clark: I despair of ever getting the last word with my hon. friend, but as we are in Committee perhaps I may be allowed to say that I do not think the fact he has produced to us is very strong evidence in support of his theory.
I do not know the exact number of the inhabitants of Sydney. I hope they are numerous, and I should like to see the population of that town grow, but I should like to see it grow by a reasonable interpretation of the Apostle Paul's language and not by an unreasonable interpretation of it. Of course, I do not believe in a body which does not look after both the hand and the foot. What I object to is

a body that would be so unreasonable as to endeavour to clothe its foot with the glove of the hand. That is what protection does, and it is not very successful in the operation. I come from a part of Canada where we have some larger towns than Sydney. Winnipeg, for instance, is quite a city compared with Sydney; it has grown in a shorter time, and it has grown on products raised by people who are men enough to raise them against the competition of the world and who want no protection. The same is true of Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, and the other numerous cities of the West which will go on to be larger cities than Sydney is to-day. Pap-feeding never made a man and it never made a province. It is with men as with nations-people who stand on their own feet are in the end always the strongest, and I should like my hon. friend to take a leaf out of this book of economic sense and not confine his studies absolutely to the scriptures; because, after all, the scriptures were not made to teach either political economy or astronomy. The hon. member knows they get very far wrong on astronomy.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: Would the minister take into consideration, when he is building these ships, the wisdom of establishing a few of them on our Upper lakes in order that we may be able to control freight rates. In 1909, wheat was brought from Port Arthur to Montreal for cents a bushel, while last year, steamships on our Upper lakes charged eleven cents for carrying wheat between those two ports, and the rates are constantly increasing, {lespite the fact that 6ince 1909 we have been spending millions of dollars on our waterways.
Would the minister also take into consideration the fact that the Canada Steamships Company, a company that is now capitalized at $30,000,000, went in a merger in 1912 whereby six or seven companies merged together, and they invested only some $6,000,000 or $7,000,000 of actual capital, but they floated that company with $12,000,000 of watered stock, $12,000,000 of preferred stock and $6,000,000 of bonds. What has happened? That company have increased the rates and have practically a monopoly of traffic on our inland waiters, and they are in this position to-day that no.t only are they paying seven per cent on their preferred stock and bonds, but this year they started to pay four per cent on their $12,000,000 of common stock. In addition to that, they have set aside $5,000,000 of a
surplus. This merely goes to show the need oif some effort to control the rates, tolls and tariff agreements in connection with our ' boats on our inland waters. Therefore, when the minister is taking into consideration the building of ships entirely, as I understand, for ocean traffic, which is badly in need of regulation as well, I hope he will consider the advisability of building ships to be placed on our inland waters in order that we may be able to control freight rates there.


Mr. McMASTER:: was over, the manufacturing interests of the United States-manufacturing interests there as elsewhere are usually wide-awake to their own interest-saw that the excise duties were taken off, but they left the import duties on. What was the effect on merchant shipping in the United States? In a comparatively few years after the Civil war, the United States did not carry 10 per cent of its own exports and imports in its own bottoms. Let me give another practical illustration. We, who believe in the principle of freedom of commerce, are always being attacked as having splendid ideas but as not being practical folk. In the few years before the war our enemy, Germany, had succeeded in building up a very substantial mercantile marine. How did she do it? By building her ships under free trade conditions. The German. Government arranged their fiscal policy in such a fashion that everything that went into a ship built in Germany, although Germany was a highly protected country, went in free, and on no other basis could Germany have challenged Great Britain as the mistress of the seas.
Mr. MiIDDLEBRO: Did not Germany, in addition to that, subsidize shipbuilding in order that ships might be built more cheaply than in England?
' Mr. IMoMAiSTER:	Possibly. I am not
prepared to say " yes " or " no " to that question, but no subsidy that Germany could have given, could have offset the handicap German shipbuilders would have been under, had they had to build ships under protectionist conditions.
Mr. M.IDDLEBRO: Does the hon. member not admit that a subsidy is the highest and worst form of protection?
Mr. MdMASTEfi: No, a subsidy is not the worst form of protection. Subsidies are honest and tell the people what they are paying in order to assist some special interest in the country. One of my great objections .to granting special privileges to some classes of the community at the expense of the whole is that the people do not know in that case what they are paying, while under the bonus or subsidy system they have some idea what is being paid out. I would respectfully submit to the minister that nothing less than disaster will meet any plan of shipbuilding, ship-owning or ship-operating if it is not upon a basis to meet competition from all over the world. I know the minister will listen to what I say with courteous attention, and I only trust that he will follow my suggestions.
[Mr. McMaster.j


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Answering, first, the hon. member (Mr. G-. E. Armstrong), who asked if it was the policy of the Government to have ships on the Great Lakes, I am happy to say that that is a part of our policy. We intend to have ships, not only on the Pacific and the Atlantic, but on all the principal trade routes, and certainly on the Great Lakes, so that our transportation chain will be complete.
In answer to the hon. member for Brome, I would have been disappointed if he had made any different speech from that which he did make. We both come from the same city, we are both very good friends, each of us respects the views of the other, but on this question we are certainly very far apart. He would have Canadians simply hewers of wood and drawers of water. Canadians have demonstrated that with the very moderate protection we have had in this country for a number of years they can hold their own with the people of any other country in the world. I am sorry the hon. member was not in his seat yesterday, when I explained to the Committee that Canadian yards have turned out ships equal in design and efficiency, and in every other respect to ships built in any part of the world. A few years ago some people in this country thought that ships could not be built in Canada, but it has been amply demonstrated during the last two years that ships can be built here successfully. If my hon. friend had been here yesterday he would have learned that, according to the opinion of Sir George Hunter, of the famous shipbuilding firm of Swan & Hunter, ships built in England, Ireland and Scotland at the present time are costing three times as much as ships built in pre-war times. No one believes for a moment that wages in the United Kingdom will ever reach again the low level prevailing before the war. Both skilled and unskilled labourers in the Old country are asking for a higher rate of wages, and I think they are perfectly justified in doing so. In view of the marvellous development that has taken place in Canada during the last few years, and the skill which Canadians have exhibited in turning out ships equal to similar ships turned out in the yards of the United Kingdom, I take issue with my hon. friend when he says that Canada will not be able to compete with the United Kingdom and other shipbuilding nations. As I stated yesterday, between now and the next session we are going to consider if it will be necessary to render any aid to our shipbuilders when the days of keen competition arrive, and

there will, be plenty of time to deal with this matter at the next session of Parliament.	/
My hon. friend has referred to the United States and apparently he has not kept abreast of the times. The United States has constructed 555 steel ships of various kinds and tonnage. Chairman Hurley, of the United States Shipping Board, states that they are going to build 1,136 more ships, and that when their entire mercantile marine programme has been completed they will have the enormous tonnage of 16,000,000 tons. The United States Government are going to aid that vast mercantile fleet. With a fleet like that next door to us, my hon. friend's advice to the Government is that we should sit down with folded arms and go out of the shipbuilding business. That is not the policy of this Government.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I never said that the Government should go out of or continue in the business. I laid down as a principle that ydu could not have a successful shipbuilding or ship operating business except on a basis that would meet competition from all the world.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I accept my hon. friend's correction. I think I am correct in inferring from his remarks that he did not think Canada would be able to compete with other countries. 1 take issue with him there. When the time comes i think Canada, [DOT]probably with some small assistance from the Government, will be able to compete with all other countries.


Michael Clark: At the risk of wearying the Committee, I should like to supplement the very interesting reference of my hon. friend from Brome to the case of the United States by a single figure. In the year 1861 the shipping tonnage of the United States was two-and-a-half millions, and the tonnage of Great Britain and Ireland four-and-a-quarter millions. At that time, as my hon. friend has very correctly said, Americans were very generally crossing the seas in American bottoms, and American shipping bade fair to become the greatest in the world. In 1910, after fifty years of free trade in Great Britain and fifty years of protection in the United States, the two-and-a-half million tons of the United States had sunk to one-and-a-half million tons, and the four-and-a-quarter million tons of Great Britain had risen to nearly twelve million tons. I think those figures are a perfect demonstration 144
of the truth of the argument of my hon. friend from Brome.
The minister is still extremely enthusiastic about this shipbuilding programme, and I should like to add just one word more from practical experience to induce him to be cautious about going too far in this business. What happens to shipping in war time is no guide whatsoever as to the safety of a shipping policy in times of peace. I was indirectly interested in shipping in Great Britain during the Boer war, and ships about which I had complete knowledge, from my indirect interest, were paying dividends of twenty per cent. Within a very few years of that war, and during some period of it, the ships that were before paying twenty per cent were paying only a nominal dividend, of one to one-and-a-half per cent. I think those facts -and they are facts-about the United States on the one hand, and drawn, on the other, from my own personal experience of British shipping in and after the Boer war ought to make the minister cautious. *


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I have no desire to
enter into a discussion of the respective merits of protection and free trade, but I can scarcely forbear to say a word or two on behalf of the policy that the Minister of Marine has introduced. I am very strongly in favour of supporting all the industries of Canada, and as we used to be a great maritime nation I see no reason why we should not in the near future resume the high position we held forty or fifty years ago as compared with the other nations of the world. Some three or four years ago I waited on the then Minister of Naval Service and begged him to embark on a policy such as my hon, friend brought forward yesterday and has before us to-day. At that time my appeal fell on deaf ears. Had the policy been inaugurated three or four years ago, and had we ships afloat during the last two years of the war, if those ships had made two or three successful trips across the Atlantic they would have paid for all that they would have cost at that time. In my judgment, we did not embark on that policy early enough, but because the policy is a little tardy in coming that is no reason why we should not now endorse it.
One compensation has come to me this afternoon in the splendid tribute paid to this policy by the leader of the Opposition. I feel sure that the Maritime Provinces cannot go back on the shipbuilding industry. No one who has been in the House during the last three or four years and heard



the appeals of the present Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick (the Hon. William Pugsley), will fail to remember that day in and day out for weeks at a time he reiterated the desirability of embarking on Just such a policy as the Minister of Marine has now introduced. Canada is largely a maritime nation. The Great Lakes are the greatest body of fresh water in the world, and the tonnage that passes through the Sault Canal is probably the heaviest that passes through any canal in the world. Is not that a strong reason why we should have ships of our own on the Upper lakes to take care of the wheat traffic from the West, and to furnish the necessary competition to railways? Our western farmers cannot get wheat to market unless they have cheap shipping on the lakes. It is an absolute necessity of the situation that wre should have competition between boats and railways to get the best effect on freight, and that leads to a profit to the farmer of the West of several cents a bushel more than he would receive if his wheat had to depend upon our railways to bring it out. That is the point I desire our western friends to consider in looking at this naval programme. I am rather sorry for the hon. member for Brome, because he is an exceedingly decent fellow. He has told us that hi.s
4 p.m. father was a seafaring man.
Well, I cannot accuse my hon. friend of any seafaring propensities, but I may tell him that in his tariff and trade ideas he has been at sea ever since he entered public life. I think he will appreciate that remark, because if the policy he proposes were followed, not only would we have no shipbuilding, but we w'ould have no other industries to speak of in this country. As I said, I do not want to be drawn into an argument with regard to free trade and protection, but I want to tell my friend that it behooves him to prepare for the Budget debate which will come on in the near future, and in the meantime I will give him a problem as suggested by Abraham Lincoln, who was one of the fathers of protection in his day and generation, now fifty years ago. I would like my hon. friend to make a note of this problem and bring in a solution when he comes to discuss the question on the Budget. Abraham Lincoln made this statement: "If you want a ton of pig iron and you buy it from a foreign nation, you have got your ton of iron but you have parted with your money. But if"-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Of course-
	,


William Foster Cockshutt: Hold on; let me state the whole problem. "But if you dig that iron from the ground and produce it in your own country you have your ton of pig iron and you have your money." If my hon. friend can overthrow that doctrine I hope he will bring us the solution when the Budget debate comes up. In the meantime, I say both hands up for this shipbuilding policy. It means work and high wages for the labouring men of Canada, and I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) that he has done very well to-day in informing us he is not opposed to all manner of encouragement to industry. The light will burn better in the window for his having made that statement, I am sure. I may say, and this I know to be true, that I have lying on my desk in my office in this Parliament building petitions from 3,800 working men of the city of Brantford in favour of a protective policy and no serious changes in tariff, and what I have is only a sample of what is coming to others. The -workingmen know that their bread and butter is bound up in sustaining the industries of Canada, and this is really a basic industry which the minister proposes. While it is true that prices on shipping are high at the present time, and while perhaps we cannot compete with Great Britain, I know the minister is very near the mark when he says that Britain is not ' going to build more ships in the near future at such prices as have obtained in the past. This is a good time for us to get in. The war has sunk about twelve to fifteen million tons of shipping and the question naturally is, who will make that up? The nations of the rvorld will replace that shipping, and why should not Canada take its part in this work? Mow is the time to embark on a shipbuilding policy so that Canada may step into the breach, and with her ability as she has shown in the war, I feel absolutely certain that Canada can put ships on the water that will make as good speed and carry cargoes just as cheaply and safely as any other nation in the world. She may not be able to do it quite as cheaply at the outset as she will later on, but once establish the yards, get skilled men into them and get the engine producing factories and all the other necessary appliances, and a nation like Canada that has produced more than half the shrapnel fired by the British armies in the war need have no fear that the same energy, intelligence and good policy that have been pursued in the past will lead to a triumph in shipbuilding, and that we will have a fleet on

the waters both inland and on the oceans to carry our traffic to all the nations.


Mr. MANION:: I do not intend to enter into a controversy as to the advisability of either protection or free trade, but there is one point favourable to shipbuilding in Canada to-day which I think has not been brought out properly and which it is worth while to bring to the attention of hon. members. I refer to the matter of selling the wheat crop of Canada next year. The hon. member who has just taken his seat, mentioned traffic on the lakes. I wish to take up a different point and one that is important at the present time to the wheat growers of the West. The United States has fixed the price of wheat for this year in that country. For that reason they are going to have probably the biggest wheat crop in the history of the United States and the United States will also probably lose a great deal of money by paying these prices to the farmers. For the same reason she will make her greatest effort to unload that wheat upon the grain markets of the world which are European markets, particularly British. She will endeavour to sell that wheat in the European markets, in the past few years export Canadian wheat has been shipped to Europe and 65 per cent of it, or two-thirds of the wheat we have exported has been exported through American ports. Suppose the United States this year came to the conclusion that they had plenty of wheat to supply the markets in Europe. They are expecting to have four to five hundred million bushels for export. Suppose they say that having plenty of wheat to ship and having fixed the price of wheat they are going to oppose any Canadian wheat going through the American ports; in other words they would block the export of 65 per cent probably of our wheat unless we are able to supply shipping to export it. tin view of that situation, it seems to me that this point is one of the most important that should be taken into consideration in a shipbuilding programme. There is no doubt that these ships will cost a great deal, perhaps much more than they would cost in the British shipbuilding plants, but I believe we should take into account, in considering this matter, the possibility of exporting the wheat of Canada. I may be asked the question, will these ships be built in time to handle this year's crop? One year's crop is usually shipped the following year, or a very great deal of it. I desired to bring this matter to the attention of the Committee because I did not hear 1441
it mentioned before. I believe the Minister of Marine referred to it but he did not elaborate it sufficiently to explain the point I wish to make.


John Howard Sinclair: Cargo vessels
of the United States are privately owned, with the exception of a few that have been built by the Government within the last year or two. All these ships that have been built by the Government are now to fall into private hands. It has never been the policy of the United States except for war vessels to have a fleet of cargo vessels belonging to the United States Government in so far as I can learn and, if it is true that the ships in the United States are to be placed in the hands of private own-' ers, my hon. friend if he will give half a cent a bushel more than market rate for carrying the wheat of Canada to the markets of the world will get the whole fleet of the United States to carry it. They will take the wheat without caring whether it was grown on the prairies of Western Canada or of the United States. They are looking for freight for their ships and they will go wherever the freight is best. The fact that the Canadian Government own their ships will not help the western farmers because the western farmer will have to pay the market price for carrying his wheat and there are always ships to carry wheat in normal times. In fact, there were so many of them that before the war they were carrying wheat for nothing. Wheat was going over as ballast because the rates were so low. That happened then; will happen again. Rates go up and down like anything else. The time will come when there will be enough cargo vessels to do the world's business and they will cut prices. That is only one of the laws of economics.	.;
I do not' think that the fact that the Government owns the ships will help very much. It is not helping at the present time. Attention has been called to the fact that the few vessels that we now have, owned by the Government, are not developing Canadian trade. They are developing the trade of the United States. A cargo vessel has to take business where it can get it. An illustration was given of the case of the Voyageur. The Voyageur took a cargo from Halifax to the West India islands. When she reached the West India islands I suppose she found that there was no cargo suitable to bring back to Halifax. But she got a cargo of sugar for New York.

She loaded the sugar and took it to New York. I am not complaining about that but I am pointing out to my hon. friend and the minister the absurdity of expecting to run these cargo vessels in the way that it is proposed that they shall be run as Government vessels and expecting that the western farmer will reap a benefit from their operation.


Robert James Manion: There are two points against the argument which the hon. gentleman has advanced. In the first place, as the hon. gentleman states, while vessels may be privately owned in the United States, the United States will control these vessels and make them sail as they like. That is the first point. In the second place, the hon. gentleman savs that half a cent a bushel difference on wheat will bring the ships where we wish to bring them. I do not think that is correct. Ships go to United States ports for the reason that they have western bound cargoes. There is much more traffic from Europe to the United States than to Canada and that has been the great reason in * the past why Canadian wheat has been shipped by United States ports. The fact that they could get cargoes at half a cent a bushel more would not draw these ships to Canadian ports for the reason that they would have to come light. Therefore, the ships owned by the Government would be used under the circumstances.


John Howard Sinclair: If my
hon. friend's ship is in Boston or New York it would not be very far to move her back to a Canadian port. There is no necessity, because she sailed from a Canadian port, of her coming back to a Canadian port. That is not the way shipping is carried on. I was going to refer to the contract with the Dominion Steel Company. I have not any particular or definite views on that contract because I have not studied it. But I have seen it stated that it is somewhat improvident. I do not say that a contract of that kind could not be justified on the ground that we are starting a new industry. I think that, as a free trader, I might take that ground. We had a very good illustration in the steel business. Sonne time ago we had no steel business in Canada. The Government was very anxious that something should be done to establish the steel business in Canada and the solution was a bounty. A bounty was paid to the steel industries for a number of years, decreasing year after year. That bounty was granted in order to establish

the steel industry at Sydney, Hamilton and various other places. It cost us about $20,000,000. That was regarded, at that date, as a very large sum of money. It is only regarded as a bagatelle to-day. But I suppose there are very few men in Canada to-day who would want to go back to the old condition of no steel industry in Canada and get back the $20,000,000. They-thought it was a good, progressive move and it has paid the country. On the same ground I would oUggest that we might establish a plate-mill in Sydney by giving a certain amount of help. I agree with my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) that a bounty of that kind, when we know what we are paying, is far less objectionable than a protective duty. We understand that we are going to put up so much money and that is why I asked the minister to tell us just what we were expected to pay.
I suppose that he is able to make a calculation that if we carry out this contract that has been made with the Dominion Steel Company, it would cost us a certain amount of money and it would be satisfactory to know how much it is going to cost us.
But the main point in regard to the shipbuilding industry is that we must make it attractive to private capital. Although the Dominion Government is going into shipbuilding and ship owning, if Canada is going to find a place on the sea it must be as a result of the investment of private capital. The Government can usurp certain things. The Government if lit chooses to pay the price can own a certain number of ships, but the Government cannot build up a great shipbuilding industry unless the people will invest their money in it and become interested in it. It is only a makeshift for the 'Government to go in for the owning of cargo vessels. I am not a prophet but I would not be afraid to prophesy that the Government will not stay very long in the business.
I would not be surprised if in ten years the Dominion Government were out of the business although the people of the Dominion of Canada will not be out of it. The people of Canada will go into the business and stay in it. Has the Government any plan to remedy the handicap that every one admits exists? Man after man has spoken in this debate and every one has stated the same thing; that we cannot build vessels in Canada to compete with vessels built in Great Britain. For this condition of affairs has the Government a solution? I would like to know what

the minister intends to do to remove that handicap and to enable private enterprise in Canada to go into this business, make it a success, and compete with the rest of the world.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Of course the Government believes that shipbuilding will be a permanent industry in -this country. I may say that if the House passes the Supplementary Estimates that I shall bring down in the very near future to have a limited number of ships constructed in addition to the forty-five we have under contract, for the reasons that I gave to the Committee yesterday, the cost of these ships will be very materially less than the cost of the forty-five that are under contract at the present time. I have not had any firm offers because I have not yet received the authority of this House to order any more ships, and I will not have such authority until the Supplementary Estimate is approved. But, I firmly believe that I can buy an 8,000 ton ship for $160 a ton, and probably less.
I explained to the House yesterday that for a year and a half to come no ships could be purchased from any of the yards in' the United Kingdom. In answer to the hon. member's question as to a comparison today between the price for a ship built in Canada and a similar ship built in England, the authority being cited of Sir George Hunter that there is only a difference of ten dollars a ton, it may he when I start negotiations with the Canadian yards we may he able to build ships in this country at as low a rate as they are able to in any oi the yards of the United Kingdom. However, I do not want to be too optimistic, and I can assure my hon. friend from Bed Deer (Mr. Clark) that all business men are trained to be most cautious, especially when they have the responsibility of office, such as I have. In respect to whatever further outlays are required on shipbuilding, the money will be expended on a thoroughly conservative and business-like basis.


Mr. MYERS:: I think there is one fact that the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) has not taken into consideration in connection with shipments of wheat. It is that the United States have fixed a price for their crop of wheat this year of $2.26 per bushel. There is a great deal of apprehension and concern in Canada to-day, especially in the western part of the Dominion, in regard to the position we shall be in this year with respect to shipping our grain. In regard to those shipments in the past, as
the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) stated, fifty or sixty per cent of our grain has gone through United States ports. There is no doubt in my mind of the necessity of some action on the part of this Government in regard to the fixation of the price of wheat, or in some manner controlling the situation, because I fear our wheat will not be allowed to go through United States ports this year. There will be an embargo placed on it, and the probability of that is greatly strengthened when we take into consideration that the United States will this year have the largest possible crop, according to the estimates made. The last one which I remember reading spoke of there being possibly a surplus of four hundred and fifty million bushels of wheat in the United States this year. When we consider that likelihood there will not be much opportunity for Canada to utilize United States ports for its wheat shipments. Therefore, when the minister states that he is going to take action with respect to a shipbuilding programme which will provide steamships for the Great Lakes and also facilitate the transportation of our wheat this year, I think that action should receive the earnest and hearty support of every member of the House.
Mr. JAMES E. WILSON: While on the subject of wheat transportation, I may say that I read a couple of days ago in a trade paper, a statement by Mr. A. E. Hunter, a member of the Wheat and Flour Millers' Control Commission of the United Kingdom. That gentleman told the National Association of British and Irish Millers that they were now up against a shortage of wheat imports, caused mainly through the diversion to India of a large amount of wheat from Australia, which was intended for the United Kingdom. India has usually exported wheat, but it is now a wheat importing country. As the previous speaker has mentioned, there is great apprehension among the farmers in Western Canada as to the possible profitable marketing of this year's wheat crop. The whole fabric of transportation, international finance, and exchange of commerce throughout the country. particularly with Overseas countries, has broken down as a result of the war, and the carrying on of commerce and transportation therefore becomes a Government undertaking. It is beyond the power oi private individuals to cope .with the situation as efficiently as can be done through Government agencies, and I think the policy which has been inaugurated by the Minister of Marine to develop our shipping

is a splendid one. We are a little late in undertaking it, but it is most necessary and it will be a source of great wealth to Canada to control its own shipping, particularly so now that we have gone into the business of operating railways. These railways can be used to supply the ships, and the ships can be used to a certain extent to furnish the railways with return cargoes, so that I think it is vitally in the interest of Canada to extend our shipbuilding facilities as much as possible. Most business men have been looking forward to the development of a large trade with Overseas countries, but it will not be possible to secure that development without ships. Therefore, I have much pleasure in supporting the programme which has been outlined by the minister.


William Duff: 
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am sorry I overlooked the hon. gentleman's inquiry in reference to the 80,000 tons of steel contracted for in the United States. I am happy to inform him that we do not need to take the balance of the contract unless we desire to. So that disposes of that part

of the hon. member's argument. I thought I made it abundantly clear in Committee yseterday that this country has nothing to fear in shipbuilding competition from our neighbours to the south. I made a very conservative statement yesterday when I said that the ships built by the Emergency Fleet Corporation cost at least $25 a ton more than the 45 ships which the Canadian Government have under construction at the present time. The hon. member talks about building ships at $200 per ton. In the plainest language possible I stated yesterday that our contracts ranged from $180 to $215 a ton. So far as we have gone with our shipbuilding programme, our prices compare favourably with those paid by the United States Government, which has built a vastly greater number of ships than we have contracted for. I have stated over and over again that when it comes to competition with the United Kingdom you cannot get a fixed price there, that everything is on a plus cost basis, as the hon. member has just mentioned. The information I obtained from England is that $150 a ton would be the cost, provided you could get your ships built there now; but it is quite impossible to get any built for a year and a half, and I have given as my authority the well-known shipbuilder, 'Sir George Hunter, of Swan and Hunter. Why the hon. gentleman wants to make it appear that the cost of a Canadian-built ship is so much more than that of a ship built in the United States, and is basing on that supposition his argument that we can get ships built in the United Kingdom at the present time, is more than T am able to follow.


William Duff: What about the gentleman
|I mentioned who said that contracts were made on the Tyne for ships at $115 a ton? That is not $200 a ton.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I do not know anything about the gentleman you refer to.


William Duff: Neither do I.
. Mr. B ALL ANT Y N E :	I took the precaution of communicating with several of the leading shipbuilding firms in England before I came to this House to ask for approval of the $30,000,000 vote, and I submit that the information I gave to the .Committee yesterday and to-day is certainly based on facts. I suppose the hon. member noticed in the press some weeks ago that the famous firm of Yarrow and Co., said that they were going to establish a shipyard in British Columbia, and they gave as their reason for leaving the Old
Land, so famed for shipbuilding, that the cost of labour, material and everything else had gone up so high that they could build ships in British Columbia at a price to compete with the rest of the world.


William Duff: Hear, hear


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In view of that
statement from such eminent authority, I do not see why we should feel so very uneasy about Canadians being able to build ships in competition with the world when the competition gets keener than it is now.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 18 respecting Bankruptcy.-Mr. Guthrie.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the Committee last considered this Bill we had reached section 43. Shall section 43 carry?


Mr. BUREAU:: The hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) who left this afternoon, desired me to ask the Solicitor General to defer consideration of this Bill. He toldj me that a meeting of business men had appointed Mr. La-fleur and Mr. Geoffrion of Montreal to examine the Bill and consult with the Solicitor General about certain points. I told my hon. friend that I would submit his request to the Solicitor General when the Bill came up. He says there are important provisions which they want to discuss, not with the object of blocking the Bill, but in order to make it as faultless as possible.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I saw' the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres at three o'clock to-day and discussed the matter with him. He asked that certain clauses be allowed to stand, to which I agreed, and I assume that before they are considered the representatives of the Quebec Bar will have an opportuhity of discussing them. So I do not quite understand this request.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, I apologize. I did not know that the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) had seen the Solicitor General.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 45-proof of debts.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this the same as the English section?


Hugh Guthrie: With one or two modifications, yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the Solicitor General state briefly the method of proving the debt?


Hugh Guthrie: The ordinary method, which has been adopted in the various provinces of Canada, is that of proof by statutory declaration, and that is maintained in this Bill. A debt must be proved by the claimant sending to the trustee through the post, by registered letter, a statutory declaration verifying the debt made before an authorized person. The declaration shall contain a statement of the account, shall specify the vouchers, if any, held by the creditor, and shall state whether the creditor is or is not a secured creditor. That is the prima facie proof that is required.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In the provincial Acts there is a provision by which a person disputing a claim can have it proven in court


Hugh Guthrie: That is in this Bill in a subsequent section.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is a very expensive procedure. A very simply provision, if there is not already one in the Bill, would be that a person filing a claim could, if it was so desired, be brought before the trustee or the judge who has charge of the estate for cross-examination on his account. I do not know that we have any provision of that kind. What I mean is something like the right that now exists of calling upon a man who files an affidavit in court. One can go to a'judge and ask fo.r leave to bring the man before the court for crossexamination. If the provision is simply that the claimant must file an account with a declaration on it, in many cases the declaration is a slipshod thing; very often the . claimant does not make a declaration at all, but gets somebody to sign the paper as if it were sworn to, although it is not sworn to at all. Before the Bill is finally passed, the minister might consider some simple machinery of the kind I have mentioned by which a party could be brought before the trustee, the inspector or preferably the court, and cross-examined on his account. If parties knew that such a system was available, that would have the effect of making people careful as to the kind of account they would file.


Hugh Guthrie: Where it is thought by the creditors or the trustee that an account should be disputed, reduced or rejected altogether, proceedings are taken under section 53, but it is not contemplated that a creditor will have to bring an action.
[[DOT]Mr. Guthrie.]
When a claim is disallowed the section provides that:
Such disallowance shall be final and conclusive unless within thirty days after the service or mailing of the said notice or such further time as the court may on application made within thirty days allow, the claimant appeals to the court in accordance with General Rules from the trustee's decision.
It is proposed in these general rules to* arrange procedure for a summary application to the court in order that a claim may be speedily and inexpensively dealt with. Just how that rule will be framed, I am not at present able to state as those rules will require a good deal of consideration. There may be something in the suggestion of my hon. friend that power should be given to the trustee or the creditors to cross-examine the claimant upon his declaration proving his claim. The result of such cross-examination might be that the claim might be rejected or accepted, and further proceedings might be avoided.
I shall be glad to consider the question of an amendment for that purpose.


Mr. JACOBS:: I do not think it would be wise to have any provision to the effect that a trustee or an inspector should crossexamine a claimant. That matter should be in the hands of the registrar of the court.


Hugh Guthrie: The claim does not go to the registrar of the court. The creditor proves his claim to the trustee; the trustee submits it to the creditors, and if they are not satisfied that the claim is a bona fide one, it might be wise to allow them to crossexamine him on the claim at a meeting of creditors.


Samuel William Jacobs: The creditors have no right to examine a claimant on their own account. That should be the duty of the court. At the present time a claim of that kind is contested, and the trustee becomes the petitioning party to ask that it be disallowed and it is thereupon tested before the court. But to give the creditors the right to cross-examine is not the best method of procedure, nor is it according to the rule which we now have in the court.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend does not quite understand the practice that is laid down in this Bill. If a , trustee rejects a claim he serves notice upon the claimant.


Samuel William Jacobs: What right has the trustee
to reject it?


Hugh Guthrie: He may have information that it is not a bona fide claim.


Samuel William Jacobs: Then he should send it to the court.


Hugh Guthrie: The other process is the one adopted in England and in the provinces. Notice is served upon the claimant that the creditors are not satisfied with the claim and the creditor must establish his claim within thirty days after notice is served.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is the affidavit not prima facie proof that a claim is correct?


Hugh Guthrie: That is all it is, prima facie proof. That is the English law, and it has been the Ontario law for thirty years.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is not the Quebec law. The opposite is the rule. In Quebec the trustee, or curator as he is called, is obliged to contest the claim and the matter is then brought before the court.


Hugh Guthrie: He contests it under this section, but merely by serving notice. Then the creditor must proceed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 46-proof by secured creditors.
Hugh Guthrie: A representative of the Bankers' Association has made a suggestion that another subsection should be added to *this section, to make it clear that a creditor by valuing a security does nothing to release his surety. I do not think under this section there would be any release of a surety, but I see no objection to making the matter clear. The amendment suggested is as subsection 12 in the following words:-
Anything done by a secured creditor in compliance with the provisions of this section shall in no way affect, prejudice or vary any right or remedy such creditor may have against any other person or under any security.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is not that the ordinary law? Is it not a mistake to put in a clause like this, because it might give ground for the argument that in some other place where the clause is not inserted, the opposite was the effect? I think it is very dangerous to lay down a well known legal principle which follows as a matter of course in a clause of this kind.


Hugh Guthrie: I said I would mention
the proposed amendment to the Committee. I quite agree that it is an unnecessary provision.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 48-postponement of husband's claim:
Samuel William Jacobs: This clause is somewhat
contentious. Has the minister received a request that it stand for further consideration?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I request that it be
allowed to stand?


Hugh Guthrie: It is not retroactive in
effect, applying only to future transactions. That is the only difference between this and the corresponding section in the English Act.


Samuel William Jacobs: I understand that the
council of the bar of the province of Quebec desire to discuss this section further with the Solicitor General, as it infringes on the civil law of the province.
Section stands.
On section 50-debts payable at a future
time:


Andrew Ross McMaster: Why do we say six
per cent? Is not the legal rate five per
cent?


Hugh Guthrie: We made it six because that is the provincial rate on debts and judgments.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it would be
well for the sake of uniformity to have five per cent in all Dominion legislation.


Georges Henri Boivin: Why not say the legal
rate?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The Chairman has made a valuable suggestion. If we say the legal rate, then when the legal rate changes, this will change too.	.
Air. AIcKENZIE:	But in some of the
provinces six per cent is the legal rate, and although this is in a general way Dominion legislation, in its operation it will be provincial. The legal rate in Nova Scotia on debts and judgments is six per cent. I think if we said five per cent, that would be more definite than saying the legal rate.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it amounts to much one way or the other.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 51-priority of claims:
Samuel William Jacobs: I would suggest that this and the following section stand for further consideration for the reason I gave with respect to section 48.
Section stands.

On section 55-arrest of debtors under certain circumstances:


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Paragraph (a) says that if there is reason for believing that the debtor has absconded or is about to abscond " with a view of avoiding payment of the debt in respect of which the bankruptcy petition was filed." Why limit it to the particular, debt in respect of which the bankruptcy petition is filed? A bankruptcy petition may be filed for $200, and the debtor might abscond in order to evade another debt of $5,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The provincial law
allows you to arrest a debtor if he is about to abscond. You would have to fall back on that.


William Sora Middlebro: The $200 debt would be the only one that was proved. I do not see why it should be limited to the particular debt in respect of which the bankruptcy proceedings are taken. If he owes several debts it is more likely that he will abscond to avoid payment of the largest. I think we should make it read: "With a view of avoiding payment of the debt in respect of which the bankruptcy petition was filed, or any other proved debt."


Hugh Guthrie: The creditor of the larger amount might not want the man to be arrested, he might desire to be lenient. There is nothing to deprive any other creditor from taking. proceedings in respect of his debt but we have made this provision to give some particular individual a positive right to do so.


William Sora Middlebro: He would not have the right to arrest him unless he absconded for the purpose of evading that particular debt.


Hugh Guthrie: Not under this Act.


William Sora Middlebro: That might be only one debt out of probably fifteen.	~


Hugh Guthrie: You have your own
laws in each province. Under this Act only one creditor is entitled to do it.
, Mr. JACOBS:	There is nothing in the
section to indicate that the trustee would have the right to cause the warrant to issue. Section 55 says:
The court may, by warrant addressed to any constable or prescribed officer of the court, cause a debtor to be arrested.
It does not say whether the trustee would have that right.


Hugh Guthrie: The English Act does not limit it and I do not see why we should

be too precise in the matter. The court will act on the application of some party interested. An ordinary stranger could not go to the court; it would have to be either a creditor or a trustee. They are the only two parties I know.


Samuel William Jacobs: There ought to be some
clearer expression as to the meaning of the word " absconding." Under our system at present in the law of capias it has to be declared in the affidavit that the debtor is -about to leave the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. If it cannot be shown that he is about to leave Quebec and Ontario he could not be capiased. Suppose a man were leaving Quebec to go to Ontario, or Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, would he be considered to be absconding? Or does it mean leaving the Dominion of Canada?


Hugh Guthrie: The word "absconding" has a very wide application. Hiding is absconding; so also is keeping house, under the English Act. The word in our Act is "absconding," going from his usual place of residence to some place of retirement unknown to his creditors. "Keeping house" is a term taken from the English Act in section 3, subsection (f): "If he departs from his dwelling house or otherwise absents himself, or begins to keep house." It means leaving his ordinary place of business and secreting or hiding himself.


Samuel William Jacobs: Suppose a resident of
Montreal did not leave Montreal at all but simply kept in hiding, would he be absconding when he really did not leave his domicile?


Hugh Guthrie: If he is in hiding, I think so.


Andrew Ross McMaster: To make it perfectly clear something should be added to this clause. In the jurisdiction in which I practise, absconding means clearing out of the country. As our law of capias comes from the time of the united provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, it means getting out of Quebec and Ontario. It would be wise and would avoid any possibility of useless litigation if the clause were made somewhat clearer in regard to the meaning of "absconding."


Hugh Guthrie: Would you say, absents himself from Canada, or from any particular province?


Andrew Ross McMaster: As this is a federal Act I should think "absconding" would mean leaving the Dominion.


Samuel William Jacobs: If we say, absconding from the province in which he carries on his business that would be satisfactory.


Hugh Guthrie: Departs out of the
province, or being out of the province remains out of it?


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes, out of the province in which he had his domicile or carried on his business.


William Sora Middlebro: That would not do, because it is not wrong for a man to depart from the province.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is qualified by the words immediately following: "with a view of avoiding payment," etc.


William Sora Middlebro: Suppose a man owes 810,000 in debts and is insolvent and a creditor for $300 presents his petition, and the man skips out, not with a view to avoiding payment of the $300, but to get clear of the $9,700, and the only man that can prosecute him is the $300 creditor. That creditor might come to an arrangement with the debtor and say, "If you do not pay me I will prosecute you, and I am the only man that can
5 p.m. prosecute you." It seems to me that the provision is either good or bad, and it should be as good for one as for the other. I would suggest that there be added the words "or any proved debt."


Samuel William Jacobs: Is that clause similar to the clause in the English Act?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, our section is drawn from the section in the English Act. The English law has been in force so long that every section has been judicially interpreted and if we start changing the wording we change the meaning of the authority. It has been so carefully reviewed, amended and interpreted that it would be wise for us to take the benefit of their experience rather than make changes. Unless there is some good reason for a change I would rather not make it,


Samuel William Jacobs: I notice the reference'at the end of section 55 says:
(Part Eng. Sec. 23 modified.)
What part of that has been modified?


Hugh Guthrie: We have inserted here a provision about assignment that we have not in the English Act. Subsection (a) of the Act reads:
(a) It, after a bankruptcy notice has been issued under this Act, or after presentation of a bankruptcy petition by or against him, it appears to the court that there is probable reason for believing that he has absconded, or is about to abscond, with a view of avoiding payment of the debt in respect of which the bankruptcy notice was issued, or of avoiding service of a bankruptcy petition, or of avoiding appearance to any such petition, or of avoiding examination in respect ot his affairs, or of otherwise avoiding delaying or embarrassing proceedings in bankruptcy against him.
(b)	If, after presentation of a bankruptcy petition by or against him, it appears to the court that there is probable cause for believing that he is about to remove his goods with a view of preventing or delaying possession being taken of them by the official receiver or trustee, or that there is probable ground for believing that he has concealed or is about to conceal or destroy any of his goods, or any books, documents Or writings which might be of use to his creditors in the course of his bankruptcy.
(c)	If, after service of a bankurptcy petition on him, or after a receiving order is made against him, he removes any goods in his possession above the value of five pounds, without the leave of the official receiver or trustee.
(d)	If, without good cause shown, he fails to attend any examination ordered by the court:


Andrew Ross McMaster: 
Hugh Guthrie: We discussed that in the Committee and at the instance of the representative of the retail merchants it was fixed at $20. They thought that if a man took $10 or $15 to provide for his family he would not be committing very much of an offence. We might make it $25.


Samuel William Jacobs: I suggest that we make it $25. Give the poor debtor a show. I move "to amend clause 55 by striking out the word "twenty" at the end of the thirty-second line of page forty-four and replacing the same with the words "twenty-five."


Andrew Ross McMaster: If you are going to make any change at all, make it $50.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Have we settled what constitutes absconding?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not see in the in-teipretation of the clause any definition of the word "abscond."


Hugh Guthrie: It is a dictionary word and is not defined in the English Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Absconding means going beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Absconding with a view to escape arrest must be going beyond the jurisidiction of the court. You cannot arrest a man unless

yon have reason to believe that he is going beyond the jurisdiction of the court.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think that "abscond has anything to do with the jurisdiction of the court.
be the proper place to state as to where he should be kept and on what terms he should be released. I notice the English Act provides for no bail but bail is granted there by the court.
. -^r- McKENZIE : If a man remains within the jurisdiction of the court, and is going to remain, you . have no business under our law to arrest him. The moment he comes before the court and proves that he had no intention of going beyond the jurisdiction you must release him.' There is no justification to arrest a man unless he is going beyond the jurisdiction of the court.


Hugh Guthrie: The word "abscond" has no reference to any court.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It applies when a man is going to run away beyond the jurisdiction of the court where you cannot deal with him. How far must he run before yoq can arrest him? The idea of this is that he is going beyond the power of any process of the court. Therefore, you must arrest him and keep him within the jurisdiction of the court.


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not see any reference to bail' being given by the debtor after his arrest under section 55. If a debtor gives bail he ought to be permitted his provisional liberty.


Hugh Guthrie: Will not that be a matter for the rules of practice?


Samuel William Jacobs: That may be, but I suggest that it be kept in mind when these rules of practice are being framed because otherwise there is no provision to permit to the debtor his provisional liberty. He could not come before the criminal courts, and, as there is no provision for bail on going before the Federal judge, he would have to remain in jail until the matter was disposed of finally.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think that should not be left to the rule. In our civil and criminal procedure there is immediately, with the authority to arrest, provision to give bail. There should be power under this Act to grant bail.


Hugh Guthrie: The section says:-
The court may by warrant addressed to any constable or prescribed officer of the court cause a debtor to be arrested, and any books' papers, money and goods in his possession to be seized, and him and them to be safely kept as prescribed.	1
The word " prescribed " means, according to the interpretation clause " prescribed by general rules within the meaning of this Act." I would think that these rules would 
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 63-Cburt's jurisdiction.


Hugh Guthrie: I am going to move an amendment to this clause to meet an objection that has been urged by certain interested parties that if should be made clear that the Bankruptcy Court is a Federal Court. My own view is that the court becomes a Federal Court as soon as this Bill is passed, just as it is under the Winding-Up Act. But that view has been challenged, and therefore I have to ask that the following words be inserted in the clause at line 35:
and such courts are hereby declared to be additional courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada, under section 101 of the British North America Act,
It has been suggested that a declaration of this kind will place it beyond peradven-ture that the Bankruptcy Court is a Federal Court. I. therefore beg leave, to move that the section be amended -as stated.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the Solicitor General does not think it is necessary, unless the law officers of the Crown hold a contrary opinion, I do not think these words should be added to satisfy -any fancy that somebody eke might have. If you make a judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia a Federal judge for the purposes of this Act he is a judge for British Columbia as well as for Nova Scotia, is he not? He is a Federal judge which means that he has jurisdiction all over Canada. That is not the general intent of legislation. Where you specify your courts you say, "The court shall be in Alberta the Supreme Court of Alberta;" you go through the different provinces specifying the courts in- that way. Now if these courts are converted into Federal Courts I cannot understand how the jurisdiction would be limited, or as to how it would apply except as to the whole of the country, as in the case of the Exchequer Court. The Exchequer Court of Canada has jurisdiction as a Federal Court extending over every creek and corner of the country from coast to coast. But in the case of a Federal judge, which implies Federal jurisdiction, you must be very specific in your etatement as to where he can act.


Samuel William Jacobs: The section says so.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But I am referring to the drafting of a law dealing with judges of the different provinces. Here we have a section being so understood as to deal with a judge that has Federal jurisdiction. I do not myself think there is anything in the objection, or any necessity for creating these judges Federal judges. For example, when the Scott Act was passed all that it said was that the magistrates in the different counties should have jurisdiction. The Scott Act was a Federal Act and violations of its provisions were heard by different magistrates; it was not necessary, or ever suggested, that those magistrates should have Federal jurisdiction. My own opinion-although I do not want anything to hinge upon it-is that the amendment is not necessary, and it is going to create endless confusion if you give a judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia jurisdiction in Manitoba, and vice versa.


Hugh Guthrie: But we do that under this Bill, and that is the reason the amendment has been urged. I put a case of this, kind to my hon. friend: An assignment takes place, or a bankruptcy petition is presented, in the province of Nova Scotia, and some assets of the debtor are in the province of Manitoba. The judge in Nova Scotia has jurisdiction over those assets in Manitoba.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: To some extent.


Hugh Guthrie: And to that extent it is argued that it is necessary to clothe him with Federal authority. When the Bill passed the special committee last year, I must say I thought this clause was correct, but some eminent legal authority in Toronto has pointed ouit that the objection might be raised that the judge had not been clothed with Federal authority to deal with the assets of a debtor in- another province. I cannot see any objection to the proposed amendment. I do noit altogether see that it is going to help the enactment, but I think it will remove some doubt that might otherwise be oast upon it.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is not pretended, for instance, that a judge, sitting as a judge of bankruptcy in the province of Quebec would have power to sit in the province of Nova Scotia?


Hugh Guthrie: No, his jurisdiction is limited by this section to the matters that are prescribed therein.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What extra thing can he do by, reason of the fact that he is declared to be a Federal judge? He is now clothed with jurisdiction to act within his province. A judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario has, under this Bill, jurisdiction within -that province, without adding this amendment at all. What can he do by reason of the amendment that he could not otherwise do?


Hugh Guthrie: I will repeat the illustration for my hon. friend's benefit. Suppose there is a petition in bankruptcy in Nova Scotia, and some of the assets of the debtor are in Manitoba. An order is made by a judge of the court in Nova Scotia. Has that judge any jurisdiction with respect of assets lying in the province of Manitoba? It is argued that unless the judge making such order is clothed with federal authority he has no such jurisdiction.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The practice in this
country, and in all countries has been that the judges are ancillary and auxiliary; and if a judge in the province of Nova Scotia makes an order in connection with goods in British Columbia, and if there is any difficulty about it, application is made to a judge in British Columbia and an order is obtained from him to enforce the directions of the Nova Scotia judge. That is why the courts have been made ancillary. Otherwise there is no sense in making all the courts of Canada ancillary or auxiliary one to the other. [DOT]


Hugh Guthrie: I do not quite agree with my hon. friend's statement as to the practice. Suppose I got a judgment in a court of Nova Scotia and seek to enforce it in British Columbia?
Mr. McKENZIE. That is an entirely different thing. Under this Bill the moment an assignment is made the property is vested in the trustee absolutely, and what a judge will do with a part of that property in British Columbia is a mere detail. By the operation of this Bill the property is vested in the trustees. Some of it happens to be in the province in which the trustee resides, some of it happens to be in another province, but the title is vested in the trustee, and all that has to be done by a judge outside of that province is the necessary proceedings to get possession of that outside property or to sell it. A judge in Ontario could issue an order that property in Manitoba be sold; he has that jurisdiction. If there is any trouble about it you go with that order to a Manitoba judge, and he

confirms it and directs what Is to be done. That is the function of a court ancillary to another. If the order of a judge in Ontario is absolute and final in British Columbia, why do we have ancillary judges?


Hugh Guthrie: It has been suggested also as a reason for the amendment that section 71 relates to the enforcement of orders of courts throughout Canada and provides that courts are to be auxiliary to each other, and that we would not have power to enact section 71 unless we make the declaration which I now move as an amendment to section 63. I stated that as an additional reason.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have never heard it stated in any court that the judges could not act ancillary one to the other under the Receivership Act, and there is no language in the Winding-Up Act to the effect that the court dealing with property in different provinces in receivership proceedings must be a federal court. That is the practice and the legislation which is in point. A receiver in England immediately becomes vested with property in Canada. That has been decided in some bank case, the name of which I forget for the moment. It was thought that although a receiver was appointed in England the property here was still free, but the courts held that the moment the judge in England appointed a receiver under the English Act any property in Canada or elsewhere became vested in him; and all that our judges held on this side was that they were carrying out the order of the English judge in connection with the property. I suppose the language of this Act will be just as far reaching, and the analogy between the two situations is so strong and close that any cases they could find on receivership law would be regarded as authority in the enforcement of this Act. I think there is plenty of precedent to show that what I have stated has been the practice up to the present.


Hugh Guthrie: I am quite free to confess that my view is the same as my hon. friend's, that this section as drawn is sufficient; but a very strong opinion has been offered against my view and the amendment has been suggested. I cannot see that any complication is likely to arise hereafter by reason of the amendment, and if it serves the purpose of clearing up doubts I think we should adopt it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Coming to hard and fast rules, we Rave no power to create a Federal court by this Bill. Under the Bri-

tish North America Act we can create only such Federal courts as are therein mentioned. the Exchequer Court and the Supreme Court of Canada.


Hugh Guthrie: If my hon. friend's contention is correct, I certainly think the amendment is' very much out of place. Is that a considered opinion of his?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No, I am just giving it on the spot; the whole thing is new to me. I think my hon. friend will find that that is the law, that the only courts we can create are those specified in the British North America Act.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 101 of the British North America Act is so plain to me that I do not think an objection of that kind should be seriously taken into account in respect to a Bill of this kind. That section provides:
The Parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, from time to time provide for the constitution, maintenance and organization of a general court of appeal for Canada and for the establishment of any additional courts-
Additional courts
[DOT]-for the better administration of the laws of Canada.
If there is any-ground for supposing that that is limited to the Exchequer Court of Canada, by all means let us know it now. But I thought the section was so plain that there could be no doubt about it. '


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Very good; create all the confusion that is possible.


Samuel William Jacobs: Under the Bankruptcy Act of 1875 the courts created were Federal courts.


Hugh Guthrie: There was some declaration of that kind in the Act, I am not sure what it was.
Section as amended carried.
On section 76-application to limited partnerships.
Mr. MeMASTER: Has the minister considered the fact that in Quebec there is a certain type of limited partnership, where the limited partners have merely invested their money in the enterprise and have no dealings with the business of the enterprise at all, indeed, are precluded by law from having any?


Hugh Guthrie: We have, I think, practically the same statute in Ontario.


Samuel William Jacobs: I would suggest that this section be allowed to stand over with the others.
Section stands.
On section 88-bankruptcy offences.
Mr. GUTHiRIE: That side-note is a mistake.
Mr. AleMASTER: Perhaps it is not so improper. " Bankruptcy offences "-restricting the rights and privileges conferred on banks.


Hugh Guthrie: The heading should be " rights of banks."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 89-fraudulent debtors.
Hugh Guthrie: I think all the clauses-from clause 89 on are taken from the Criminal Code or the English Act. They have just been incorporated in this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 90-undischarged bankrupt obtaining credit.
Andrew Ross McMaster: Is it wdse to say: " liable to a fine of $500 and to one year's imprisonment?" If there is such a heavy fine as that, will there not be a disposition on the part of the courts not to find a man guilty?


Hugh Guthrie: That is a maximum.
Air. AlcAIASTER: It would be if the words " not exceeding " were inserted.


Hugh Guthrie: There are a number of decisions on that point. That is a maximum amount and anything up to, that amount is permitted. In the Criminal Code that is certainly the case. " To a term of two years ' means ' up to two years."


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is it the intention that a man shall be liable to a fine of $500 and to one year's imprisonment, or to a fine of $500 or one year's imprisonment?


Hugh Guthrie: Fine or imprisonment or both.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Then that ought to be so stated.


Hugh Guthrie: The word ''liable" is what saves pueh people. This is drawn in accordance with the best draughtsmanship and is in exact accord with the English Act.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I remember having a principle of draughtsmanship once taught me, namely, that it was good draughtsmanship to draught a section in such English that only the intention intended to be conveyed would be conveyed.


Samuel William Jacobs: As the section now stands, a party convicted would be liable to a fine plus imprisonment, if even for one hour. It has been held that he must be imprisoned for some particular time.


Hugh Guthrie: The section says "liable to" not "must be."


Samuel William Jacobs: "Liable to a fine of $500 and to one year's imprisonment." That would mean that -the fine and the imprisonment must take place together. I have a case in mind where a party was fined $1,000 and one hour's imprisonment, because the court held it was obliged to impose -a penalty of imprisonment, That was held by no less a judge than the Chief Justice of our Court of Appeal.


Air.   CHAIRMAN@: Section 89 reads:
Liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to a term not exceeding two years' imprisonment or to both such fine and such imprisonment.


Hugh Guthrie: I beg to move that section 89 after the word "and" in the twelfth line be amended to read:
Liable to a fine not exceeding $500 or to a term not exceeding one years' imprisonment, or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
That will make the language the same as that of section 89.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended 'agreed to.
On section 92-false claim, etc.:
Samuel William Jacobs: I notice that this section does not provide for a fine.


Hugh Guthrie: If he rrtade a false
declaration, he would be liable for perjury.


Samuel William Jacobs: If he can be proceeded
against under the Criminal Code, what is the necessity of this section?


Hugh Guthrie: We want to make it -an offence under this Act as well.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 92-order by court for prosecution on report of trustee:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this to take the
place of the Grand Jury?


Hugh Guthrie: No, the prosecution
would come before the Grand Jury in the usual course.
Mr. AlcKENZIE: I understood that you could prosecute a criminal under the order of a judge or court. The minister seems

to regard any opinions I express as being df very little worth. I have not read the section, but if it means the usurping the functions of the Grand Jury I would be opposed to it.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand the judge
has always power to direct the Grand Jury to find a Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Not at all.


Hugh Guthrie: He will not have power under this Act to do more than make that direction. The section says " the court shall, if it appears to the court that there is a reasonable probability that the debtor will be convicted, order that the debtor be prosecuted for such offence." That would be a matter that would come before the Grand Jury, who would decide whether to find a Bill or not.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 96-pretending to be trustee:
, Mr. GUTHRIE:_ I beg to amend this section by adding 'after the word "Act," in the twenty-ninth line, the words "or who tails duly to observe or perform any act or duty which he may be ordered to do, observe or perform by the court pursuant to any of the provisions of this Act." There are certain sections of the Act under which the court may order the trustee to do certain things, failure to do which involves a penalty. It is for the purpose of imposing a penalty that this amendment is proposed.
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 97-malicious proceedings:
Samuel William Jacobs: I am opposed to the inclusion of this section in the Bill. It reads:
Any person who maliciously institutes or carries on against any person who has not done or suffered any act of bankruptcy any proceeding in bankruptcy under this Act shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to a term not exceeding two years' imprisonment, or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
Now the common law' provides for that. Cases constantly come before our courts where parties are sued for maliciously instituting actions of this kind. The civil courts decide these cases and award damages where they think a case has been made out, or dismiss the case. I think this section would interfere with the jurisdiction of our civil courts, and I do not see why it

should be included in the Act, which is a bankruptcy Act pure and simple for certain purposes.


Hugh Guthrie: The origin of this section is this: Some of the members 'of the Retail Merchants' Association, representing a very large body of our traders, seem to fear that the wholesale or manufacturing associations or the larger financial interests will in some way take advantage of this Act and make it oppressive in its operation. They think that for the protection of the smaller dealer against malicious prosecution by some designing creditor this section is necessary.
I agree that the question of malicious proceedings is a matter which ordinarily should be dealt with by the civil courts, but the Committee, after hearing the case of the Retail Merchants Association, decided that it would afford them protection, and the association thought it would. So far as honest wholesalers or manufacturers are concerned, they need not be under any apprehension that they will be visited with the penalties of this section. If there be dishonest ones, they should take the consequences. I do not see any great objection to leaving the section as it is.


Samuel William Jacobs: I have two reasons for objecting to it. First, it infringes upon our civil law, and secondly, it is an encroachment on the jurisdiction of other courts. We have courts regularly established to take care of just such cases as malicious prosecutions, etc., and I do not see why we should attempt to introduce further legislation!. I would move that this section be struck out.


Hugh Guthrie: The Committee took a very strong view on that question. There are offences which now come before both our civil and our criminal courts. In the case of libel, you have civil and criminal action. If a man maliciously institutes bankruptcy proceedings against another he certainly incurs civil liability, and is there any objection to adding a criminal liability for the same offence?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think there is. I can arrest a man who has libeled me, or take civil action against him; both those recources are open to me. But if I fail in either of those, the man whom I have arrested for libel has no right to have me arrested because I improperly caused his arrest. If I lay an information that a man has committed murder, and do so maliciously, he has a civil action of damages

against me, but he has no right to arrest me. It is absurd that we should place upon the statute book, for the purpose ol preventing malicious proceedings under this Act, a sanction which is not found in respect to other malicious proceedings of a much graver character.


Samuel William Jacobs: I move that it be struck out.


Hugh Guthrie: We have two or three pages of this Bill providing penalties against the unfortunate debtor, whom we have surrounded pretty well. If any one should maliciously impose upon him, we say: Go to Ithe civil courts and get damages. But the man who imposes upon him may not be worth a dollar. No man in good standing will maliciously launch bankruptcy proceedings, although a man in bad standing might; and the smaller retail men of the country thought it was some protection to them to provide that no one should maliciously annoy or threaten them with bankruptcy proceedings, and the Committee thought it reasonable.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not say it is
unreasonable, but the process of reasoning used by the Solicitor General in support of the retention of this clause could be used in respect to any similar unfounded or malicious proceedings taken in other spheres of action. A improperly and maliciously accuses B of theft. What is B's recourse? He can take a civil action against A for unjustifiable arrest. But. under this law, if A, instead of laying an information against B for theft, says that B is a bankrupt, and puts him under bankruptcy proceedings, B will have the right to have A arrested and have him fined. I do not say that is an unfair provision, but I say it is illogical to give a man who suffers as a victim of malicious prosecution in bankruptcy a relief which, had he been maliciously arrested for theft, he would not have had.


Hugh Guthrie: This fact must be borne in mind: A man who maliciously files a bankruptcy petition against another may ruin the credit of that man and do him incalculable damage, and if-


Andrew Ross McMaster: The same is true if he has him arrested for theft.


Hugh Guthrie: If this will prevent such a condition it will justify its existence.


Samuel William Jacobs: In the whole of the Criminal Code-


Hugh Guthrie: Whose rights is the hon. gentleman trying to protect-the man who will maliciously institute proceedings?


Samuel William Jacobs: I am merely discussing
the section before the Committee. I think it is subversive of all the rules of law to insert a clause of this kind in this Bill. Take the Criminal Code. There is not a single instance in which a provision of this kind in the way of relief is given to the party who has suffered at the hands of another. Consider the case of murder as suggested by my hon. friend from Brome. This serious charge is brought against a man at the instance of another who acts with malice. The accused is discharged and yet he has no recourse whatever against the accusing party except as to damages. In this case, however, you make an exception and say that the party who has maliciously instituted bankruptcy proceedings against another is liable to a fine of $1,000 and two years' imprisonment.
At six o'clock the House resumed and took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 83 (from the Senate) for the relief of Albert Greensward.-Mr. Middle-bro.
Bill No. 84 (from the Senate) for the relief of Mary J&ne Lyons.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 85 (from the Senate) for the relief of Rose Kent Miller.-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 86 (from the Senate) for the relief of Elizabeth Winters.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 34, respecting the Ganadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Thomson (Qu'Appelle).

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 89 (from the Senate) for the relief of Martha Campbell.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 90 (from the Senate) for the relief of Rosa Hirst.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in Committee of Bill No. 18. respecting Bankruptcy, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.^
On section 97-malicious proceedings.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Some hon. members on this side of the House were trying to con-



vince the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) that this was an innovation and an unnecessary clause. If a person should institute proceedings against any merchant or trader with a view to bringing him under the operations of this Act, and do it in good faith, it is open to any person to lay an information against him for having done it maliciously, and have him arrested and tried. I suppose he would not be convicted if he could show that he had no malicious intent.	But it subjects	a person
to be arrested the moment he institutes proceedings under	this Act.
The act of instituting a malicious prosecution has been known to the law for centuries, and the only punishment that could be inflicted for it was this one with damages, in the Supreme Court, but npver before was it thought to constitute such a thing a criminal offence. The Solicitor General makes it an indictable offence under this Bill. It is thought that should not be done, but that the remedy of common law should be left as the only recourse for one who may think that a malicious prosecution has been brought against him. Malicious prosecution and malicious or wrongful arrest have always been left in the same category. They are pretty much akin and run into each other pretty much; it is difficult to distinguish between the one and the other; but in either case it was never thought to be a criminal offence. The (Solicitor General says that in some parts of the country it is necessary to prevent such proceedings under this Bill. In this part of Canada, however, it is not known, and I think therefore it would be a pity to make a general law that is going to be troublesome and mischievous chiefly to meet circumstances that may possibly only take place in some section of the country. I would like to impress upon the Solicitor General the desirability of leaving the law as it is, and has been for so many years.
Mr. MoMASTER:	I do not wish to repeat what I said this afternoon, but I think the minister is trying to provide against the possible abuse of this Bill. Would it not be just as well to wait until the abuse occurs before providing against it? What you are doing here is providing safeguards against the abuse of this Bill different from those established by the ordinary law against similar abuses. It is a wrongful thing to start a malicious proceeding under this Bill. But it is also a wrongful thing to start a malicious proceeding for theft; it is a wrongful thing to accuse any person of doing anything wrong; a false accuser

is a very undesirable citizen. But under our law as it is now the false accuser can be attacked in the civil courts, and that is the only remedy that is open. By this section you put malicious proceedings under th'is Bill in a different category from the malicious starting of any other proceedings; it appears to me it is not logical.


Hugh Guthrie: There is just this difference in the case of a malicious prosecution: The accused is brought to trial and if innocent is acquitted and that is the end of it. In the case of a man who maliciously starts bankruptcy proceedings against another man, perhaps a competitor, the very institution of those proceedings getting into the lists of a mercantile agency and going throughout the country may bring on a real bankruptcy from some other quarter, which might not otherwise have taken place. It may injure the man's credit, it may do untold damage, and at the same time the person who instituted the proceedings may be a straw man against whom civil redress cannot be enforced. What is proposed is merely a safeguard against any proceedings of that kind. As I said before six o'clock, the demand for this clause came from the small trader, from the Retail [Merchants' Association, and as a matter of fact from that branch of the association in the West. They seemed to fear that there might be something in this Bill which would permit an abuse to grow up whereby, for malicious reasons or purposes, proceedings might be started against some of them that might practically result in their ruin. The Committee who heard their representations thought there was reason in their request, and the result is the insertion of this clause. I cannot see that it will operate to the injury of anybody, and it may protect some person. Therefore, to my mind, it should not be removed.


Mr. MOW  AT@: I feel like supporting the clause on very much the same lines as the Solicitor General has indicated. The retail merchants appeared before the special committee on many occasions, and apparently they are looking forward to the passing of this Bill with a certain amount of trepidation. There is no doubt that the measure is chiefly supported by credit men, or the wholesale houses, and yet the retail merchants have been most reasonable in their requests, and, I think, will heartily support the Bill, although it is they who, perhaps, will feel its effects the most. Now, it seems to me, in view of the attitude of the retail merchants who were so reasonable,

it is a small thing to grant this request, and to guard against their names suddenly and improperly getting into Bradstreet's or Dun's at the instance of some spiteful person. The remedy in case of malicious arrest or malicious prosecution is one within the jurisdiction of the provincial law, and it consists in setting in motion the criminal law. But the going into insolvency does not relate to the criminal law, and I do not see that there would be any remedy against an aggrieved person under the provincial statute. Therefore, it seems proper to me that we should protect the person who is spitefully or maliciously brought into insolvency proceedings by enacting the clause proposed. It will do no harm, it will satisfy all classes that their rights have been looked after and protected, and it will start off this Bill, to whose provisions people have not been accustomed for many years, with the idea that it extends equal justice to, and protects the rights of, all concerned.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am afraid my hon. friend (Mr. Mowat) has not given very much thought to this subject. If a person, in the very best of judgment and feeling, starts proceedings under this Bill to place under its operation a person who is a trader, there must be a hearing before a court somewhere at which it can be shown that the proceedings have been initiated without proper authority. The person bringing the proceedings must go before the court, must he not? He moves before a judge, and surely we can trust the judges not to give an order to any person, or put anybody into the insolvency court, without some satisfactory proof. I cannot conceive of any person coming before one of the judges of the Supreme Court, and on some haphazard affidavit, being able to endanger the business of a reputable citizen.
Suppose the other man, who ought to be put in insolvency, turns round and says, "I will teach my boy a lesson; I will go to Mr. Smith, the pragistrate, and lay an information against him that he is doing this thing maliciously and will have him arrested." The man is lodged in jail, perhaps twenty-five or thirty miles away, awaiting a preliminary inquiry. That inquiry takes place within perhaps a week or ten days, and then the friendly magistrate sends him up to the Supreme Court for trial. In some parts of this country- in the city of Hull, for instance-the criminal court sits only once a year. It is quite possible that the man may not be able to get bail and may languish in jail for a year before trial, when it is open to
him to prove there was no malice in his heart, and he gets off. That is the kind of practice this Bill is introducing. Such a procedure is absolutely new, it is entirely unknown to our law. It does not obtain in English law; and we are following the English Act. I am sure my hon. friend has great respect for English law and practice. Are we so much worse than the English people that while we can adopt every part of the English Act that is useful and good and that has stood the test of time, we must add this criminal clause to it? Is that showing very much respect for the people of this country? It is a civil law dealing with property and civil rights, but we are going to convert it into a criminal code because our people cannot be trusted to do things in a business and proper way. I have not drawn an imaginary picture; that is what can be done. We are getting along famously with criminal law this session. This is the third criminal Bill to be introduced. A few days ago we passed a Bill which subjects a woman to two years in the penitentiary if she happens to. put too big a fire in her stove and her house is burned down; that is No. 1. I think yesterday the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, in his innocence and good nature, introduced a Bill imposing fine and imprisonment upon a person who happens to sell one of brother Loggie's lobster cans supposed to contain a pound of food, whereas in fact it may only contain fourteen ounces; that is No. 2. And the Solicitor General, not to be outdone in this criminal business, introduces this clause, whereby if a man institutes civil proceedings against a debtor, which he has a perfect right to do, without first examining himself-as it is presumed every one does before taking such a step,-he is subject to the fines and penalties prescribed. Why should we be doing these things? This is a free country and every man is presumed to be honest until the contrary is proved. There is no necessity for these innovations, and I must protest with all the energy that is in me against creating these criminal possibilities. I am not going to say anything further, I leave the entire responsibility not only upon the Solicitor General, but upon the Government.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: My hon. friend, as usual, has very greatly exaggerated the facts. It is nothing unusual to have penal clauses in a Bill. During every session we pass Bills in which provision is made for fine and imprisonment for violations of the law, and my hon. friend could make pre-

cisely the same argument against those measures. What is the result of all such legislation? Are there cases of men languishing for weeks and months in jail? My hon. friend knows that nothing of the kind happens. In the first place, before a man can be consigned to jail and suffer in the manner my hon. friend has indicated, he is brought before a magistrate and there is a preliminary hearing. That in itself is a safeguard. If he elects to be tried by a jury ait the next court of competent jurisdiction, he is able to obtain bail. My hon. friend has magnified the effect of criminal provisions in statutory enactments. I have not taken much interest in this Bill, but I happened to be in the House a little before six o'clock and I heard him putting forward an argument which on the face of it seems plausible. He says that there is no [DOT] penalty under the Criminal Code for malicious laying of an information under that Code. That is true, I think. But, I submit, there is a real difference between the case of a malicious prosecution for an offence under the Criminal Code or common law, and malicious laying of an information under this Bankruptcy Bill. It would seldom happen that a man's business interest would be advantaged by laying an information under the Criminal Code for any offence contained therein. One could hardly imagine a retail dealer seeking to ruin a rival by laying an information against him maliciously for, let us say, theft. But in this case where a 'trader would have an interest in ruining a rival-and many cases of that kind occur *almost daily-I can imagine his taking *advantage of this law very successfully from his own standpoint.
The leader of the Opposition has dwelt upon the fact that a judge of the high court must give judgment upon the petition. But the damage is done before the judge gives his decision. The mere filing of a petition in bankruptcy against a solvent trader is ruinous to that man's credit, and that is the reason why some 25,000 small retail dealers throughout Canada desire, as I understand it, to be safeguarded under this Bill. In other words, a man may have a direct, immediate business interest in filing a petition in bankruptcy against a rival trader. In Toronto, I have frequently been in the civil courts as a spectator, and I have seen numerous cases of business disputes in which action had been taken, founded upon the most obviously malicious motives and declared by the judge to be so. If any one fSlr Thomas White.!
doubts me, let him go to a division court where the smaller cases are tried and where traders of a certain type sue and are sued, and he will realize the danger there is in allowing a small, irresponsible and malicious trader to file a petition in bankruptcy against a rival. What remedy has his rival in the civil courts? The leader of the Opposition says that for malicious prosecution there is the remedy in tort at common law, a civil remedy, for which the only penalty is damages. Let us take the case of a trader who is bailiff-proof and who determines to ruin a rival. He acquires a claim against his rival, or he has a straw man take an assignment of a claim and file a petition in bankruptcy against the man against whom his animosity and cupidity are directed. The petition is filed, and that man's credit is gone. He may be ruined if it proceeds no further; even if the judge, before whom the matter comes, decides in favour of the party against whom the proceedings are taken, the man's credit is gone.
My hon. friend has stated that the Government has been very free this year with legislation applying the criminal law. Does he realize what we are doing in this Bill? As regards the present situation, which we have had for many years in Canada and , under which men have traded here, we have no provision whereby men may be thrown into bankruptcy under a proceeding such as is provided for by this Bill. This Bill changes all that; it provides that any creditor, no matter what his motives may be, may file a petition, the effect of which may be to ruin some solvent trader, because a man may be solvent although trading on a very small margin. Without some safeguard to such trader, there is nothing the Government has brought down this session more objectionable than this Bill if, as is the attitude of my hon. friend, it leaves traders without any safeguard against proceedings which may be taken by malicious creditors. That is the distinction between this case and the case put forward by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster),-that for malicious prosecution under the Criminal Code there is only civil remedy. It is almost impossible to imagine a case in which there is the direct element of personal advantage in laying a charge of theft. Not only that, a charge of theft has to be established by much stronger, much more clear, cogent and convincing evidence than the argument by which a man would seek to justify a petition in bankruptcy. Up to date, it has not been brought to my attention, although it may have happened,

that a business trader seeking to outrival a competitor has searched the Criminal Code to find upon what offence he can most conveniently lay an information against his rival. But this places the machinery right in his hand, and I have read of dozens of cases in the reports of division court hearings in Toronto where the element of malice was- undoubtedly present for the purpose of injuring a trade rival. This machinery would be at once available in such a case. The remedy in damages cannot be adequate because the man who brings the proceedings or causes them to be brought may be in a position, so far as civil proceedings are concerned, to snap his fingers at a prosecutor, and yet as soon as he has filed the petition, he has practically ruined his competitor. If we are bringing into this House legislation that changes the situation under which business has been carried on in Canada for many years, it is incumbent upon the House to the utmost of its power to protect from abuse of proceedings under that measure those who are to be subjected to its provisions. I have not had an opportunity of listening to previous discussions on this Bill; but, listening to the arguments put forward here this afternoon, though feeling that I am not in many ways as competent to pronounce upon the merits of the provision as many who have spoken, I believe the House should lean towards protecting that man against whom proceedings may be taken under this measure.
Mr. MeKEiNZIE: The Acting Prime Minister is, no doubt, a good financier, but he has made it abundantly clear that he is not a good criminal lawyer. He has told us that when a man comes up on a preliminary investigation before a magistrate, he may choose right off whether he is to be tried before a jury or not.


William Thomas White: It depends on
the legislation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is absolutely
wrong; there is no such precedent, law' or power. Therefore, the Acting Prime Minister started out wrong with his criminal law, and the rest of his criminal law argument was of about the same value. He says that we find penal clauses in many statutes. That is perfectly correct, but in what kind of statutes? We find statutes imposing certain duties upon individuals who are told: If you do not do that, you are to be subjected to certain criminal responsibilities and results. If the Acting Prime Minister
will point to a line in this Bill which says that if a man does not do such and such he is subject to some criminal offence and to be dealt with criminally, I will withdraw my objection. But there is not in this Bill one line which justifies this section. This is a sort of thing that is thrown out to prevent something that may possibly happen in another way altogether. I do not want any better argument than that we have nothing in this Bill but the old English law, and that the- English people for years and years have found this law good enough without inserting this section which is new to the English law, new to the English courts and new to the Canadian people. The Acting Prime Minister waxes eloquent over a crime that was never committed in this country. There is no such thing known to any British country as ex post facto criminal law.


William Thomas White: What is the application of the reference to ex post facto criminal law?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Providing in advance for some crime hitherto unknown to the law.


Mr. MOWAT:: That is not "post."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I meant to say, legislation providing for some crime that is not known to the law. I challenge the Acting Prime Minister and the Solicitor General to produce a single case of the kind they are dealing with that ever happened in Canada, I have had a longer connection in Canada with legal proceedings in all their phases than either the Solicitor General or the Acting Prime Minister, and in all my experience I never heard of a merchant trying to ruin another by maliciously proceeding against him.


William Thomas White: Why, then, are these retail men so desirous of being safeguarded against this very thing?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Because they have some unfounded suspicion about something they had never any occasion to be afraid of. There has never been such a law in this country since 1875. I do not remember the days of 1875 and the few years before that during which the old Act was in force, but I challenge my hon. friend to produce a single case where anybody maliciously laid an information under that Act or took proceedings against his neighbour to ruin hipi. I never heard of such a thing.
I base my argument entirely upon this fact: When we made pur Criminal Code in 1892 we simply took the English law as it then stood, and our own Statutes; we were

perfectly satisfied with the English criminal law as we found it. and with the judicial interpretations by the courts of Great Britain. Here we are not taking the English law, but are adding new provisions to it, creating a condition that will put in the hands of one person the power of putting his neighbour in jail, without any justification whatever, and keeping him there indefinitely when there may be no more malice in his heart than there is in the heart of the Acting Prime Minister. We are putting this power in the hands of somebody who may or may not use it. Would it not be time enough to provide such a law when a case of this kind arises? I promise the Acting Prime Minister and the Solicitor General that if advantage is taken of this Act to do anything improper within three or six months after it passes this House, I shall hasten to their side to pass legislation preventing any such thing. But I am not in favour of putting unnecessary criminal laws on the statute book under which a man may, without any justification, send his neighbour to jail while his children are left to suffer cold and hunger. But the responsibility is not mine, the responsibility rests with the Government, more particularly as I have presented my views and, I think, those of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would not impose on the time of the Committee had not the Acting Prime Minister directed some of his remarks to answering an argument I had brought forward. His argument was this: We are introducing new legislation, unusual legislation; this unusual legislation is open to the possibility of abuse; in order to discourage the possibility of abuse, we are going to make it a penal offence to abuse the Act.
First of all, let me say that the province of Quebec has had laws upon its statute book for many decades past, whereby any creditor who had a claim of $200 against a man who had generally stopped making payments, could file what amounted to a petition of bankruptcy against him; that is, he could make what we call a demand of abandonment, which would be supported by affidavit and then filed in court. This is a very summary way of bringing a man into insolvency and forcing him to distribute his property among his creditors.
I have not been practicing for a great number of years, but I have never in the course of my experience known of an action instituted by a man who had been put into insolvency by a competitor in which the

insolvent claimed that his competitor had wilfully and maliciously used the machinery of the law for the purpose-of damaging him. Therefore, I think the Government in placing this section 97 on the statute book are trying to guard against something which is not likely to happen. It has not happened, as far as my experience goes, in a province in which for a generation and a half, creditors have had the powers which are given under this Bill.
The second argument of the Acting Prime Minister was this: He first of all said: I admit that generally the abuse of legal process of a criminal nature is guarded against merely by the right of the injured innocent party to take an action in damages either for false arrest or for the laying of false information against him; but, he added, under this Act, there will be greater opportunities given to a man in commercial life to do something wrongful against his neighbour. I do not agree with my hon. friend. Take this case for instance: An information is laid against a high-class solicitor for embezzling the funds of his clients. Now that would enormously hurt the solicitor, even if the charge were dismissed. Or again, suppose a false and malicious accusation is made against a man occupying a high professional position, or a respectable merchant, charging him with some hideous crime. His reputation may be. hurt, his business may be damaged, and financial loss may be sustained just the same as in a case of malicious proceedings under this Bankruptcy Act in regard to an ordinary merchant. That being so, why put upon the statute book this ususual provision. Why has the English law given to the wronged party merely an action in damages in all these cases? There is some good reason, and it is this, that the policy of the law has not been to frighten the innocent and legitimate complainant. It is often difficult enough for a complainant who has a perfectly justified complaint against a fellow citizen to urge that complaint before the court; the tradition of the British law has been that the courts are open to him, and if he uses them maliciously he is liable in damages. I believe that our laws should proceed on 'broad general principles 'and that we should have as few exceptions as possible. For these reasons I believe that this legislation is unsound and unnecessary. It is difficult for me, having glanced at section 4 of the Act, to see how a malicious institution of proceedings can take place. The man who has a claim against a debtor is not- able

to put that debtor into bankruptcy before he goes before a court and justifies that claim as a proper and well-founded one. On the whole I believe that this proposed legislation is both unnecessary and undesirable.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 98-Commencement.
Hugh Guthrie: I move that this clause as printed be struck out and the following substituted:
This Act shall come into force at a date to be named by proclamation of the Governor in Council.
It will be necessary after the Act is passed to prepare rules and forms and to see that a suitable number of trustees are appointed throughout the country, all of which will take time. It is a new experience and nobody knows exactly how long it will take. I think, therefore, the A at should not come into force until proclamation is made by the Governor in Council.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is sometimes difficult for a countrj7 barrister to know when a proclamation of this kind goes forth, and it would	be	very	much	better, Ithink,	if	the	Solicitor General
would take plenty of time so that he would be sure to have these regulations made, and to say that at such a definite date the Act shall come
9 p.m. into force. It is only in the Official Gazette that these proclamations appear and only a few people get the Official Gazette. Though I can hardly call myself a country practioner-I live in a town where there are available statutes of the kind-often I am at a great disadvantage to know whether a certain measure has come into force or not. There should be some provision by which everybody who has to do with the law, magistrates and lawyers, would know positively without any difficulty when a statute came Into force.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On Section 55-Arrest of debtors under certain circumstances.
Hugh Guthrie: I would like the Committee to return to section 55 which we discussed this afternoon. Under clause (a) of that section the question came up as to the meaning of the word " abscond," and whether our clause was appropriate, notwithstanding that it is copied from the English Act. On looking at the dictionary,
I find that one of the definitions given by the leader of the Opposition is exact. To abscond is given as "to leave the jurisdiction of the court, or to hide from one's creditors." In the English Act they simply use the broad term " abscond," which in Great Britain, would mean to go beyond the United Kingdom; but I think we should have a more limited definition of the term in this country. I am going to move that clause (a) of section 55 be amended by inserting after the word " abscond," in the tenth line, the following words: " from the province in which he had his ordinary domicile."


Andrew Ross McMaster: Do you not think " his ordinary place of business " would be better?


Hugh Guthrie: A man might have his domicile in one province and his place of business in another.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Suppose a man carries on his business in Ottawa and lives in Hull, and getting into difficulties he makes for the wilds of Saguenay in order to evade his creditors. According to your definition "from the province where he had his domicile," he would not have absconded. If, however, we make it "where he has his place of business," where his creditors would look to find him to get their accounts settled, then he would have absconded.


Mr. MORPHY:: Why not use both-domicile or place of business?


Hugh Guthrie: It might be different provinces.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Well, if you put both in you would get him under either.


William Sora Middlebro: Why not use the technical word "locality?" The locality of a debtor is described in the Bill as:
the place within a bankruptcy division or district wlhereat the debtor has carried on business for the longest period during the six months immediately preceding the date of the presentation against him of a bankruptcy petition,-
I would suggest that we say "from the province in which the locality of the debtor is situate."


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is not nice English.


William Sora Middlebro: The word "locality" is used in the Bill in the interpretation section.


Mr. PROULX:: I prefer the general term. It may be just as difficult for a man's creditors to get at him when he hides in the province in which he does business as

when he departs from the province. As the Solicitor General says, the dictionary meaning is plain, that he absconds from the jurisdiction of the court. I understand that the different provinces will have jurisdiction, and if a man in Ontario absconds it will mean that he leaves the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Ontario.


Hugh Guthrie: I think there is a good deal of force in what my hon. friend says. Perhaps it might be as well to leave the section as it was. With the leave of the Committee I will withdraw my amendment and let the section stand. If, when the Bill comes up in the future, there should be a further amendment, we can consider it then.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This arises in connection with the right of arrest, does it not?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That arrest will not take place until proceedings in bankruptcy are commenced?


Hugh Guthrie: Until after the presentation of the bankruptcy petition.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think you could well say "abscond from the province after the proceedings of bankruptcy are taken.'' That would cover the ground.
Amendment of Mr. Guthrie withdrawn.
On section 8-application of part one.


Hugh Guthrie: I move that the following words be added to the section:
That the provisions of this .part of the Act shall not apply in respect to any act or omission of a debtor, nor in respect to any debt contracted by a debtor, or judgment covered, or execution or other process issued against the debtor, prior to the passage of this Act.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Prior to the coming in force of .,this' Act.


Hugh Guthrie: "Prior to the coming in force of this Act," we will make it. The object of this amendment is that the Act may have no retroactive effect in so far as part one is concerned, part one being the part of the Act which contains the provisions for involuntary bankruptcy. In other words a man cannot be placed in bankruptcy for any debt heretofore contracted, or any judgment heretofore recovered or execution heretofore issued.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: There are one or two clerical errors that I would like to correct. 
On section 2-interpretation.
Mr. GUTHRIE moved to change the word "debtor" in subsection (g), line 22. to "assignor."	.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 2-paragraph N-debtor.
Hugh Guthrie: That the word "definition'' in line 41, be struck out and the word "paragraph" be inserted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 2-paragraph (gg)-secured creditor.
Hugh Guthrie: That the word "pledge" be inserted before the word "charged" in line three.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: That after the word "due" in line 5, the words " or accruing due "
be inserted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 4. subsection 5 -proof of debt, e'tc.
Hugh Guthrie: That the word "or", in the eleventh line, be struck out and the word "of" substituted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill 52, to amend the Immigration Act, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 3-Prohibited classes, and the following amendment proposed by Mr. Cronyn:
That section 3 be amended by adding thereto the following as subsection (u) :
3. (u) the following persons, unless otherwise permitted by existing treaties, shall also be prohibited, for a period of five years from the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, from entering or landing in Canada:-
(i) Aliens from the Continent of Europe w'hose domicile is situate south or east of a line drawn from the Atlantic Ocean east along the forty-second parallel of latitude to the fifteenth meridian of longitude thenpe north along said fifteenth meridian to the fifty-fifth parallel thence east along said fifty-fifth parallel to the twentieth meridian thence north along said twentieth meridian to the sixtieth parallel thence east along said sixtieth parallel to the thirtieth meridian and thence north along said thirtieth meridian to the Arctic Ocean.

(ii) Aliens from the North American Continent of European birth who are not citizens of the United States of America and whose domicile in Europe was situate south or east of the above described line.
Mr. CALDER:: At the last sitting of the Committee when this proposal of the member for London (Mr. Cronyn) was submitted I asked that it should stand over until I had time to consider it. In the meantime I have taken the resolution up with the officials of the department and they are inclined to the view that if it were adopted it would give rise to a good deal of trouble and difficulty. Therefore, unless the hon. gentleman is anxious to press his amendment, I would suggest that he withdraw it.


Mr. CEONYN:: I have no special desire to press the amendment at this session. It was perhaps too drastic a step to take now involving as it does so marked a change in what has been the accepted policy of the country ever since the question of immigration was first considered. I shall therefore ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the resolution.
Might I, before resuming my seat, express the hope that after due reflection the department may see fit at another session to adopt some plan whereby we may escape the ungracious and delicate duty of refusing admission to our country to some particular race or nation. Something has been said of contemplated legislation by the United States which will greatly restrict, if it does not wholly prohibit, immigration into that country for a period of years. At least two Bills proposing such action were introduced at the last sitting of Congress and were referred to the Select Standing Committee of the House of Kepresentatives on Immigration and Colonization. Those hon. members who have read the evidence adduced before that Committee^ and the report presented on the 29th of January last to the House of Kepresentatives, cannot fail to be struck by the strong and wide-spread opinion which exists throughout the United States in favour of some such measure. If I may be permitted I should like to read a part of the final clause of the report of the majority of that Committee expressing their view of this matter:
The far-famed melting pot has proven to a great degree a delusion and a snare. We feel that it is now time that we were beginning to look after those of our own household, rather than to open our ports to many who know nothing of our laws, our customs, our standards of living, and never intend to learn of them.
It is true there was also a minority report presented to the House by two members thereof, Kepresentatives A. J. Sabath, of Illinois, and Isaac Siegel, of New York. The minority report, as was only natural, dwelt with pride upon the record on the field of battle of many who had-been immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants, but despite the eloquent character of that minority report, a general opinion prevailed that the House would have passed a Bill to further restrict immigration had the opportunity been afforded. It is a matter of record, however, and is known doubtless to many of the members of this House, that there was an almost continuous filibuster maintained during the session, and these Bills, with many others, fell by the wayside as unfinished business. Now, if the United States does, in the immediate future, pass any such law-and undoubtedly the attempt will be made at the next session of Congress -it will result in increasing pressure on Canada by immigrants from the southeastern part of Europe to obtain entry to this country. It therefore seems to me to be the duty of this House to safeguard our country in such way as we can to prevent too great a flood of those who may not prove best fitted to become future citizens.
I have to confess to a want of faith in the efficacy of section 13 of this Bill, to which the minister has made reference. It is an extension, and, perhaps, a wise extension, of the powers contained in section 38 of the old Act, and undoubtedly under those powers the Government of the day could exclude any person, any race, any nationality. But le,t us assume for a moment-a violent assumption perhaps-that this Government goes out of power and that a Government of the ordinary type which formerly administered the affairs of Canada is in control. If the then Minister of Immigration undertook, under the powers conferred by this section, to bar the people of some particular nation from entering into Canada, imagine what would result. In the first place we would have all the families in Canada from that nation protesting against the refusal to allow their relatives to join them. Indeed, we would have every member of that interdicted nation in Canada making common cause against the ruling; because it is a striking feature of the immigration movement that a successful immigrant is the keenest person to have his fellow-countryman, whether related or not, share in his good fortune. It is an exceedingly difficult matter to persuade him that too free a movement of this kind may

eventually result in damage to himself and others. In the second place, if the proposed immigrants were a good type of untrained labour you would have the large employers of the country protesting, and they would bring weighty arguments against the enforcement of an Order in Council calling for exclusion. A few nights ago I had a short talk with one of the largest employers of this class of labour in Canada. We were discussing one of the nations in Southeastern Europe-I prefer not to be more definite in that regard-when he said quite frankly: "Yes, they are excellent workmen, they are vigorous, they are untiring, but you will never make citizens of them. In truth, their ideal is against such a destiny; they are at best but temporary sojourners in this country."
Added to the pressure from immigrants and employers, you would have, of course, great clamour from steamship and transportation companies, and labour agencies. I do not believe any Government would withstand the pressure thus brought to bear. We would then be back again in exactly the position in which we have always been, and suibject perhaps to a flood of less desirable people, a flood which, by its very volume, would divert the lesser currents from Northern Europe, the record of whose people, as I have tried to point out, is that they become tillers of our soil and assimilate with the present population.
Some comment has been made as to the purport of the proposed amendment, the suggestion being made that it was aimed to exclude certain nationalities or religions. As one witty member of the press gallery remarked, I was apparently trying to exclude the Pope and include the Kaiser. I do not think I need assure the House that no such idea entered my head. As I explained, the lines suggested were rough-and-ready boundaries, not intended to be accepted as final; indeed they were only used to try to illustrate the principles that I was endeavouring to bring before the House. These principles were based on the results disclosed by official records. If those records can be attacked-and they have not as yet been assailed-much of my argument would go for naught. The restrictions suggested are thus founded on what is known of certain ethnic and sociological characteristics, largely due to racial origin and climatic conditions and indelibly fixed during the course of many centuries.
Perhaps I owe a word of apology to the Committee for again occupying its atten-

tion. As was natural, hon. members from Western Canada were more particularly interested in this question, and they were able to bring to the problem the great value of their personal experience. I come from old Ontario where, although there are many thousands of acres ready for intensive cultivation, we could not expect to get any large proportion of new immigration. As a matter of fact, I approached the problem with a feeling that nothing should be done to bar any immigrant. All reasons, financial and otherwise, pointed that way. It was only after making such study as I could of what had happened in the neighbouring Republic, and to a lesser extent in our own country, that I came to the conclusion that we should take a very strong stand, for a time at any rate, against allowing too free an entry.
Perhaps some explanation of the interest I have in this subject is due to the fact that for the past twelve years it has been my duty and my privilege to make an annual visit to the Western Provinces, and the result of those trips has been to confirm my optimistic belief in our country; in fact, to raise it almost to a state of religious fervour. Do I need, then, any excuse for striving to the poor best of my ability to so shape the future of our race in this one particular that it may prove worthy of a great heritage?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am certainly in favour of the very best class of immigrants we can get. But can we very logically compare ourselves to-day with the United States? We have the same area of habitable land, but while they have 120,000,000 of people we have scarcely 8,000,000. Does the hon. member (Mr. Cronyn) think that we are in a position to apply the 'same rigid laws to immigration as the United States are applying, situated as they are?


Hume Cronyn: I think, Mr. Chairman,, financially, and, perhaps, from the point of view of the need of population, we are hardly in a position to do so. If we did apply as rigid rules as I suggest it would undoubtedly delay the material progress of the country. But I think there is something greater than mere material progress, and I am one of those who fear the United States may have built up its wonderful prosperity at the risk of the future wellbeing of the race. We are not yet able to judge what the result of the " melting pot " will be. I suppose there is none living to-day who will ^ee the full fruition of the policy adopted by that country. I would

rather that >we bent our backs further and sweated more freely in the . effort to carry our present burden than imperil what future generations should inherit.
Amendment (Mr. Cronyn) withdrawn.


James Alexander Calder: I have three amendments to submit to the Committee. The first has reference to the carrying of concealed weapons by immigrants seeking to enter Canada. I would suggest that a new section be added to the Bill as 43 (A) to this effect:
16 (a). The said Act is amended by inserting the following heading and section immediately after section forty-three :-
" Concealed Weapons."
"4>3A. No immigrant shall bring into Canada [DOT] any pistol, sheath knife, dagger, stiletto, or other offensive weapon that can be concealed upon the person, and any officer who has reason to suspect that any immigrant has any such weapon in his possession may search the person and baggage of such immigrant, and may seize any such weapon, which shall thereupon be confiscated to His Majesty, and disposed of as the minister may direct; provided, that in any such case the immigrant may appeal to the minister, and the minister may give such directions for the return or other disposal of such weapon, as he deems just and proper."
The officers of the department think it very desirable that there should be a provision of this kind in the Bill. As a matter of fact, they have been acting without this authority for several years, and the number of weapons they have collected from certain classes of immigrants is very large.


Samuel William Jacobs: I would point out that
this clause 'is already covered by 'the section of the Criminal Code which says that no one shall carry on his person concealed weapons.


James Alexander Calder: No person in Canada.


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes.
. Mr. CALDER: We meet the immigrants at the border.	[DOT]


Samuel William Jacobs: That is supposed to be
Canada. If they come into the country with these weapons (they have already committed an offence; and that being so, it seems to me there is no utility in having this section in the Bill.


James Alexander Calder: It cannot do any harm.
Mr. MoMASTER:	That is a bad principle.


Samuel William Jacobs: I wish to point out that it is already covered.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why say that
" weapon that can be concealed upon the
person?" Immigrants may have weapons in their trunks or travelling bags that they could not conceal upon theftr persons. Why not say that they are not to bring them in, any way?


James Alexander Calder: I do not suppose there
would be any objection. Take immigrants coming in as settlers, they very often bring their shot guns and rifles, there is no particular objection to those weapons. 'What we are aiming at is concealed weapons.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister wishes [DOT]to say to an immigrant that he may bring in his arms, his gun or his musket or his rifle, it would be better to state! so, because guns are now made that can be taken apart into pieces not more than a foot in length, and if one wants to conceal them on one's person he can do so; and so a thing that is not intended to be made a crime might be made a crime under this Bill. 1 suppose it is no offence for a man to bring a gun into this country, but the moment he tries to conceal it under his coat he becomes a criminal.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Alexander Calder: I'move to insert as a new section after section 14 of the present Bill the following:.
14. (A) Section forty-one of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor :

"41. Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen advocates in Canada the overthrow by force or violence of the government of Great Britain or Canada, or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or the overthrow by force or violence of constituted law and authority, or the assassination of any official of the Government of Great Britain or Canada or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or of any foreign government, or advocates or teaches the unlawful destruction of property, or shall by word or act create or attempt to create riot or public disorder in Canada, or shall by common repute belong to Or be suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization which extorts money from, or in any way attempts to control any resident of Canada by force or threat of bodily harm, or by blackmail, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization extertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government; such person for the purposes of this Act shall be considered as belonging to the prohibited or undesirable classes, and shall be liable to deportation, and it shall be the duty of any officer becoming cognizant thereof, and the duty of the clerk, secretary or other official of any municipality in Canada wherein such person may be, to forthwith send a written complaint thereof to the minister giving full particulars."
This section is practically the same as the section in the old law, with this exception, that we have included in the prohibited

class, such persons as those who advocate the overthrow of government by force or violence and the unlawful destruction of property. We have amended this section merely to bring it into conformity with the other section in the Bill.
Mr. .1ACOBS: I should like to have some information from the minister with respect to this passage in the section:
Or sQial] by common repute belong to or be suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization which extorts money from, or in any way attempts to control any resident of Canada by force or threat of bodily harm, or by blackmail.


James Alexander Calder: That is part of the old law. I understand that there were in Canada some years ago certain societies constituted of foreign-born people who carried on a good deal of work of that kind, and the department at that time found it necessary to put this provision in the Bill. I think one of them was a Chinese society called the "Black Hand Society" which operated in that direction.


Samuel William Jacobs: The section says further
that among those prohibited from coming into Canada are those who are members of or affiliated with "any organization entertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government." We know that Great Britain has been a harbour of refuge to all classes of people who teach all kinds of political beliefs. They knew they would have sanctuary in England, and were always permitted by law to come there. As I understand it, Scotland Yard and other institutions of that kind were able to keep proper tab on them by knowing just where they were to be found in England. If I remember aright, the famous Russian nihilist, Stepniak and several of his followers lived in England for many years and taught their doctrines with more or less success, always under the protection of the British authorities. If we adopt this section, we shall be restricting the right of residence in this country to a greater degree than is done in England, which surely ought to be the country that wre should follow in matters of this knid.


James Alexander Calder: I am not so sure, but that on account of conditions that have existed during the last year or two, we shall find the English Government changing its law in this regard. 1


Samuel William Jacobs: By Order in Council, and only for the period of the war.


James Alexander Calder: I am not so certain of that; I think we shall find some very strin-

gent provisions placed by the British Parliament before very long. The question is whether or not we should permit to enter Canada or to remain in Canada people who openly and violently advocate the overthrow of constitutional government as we understand it. This suggests that we should not do so, and I think we should have a provision of this kind in our law.


Samuel William Jacobs: Might I point out this
instance to the minister? The Bolshevist Government is the de facto Government in Russia to-day, and for various reasons, which I need not relate to the Committee, the Bolshevist Government is not very popular in this country and in some other countries. Supposing a society was formed for the purpose of overthrowing, by violence, the Government of Messrs. Lenine and Trotsky, do I understand that any person who advocates a view of that kind would be prohibited from entering Canada or if here would he be ordered to be deported from this country?


James Alexander Calder: I think the hon. member would have to take the whole section. The first part of the section reads:
Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen advocates in Canada the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of Great Britain or Canada, or other British Dominion,, coloncy, possession or dependency or the overthrow by force or violence of constituted law and authority.
I would think that would be in Canada. We are not particularly concerned with what the people do, say in the heart of Russia.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am referring to Canada. If any person in Canada advocates the overthrow of the Bolshevik Government, what would happen?


James Alexander Calder: I doubt very much if that person would come within the scope of this section, and it is not intended that he should. It is intended to cover only those who would advocate the violent overthrow of constituted Government in this country.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think the clause says
otherwise :
Or the overthrow by force or violence of constituted law and authority, or the assassination of any official of the Government of Great Britain or Canada or other British Dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or of any foreign Government.
That is the part I object to.


James Alexander Calder: It is taken from the old Act. the corresponding section of which reads:-

Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen advocates in Canada the overthrow toy force or violence of the Government ot Great Britain or Canada or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or the overthrow toy force or violence of constituted law and authority, or the assassination of any official of the Government of Great Britain or Canada or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency or of any foreign government-*
The draftsman has simply included the provisions of the old law. I cannot see any very great necessity for retaining the words " or of any foreign government."


Samuel William Jacobs: No. I think that ought to be struck out. We should not forget Tennyson's words that England is a land " where girt by friend or foe a man may speak the thing he will." He ought to be satisfied if we safeguard the British Empire. Foreign governments ought to look after themselves.


Mr. BURRELL:: I do not think my hon. friend's quotation was a very happy one with regard to England. It is quite understandable that England can afford to be fairly lax and fairly generous in regard to the shelter of any particular class of people even if they go to violent extremes in speech, for the reason that the British are a homogeneous people and the foreign born are not in sufficient numbers to constitute any real danger to the state. But the situation in this country, especially in Western Canada, is fundamentally different. We have immense numbers of foreigners here who are easily misled, and it is quite manifest that the doctrines of those who openly preach sedition and advocate the overthrow of organized governments by force exercise a much more dangerous influence in an atmosphere such as ours than they would in England. Therefore, I think that the first part of the section is absolutely necessary. With regard to the other part, my hon. friend asked whether it would apply to a man, for instance, who advocated the overthrow of the Lenine and Trotsky government-whether he would be allowed to come into this country. I read all through the section the words "constituted government" and I maintain, and I think my hon. friend will be compelled to agree with me, that the Lenine and Trotsky Government is not a constituted government because they obtained power by refusing to let the constituent assembly meet, and took the country by force.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is the way most governments obtain power.


Martin Burrell: Not by force of arms- brute force-but by moral force. In this case the constituent assembly was on the point -of meeting, but Lenine and Trotsky absolutely refused to let it meet, and they seized power by force of arms. I would not regard that aS a constitutional form of government.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is the de facto government.


Martin Burrell: De facto by sheer force of arms, but certainly not de jure.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does my hon. friend consider that Oliver Cromwell's government was a constitutional government, when Cromwell seized power?


Martin Burrell: Whatever opinions I
may hold in regard to Oliver Cromwell- and I cherish pretty strong ones-I think he is a long way ahead of Lenine and Trotsky.


Samuel William Jacobs: As regards the manner in which he seized power, his case was on all fours with Lenine and Trotsky's.


James Alexander Calder: The suggestion of my
hon. friend, as I understand it, is this: That we should not pay any attention to any person who in this country advocates the assassination of an official in South America, let us say. I am quite willing to leave it to the judgment of the Committee whether we should allow such a man to remain in Canada or not.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think the minister did not quite understand what my hon. friend intended to convey. His idea, as I understood it, was that there might be some persons living in Canada, inhabitants, say, of a South American republic, who had been displaced from power perhaps by a revolution and, while in Canada, were plotting a counter-revolution to regain power.


James Alexander Calder: My hon. friend will pardon me. The section explains itself. It reads: "Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen advocates in Canada. .	.
the assassination of any official of the Government of Great Britain or Canada. . . or of any foreign Government." That is, any person- in Canada shall be liable to deportation who advocates the assassination of any official of any foreign Government.


Samuel William Jacobs: Perhaps I might give the Secretary of State another instance: One of our Allies, King Peter of Serbia, obtained power by the murder of his predecessor,

King Alexander. I have no doubt that if King Peter came to Canada he would be received in the way in which all high dignitaries are received here.
New section as proposed agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. Calder, the Committee reverted to the consideration of section 2-domicile:


James Alexander Calder: I beg to move that clause 2 be amended by inserting the following proviso after paragraph (1):
Provided further that no person who belongs to the prohibited or undesirable classes within the meaning of section forty-one of this Act shall be capable of acquiring Canadian domicile.
The effect of the amendment will be briefly this: The persons we have just been speaking of, who advocate the destruction of property and the violent overthrow of constitutional governments, if they are not Canadian citizens, will not be allowed to acquire Canadian domicile so far as our right to deport them is concerned. Under the law as it now stands, once a man lives in Canada for a period of five years and acquires a domicile, whether or not he becomes a Canadian citizen, he cannot be deported.
The effect of this will be that as regards this class they shall be deportable whenever they are found, so long as they have not become Canadian citizens. If they became Canadian citizens in the ordinary way by naturalization, the only way they could be got at afterwards would be under the Criminal Code.
Bill as amended reported.


FERTILIZEKS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce) Bill No. 74, to amend the Fertilizers Act, 1909, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On Section 1, subsection (c)-fertilizer.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: I move that the words " or lime, as carbonate, hydrate or oxide be struck out. It has been represented by those who manufacture lime for treatment of the soil that this amendment should be made on the ground that lime is not a fertilizer, and the technical officers of the department so instruct me.


John Howard Sinclair: How does the minister class slag?

Mr. A>
K. MACLEAN: Slag contains fertilizing ingredients while lime does not. Lime is used for treating certain soils, such as acid soil and what is termed " sour " land, but it furnishes no fertilizing ingredients to the soil. Slag, of course, contains phosphorous which is released and enriches the soil.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it intended that slag shall be subject to inspection and analysis under this Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes. I have some further amendments to offer. In the last line of subsection (c) I move to insert after the word " ordinary " the word " untreated," so that it will read "ordinary untreated stable manure."


John Howard Sinclair: I think thiis Act is hardly applicable to fertilizer like slag, which is not put up in factories but is carried in shiploads and in large quantities in carloads to various parts of the country. This Bill provides that every package of manure shall be subject to a stamp tax. I do not see how it can apply to material that is sold in the way slag is sold.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Slag is a fertilizer. The purchasing public must have some protection and must be assured that the slag is worth purchasing, and it is not within the power of the ordinary consumer of fertilizer to ascertain for himself whether certain slag contains fertilizing ingredients. It must be inspected. In this Bill, while it is provided that a label must be attached, it is also provided that when the fertilizer is sold in bulk the
10 p.m. information which would ordinarily be attached to the label shall be given in the invoice.
Mr. .7. E. SINCLAIR: Will the definition given here of fertilizer include such fertilizers as mussel mud and shell mud, which are both used largely in eastern Canada?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


John Howard Sinclair: The clause, as I read it, seems to indicate that it would.


William Duff: Will it include sea manure
and kelp? A good deal of -that is used in my county for manure, and it would be very cumbrous and inconvenient to have to put stamps on an ox load of sea manure or kelp going from the seashore to the farm.


John Howard Sinclair: Fish offal and
lobster shells are other material commonly used for manure.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It will be found that this can only refer to fertilizer which is manufactured. If natural manure were sold in any form it would not be manufactured and the requirements of the Act would not apply. I think the section should remain as it is because the purpose of the Act is to protect the consumer or the producer. If a dealer presumes to sell fertilizer in the ordinary way it would be necessary to have it examined or inspected so that the public would know what they were getting. Kelp or any natural fertilizer might be very easily imitated and the public should be protected.


John Howard Sinclair: Would it riot be absurd to have an analyst inspect kelp, or lobster shells which were being sold by some person to a neighbour to put on his land? The difficulty does not come in there. It has reference to the manufactured manures. It does not apply to these natural manures like mussel mud, lobster shells, fish offal and various other things that are used by the farmers. Fraud takes place where manures are manufactured.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As a matter of fact these things are not sold.


John Howard Sinclair: They are sometimes.


William Duff: I know of a number of cases where men who own ox teams go to the shore, load up with kelp or sea manure, and sell it to poor widows. It would be a foolish thing to stop a man half way to his destination and weigh his load. I think the insertion of the word "manufactured" would cover it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not differ from hon. gentlemen opposite but I want the section to be effective. The suggestion made is really unnecessary as the commodities to which they refer are not dealt in.


John Howard Sinclair: Why not strike out the word "natural" and substitute the word "m anuf actured" ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would rather insert after the word "natural" the word "manufactured."


Andrew Ross McMaster: How could you have, a natural manufactured manure?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It might be very easily manufactured by the application of some chemical. The process of manufacture might be so slight that it would hardly be recognized.


John Howard Sinclair: I agree with the .minister in regard to the need of the inspection of fertilizers to protect the farmers and consumers. But in this definition of fertilizer you would include mussel mud which is a natural fertilizer and we have many people in Prince Edward Island who take it out of rivers and sell it to farmers in lots of from a ton to a carload. Unless the word "manufactured" were inserted it would include all fertilizers ol this kind. While it may be necessary to have manufactured fertilizers inspected to see if they are up to the standard, it is going very far to say that this sea manure shall be made subject to the provisions of this Act. It contains all the ingredients, phosphoric acid, nitrogen and potash, and if you have to put a stamp on every hundred pounds sold by the vendor to the consumer it would be simply ridiculous. 1 would like the minister to consider that point.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would suggest that the word "natural" be struck out and the word "manufactured" substituted.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If you struck out the word " natural," that would be sufficient in itself, because the word "artificial" implies manufacture. I would therefore move that the words "natural or" be struck out; that the words " or lime as carbonate, hydrate or oxide" in the seventeenth line be struck out, and that there be inserted, after the word "ordinary" in the eighteenth line, the word " untreated." The paragraph will now read:
(c) "fertilizer" includes every artificial manure containing phosphoric acid or nitrogen or potash, except ordinary, untreated, stable manure.


William Duff: Now that you are going to cut out the words "natural or" in the fifteenth line, to make the paragraph read correctly, you will have to cut out the words "except ordinary untreated stable manure."


Andrew Ross McMaster: If treated it becomes artificial.


William Duff: Cut that out altogether.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, that is correct. I beg to move:
That the words "except ordinary stable manure" be struck out.
The clause will now read:
The word "fertilizer" includes every artificial manure containing phosphoric acid or nitrogen or potash.
Paragraph as amended, agreed to.

On paragraph (d)-guaranteed analysis:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I move:
That paragraph (d) be amended by striking out the word " nitrogen " at the end of the twenty-first line and inserting the words "ammonia and"; also by striking out the words "and lime."
The paragraph will then read:
-must be stated in terms of phosphoric acid, ammonia and potash.


John Howard Sinclair: Why is "nitrogen" removed ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: "Ammonia" is a better known term.


John Howard Sinclair: Is not nitrogen an important ingredient?


Mr. CHISHOLM:: You do not mean to say that ammonia and nitrogen are similar?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is the same thing, and to speak of ammonia is another way of speaking of nitrogen.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is a long time since I studied chemistry, but what the minister says has' a strange sound in my ears.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am giving the hon. gentleman the information the officer gives me.
Paragraph as amended, agreed to.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I wish to add as subsection (h) a definition of the word "available:"
"Available" as applied to the phosphoric acid,
[DOT] the ammonia, or the potash stated in the guaranteed analysis, means that quantum of the total phosphoric acid, or ammonia, or potash present which is available for plant use within one year of its application to the soil.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would not the word "content" be better than the word "present" in the second to last line?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the word "present" is the one ordinarily used. You may have a great deal of phosphoric acid in a fertilizer which would not be released for a long time, consequently the fertilizer would have no immediate value. The value of the fertilizer largely depends upon the rapidity with which the fertilizing ingredients are released, and it was considered desirable to have this definition.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it not very difficult to tell the time within which the ingredients, or the fertilizing properties, of any manure will be communicated to the soil? Do not the release of the fertilizing ingredients depend largely upon weather conditions- the amount of moisture, and so on?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It has to be determined by experiments conducted by scientific men.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I notice that in the next clause the word "content" is used. Does that mean the same thing as "present" in the clause under consideration? If it does it is always wiser, as matter of drafting to employ the same terms.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-How phosphoric acid contents to be stated.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I propose to amend this section and I have sent to hon. gentlemen opposite two copies of the contemplated amendment. Since the first reading of this Bill the officers of the department have been in communication with the manufacturers of fertilizer and the representatives of farmers, and they have gone over the different clauses. I move that section 2A of the present Bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Every person before selling: or offering for sale in Canada any fertilizer, shall either mark upon each package of fertilizer, the following particulars, or attach a label to each such package containing such particulars, or when the fertilizer is sold in bulk shall set out such particulars on the invoice, namely :-
1.	Brand name and trade mark, if any.
2.	Registration number.
3.	Guaranteed analysis, stating separately:
Minimum percentage only.
(a)	The percentage of ammonia.
(b)	The percentage of available phosphoric
acid and the total phosphoric acid.
(c)	The percentage of potash soluble in
water.
4.	The name and address of the manufacturer or seller.
In the case of bone meal, tankage or other organic products, and basic slag, the phosphoric acid shall be stated as total phosphoric acid also. When leather in any form, wool, waste, hair, or any inert organic nitrogenous material, forms part of any fertilizer, the percentage of such ingredients must be mentioned in the guaranteed analysis, unless by processing the nitrogen has been made available in such materials. When potash is derived from sulphate of potash or carbonate of potash it may be so stated in the guaranteed analysis.


William Duff: Where will the manufacturer
obtain the registered number?


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: From the department.


William Duff: Every time he has a new
brand he must send it to Ottawa to have it registered?


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: Yes. I should
like to have the assistance of the Committee in suitably wording this amend-

ment. For instance, I am not too well satisfied with the wording of the first part:
Every person before selling or offering for sale in Canada any fertilizer-
-shall do so and so. In many places fertilizer is frequently sold, .particularly to owners of gardens, in very small packages. It is not intended that the Bill shall apply to such sales, and possibly there might in the present wording of the amendment be some limitation.


William Duff: Should not the word " manufactured '' be inserted in the second line after the word "any." That is to say:
Every person before selling or offering for sale in Canada any manufactured fertilizer-
*and so on.
, Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:	Fertilizer is already properly defined.


John Howard Sinclair: In sub-paragraph 4 of the amendment the expression " manufacturer or seller " occurs. Does " seller " have the same meaning as " agent," which is referred to in paragraph (a) of section 1, or has it the same meaning as the word " vendor " in section 9?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I move to substitute the word " agent " for the word " seller " in sub-paragraph 4 of the amendment.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It seems to me that
the word " agent " hardly connotes the idea that is intended to be conveyed. I would imagine that there are a number of merchants who deal in fertilizers but who are not agents for any special manufacturer. Is it 'the intention to call all such merchants agents ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The word "agent" there really has a definition in this Act.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I know. That is just what I am finding fault with, if I may do so without disrespect.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is so.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It does seem to me a great mistake to give to a word a meaning that is different from its ordinary meaning. It is bad draftsmanship, I think, to call a man an agent who is trading on his own account.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAljr: I was going to suggest that the first part of that clause be amended to say:
Every manufacturer, importer or dealer.
I should like to have the sense of the committee on that amendment. It might
protect a very small seller of fertilizers in the event of some violation of the Act by him.


William Duff: I do not see why you want the word " dealer " there. A dealer is a retailer.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I suppose the idea is that the ultimate consumer shall have protection of real value.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes. I hesitate to amend the section. I am satisfied that it will be all right. I know the objection, which I suggested myself, can very validly be raised. On the whole I would prefer leaving the section as it is.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Could not a covering clause be put at the end, saying that this shall not have application to sales of, say, 25 lb. and under? That would cover the case where the owner of a garden went to his florist or grocer and bought some of this stuff; he would then be relying upon the reputation of the person from whom he was buying.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: After all, the administration of the Act is in the hands of officials of the department, and any prosecutions would have to be conducted by them. I would ask the Committee to let the section stand.


John Howard Sinclair: Departmental officials are sometimes very meddlesome. I know that prosecutions are going on in my constituency at the present time at the instance of an official who is going through the little stores and inducing people to sell a twenty-five cent package of talcum powder, or something of that kind, without affixing the necessary stamp. A case occurred the other" day where a constable went into a small country store and induced the little girl who was in charge to sell him a package of talcum powder without the stamp .on it. The proprietor was not present. The first he knew of it was through a summons. This is the way the Inland Revenue Department is prosecuting people through officials whose sense of duty is aroused by the prospect of pocketing a portion of the fines that may be imposed on unwitting offenders.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think revenue laws must be rigidly enforced. The cases are not analogous.


John Howard Sinclair: The law should
be enforced by responsible officers.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Andrew Ross McMaster: May I ask the minister if he has many more amendments?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There are several.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Really I feel that I have not done justice to the clause that has just been passed. I am not satisfied with it; neither, I think, is the minister. If we have to consider a number of clauses of the same nature I do not think we should attempt it to-night. We want to pass a Bill which satisfies us, and I do not like the principle that we can pass more or less slip-shod legislation and depend upon the good sense of the officers of the Crown to use with discretion the weapon placed in their hands. As a rule I presume they do use discretion, but not always; they are frail men like ourselves. It is our duty to pass the best legislation we can, and it is the duty of the officers of the Crown to put that into effect to the best of their ability. It seems to me that it would be better to have this Bill reprinted and distributed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I must confess that I feel it is in a sense unfair to the Committee to offer so many lengthy amendments without their having had an opportunity to consider them. That was my feeling at the beginning, and as the hon. gentleman has expressed a desire that the Bill be reprinted before proceeding further, I do not feel that I can refuse his request. So I move that we rise and report progress.
Progress reported.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Third reading of Bill No. 42, to amend the Weights and Measures Act:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Chairman, this Bill, it will be remembered, was considered yesterday and we had quite a lengthy discussion on section 7, which provides a money penalty for short weight delivery. The leader of the Opposition suggested the possibility or probability of malicious proceedings being taken against merchants or dealers selling short weight. As I explained yesterday, it is not possible to secure a conviction except through officers of the department being in a store and establishing, right at the moment of sale or immediately afterwards, the fact of the article being short in weight. If an article is purchased and is taken home, and then brought back to the store, and the purchaser asks to be relieved of his purchase
['Mr. Sinclair.] 1	i| !	!!! 1 M
upon the ground of short weight, it could never be established in any court. However, after hearing the remarks made by the leader of the Opposition and the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow), I concluded that possibly the Act might be open to abuse, and I wish to amend the clause by adding these words:-
No proceedings shall be taken under the provisions of this section except with the consent of the minister.
The hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) yesterday amended this clause by providing penalties for second and subsequent offences, and in the drafting of it he used figures, and I should like to have those expressed in extenso. I move:
That the order for the third reading of Bill No. 42, to amend the Weights and Measures Act, be now discharged and that the said Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with power to amend the same by striking out clause 7 of the said Bill and substituting therefor the following clause:
"7. The following section is inserted immediately after section sixty-one of the said Act:-
"61. (a) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of the Criminal Code, any person who sells, delivers or causes to be sold or delivered, anything by weight, measure or number, short of the quantity ordered purchased, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars for the first offence and to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for any subsequent offence. No proceedings shall be taken under the provisions of this section except with the consent of the minister."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House thereupon went into Committee, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I move to amend clause 7 of the Bill by striking out all the words after the word "Act" in the second line of the said clause and substituting the following:
61. (a) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of the Criminal Code, any person who sells, delivers or causes to be sold or delivered, anything by weight, measure or number, short of the quantity ordered purchased, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars for the first offence and to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for any subsequent offence. No proceedings shall be taken under the provisions of this section except with the consent of the minister.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish further to support my objection to this Bill. I am very glad that the minister is making it considerably better by throwing this safeguard around it, that a responsible minister will have to give his consent; and I suppose he will be satisfied with nothing short of substantial evidence before he will give his authority to the proceedings. The minister

states that the person who gets the short weight is expected to come back to the store and deliver up the goods and say that they are short weight. There is nothing in the Bill to that effect.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What would happen in many cases is an entirely different proceeding. The minister is measuring the capacity of some magistrates of this country by his own honest idea of things and thinks that what he would not do himself will not be done by a magistrate. Magistrates will do the most extraordinary things. Let me point out to the minister what might happen in many cases and what will happen under this Bill if magistrates get the authority. Mr. A is dealing with a grocery where he gets his groceries from day to day, and he has a little scale in his house with which he weighs everything he buys. He runs into debt to the merchant, and one day his little girl goes to the store for, say, ten pounds of sugar and a pound of tea and the merchant says: I will not give it to you because I am tired of giving your father goods, as he is not paying for what he gets. She goes home and immediately they discover that the last pound of tea and the last pound of sugar were short in weight, and they at once proceed to lay an information against that man before some stupid magistrate who is quite willing to accept their evidence as against that of the merchant. The merchant will say: I do not remember, but according to the custom of the trade and my custom I believe I gave that girl one pound of tea and one pound of sugar; but they will swear positively with spite and malice against that man who refused to give them goods. Even if the magistrate were fairly disposed to be honest, as I will give him credit for being, what has he before him? He has the sworn testimony, perhaps of a whole family, that the weight was short, while the merchant can do nothing except depend upon the custom of the trade and his custom in dealing with people. That is the position into which this section is putting every honest man 'who is doing business.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I hope my amendment will prevent that.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I understand that the rules of the House compel us to go back into Supply. I do not purpose asking the Committee to pass any Supply tonight.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean
the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Monday, May 12, 1919.