FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 34) to incorporate the Canadian Patriotic Fund Association.-Mr. Costigan.


Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Has the Intercolonial Railway taken over the premises until lately occupied by the Montreal Herald newspaper, corner of St. James and Frangois-Xavier streets, in Montreal?
2.	Has the lease of the Herald newspaper of said premises been transferred to the Intercolonial Railway?
3.	Has any sum or indemnity, or otherwise, been paid to the Montreal Herald newspaper for vacating said offices in favour of the Intercolonial Railway?
4.	What sum has been so paid?
5.	Why was the Intercolonial office removed to the office in question?
6.	What rent did the Intercolonial Railway pay for its former office, and what rent does it pay now, and to whom ?
7.	What was the rent paid for said offices by the Montreal Herald newspaper, and when does the Herald lease expire?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	No, the lease of the Herald newspaper
of said premises has not been transferred. We are sub-tenants of the Herald Publishing Co.	.
3.	Nothing whatever.
4.	No sum has been paid.
5.	The original freight office of the Intercolonial Railway was destroyed In the Board of Trade fire on January 23, 1901, and it was impossible for our officers to secure suitable premises with the necessary accommodation on the ground floor elsewhere.
0.	The rent paid for the former office in the Board of Trade building was $1,500 a year. The rent payable to the Herald Publishing Company for offices, now occupied, is $2,750 a year.
7. The rent paid by the Montreal Herald Publishing Co. is $3,150 a year. Cannot say when the Herald lease will expire, but the Intercolonial Railway has a lease of its offices for three years from the 1st of May next.


POSTMASTERS IN PICTOU COUNTY.
Mr. BELL (Pictou) asked :: 1.	What postmasters in the county of Pictou have been dismissed since November 6th, 1900, and who have been appointed to fill vacancies so created?
2.	What contracts for carriage of mails, to or from points in the county of Pictou, have been made since November 6th, 1900?
3.	In how many cases and for what sums have these been made without advertising for tenders?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	Since the 6th of November, 1900, the postmasters of Barney's River, Sunny-brae, Burnside, Scotsburn Station, West Branch, River John and Greenvale, in Pictou county, have been removed and have been replaced, with the exception of the last mentioned, by the following persons respectively : Daniel Cameron, Thos. M. Chisholm, Wm. Matheson, Jno. G. Proudfoot, Daniel Campbell. No appointment has yet been made to the Greenvale office. I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Bell, Pictou) to allow the balance of the question to stand. The answer is being prepared.



FREE ADMISSION OF BINDER TWINE MACHINERY.

Mr. CARGILL asked :: Was any machinery admitted free from duty for use in a binder twine factory during the

years 1898, 1899, 1900, or were there any refunds of duty in connection with binder twine machinery during said years?


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS (Hon.. Wm. Paterson).: Machinery has been admitted free for nse in binder twine factories, during the period mentioned, under item No. 620 of the free list of the tariff, which provides for the admission free of duty, after the 1st January, 1808, of all articles which enter into the cost of the manufacture of binder twine.



SURVEY BETWEEN RICE LAKE AND PORT HOPE.

Mr. WARD asked :: 1.	Has any survey been made by the Department of Railways and Canals between a point on Rice Lake and the town of Port Hope, with the view of connecting these two points as part of the Trent Valley system? If so, when?
2.	What amounts have been expended by the government in repairing the superstructure of the Port Hope harbour works in each year since 1885?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Yes, a survey was made during the summer of 1900.
2.	The information will be obtainable from the Department of Public Works.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

Sir CHARLES IIIBBERT TUPPER.: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to call the attention of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to the fact that there are no notices issued, as is usually the case, for Friday, to-morrow. There are several members who would be very glad if the committee were convened for to-morrow, and notice might be given to-day.


Mr. FRASER.: There were so many papers asked for that I thought it would be well to put the meeting off until the first of the week so that they might all be down.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The chairman will remember that the time of the last meeting was taken up in moving for papers, and quite a number were ordered, but the committee rose rather abruptly before the organization of the committee was completed, and without authority to appoint stenographers to take down the evidence. Perhaps that is the only business that could be expedited, and that should be done as soon as possible.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I will see that it is done as soon as we can call a meeting.



MONEY-LENDERS.

Mr. J. A. C. MADORE (Hochelaga).: (Translation) moves the second reading of Bill (No. 3) respecting money-lenders. ' He said : Mr. Speaker, the evil of usury, which this Bill-the second reading of which I now Mr. CARGILL.
move-purports to remedy, is by no means of recent date. In fact, it traces its origin back to the remotest antiquity, and so to say, to the very cradle of mankind, and writers who deal with the philosophy of history hold that Jacob himself, on the day when he bought his brother's birthright for a. mess of pottage, became guilty of extortion and usury. From the very rise of Christianity and throughout the succeeding ages, it is on record that legislators, in the different countries of the world, have grappled with the evil of usury and have framed anti-usury laws. But such legislative reforms did always occur periodically so that, between the abolition of a former law and the promulgation of a new statute, intervals of more or less duration invariably elapsed. Whenever usury was received in a country, and whenever the shylocks of those times, having multiplied with impunity, were seen unblushlngly parading in the broad daylight their nefarious monopoly and hovering, like so many vultures, over the victims of their rapacity, then it was that public opinion being stirred up and roused from its lethargy, statesmen and law-makers in all civilized countries framed numberless laws against usury. And when the usurer thus put under the ban of society and branded as an enemy of mankind and a vulgar criminal, no longer dared to show his face, and when hydra of usury, chained as it were, and kept within reasonable bounds by drastic laws and inexorable tribunals, was afraid to hold up its head, then it was that the advocates of commercial freedom stood up and demanded in their turn the repeal of those laws under the pretense that they interfered with the expansion of trade and the progress of the country. When the English parliament in its wisdom, deemed it its duty to enforce an anti-usury law, such legislation had, beyond doubt, became a necessity and was a long-felt want. Under the bene-ficient influence of such legislation, the ruins heaped up by usury and the disasters which ever follow in its wake, gradually decreased, and finally, in 1853, the British parliament, having come to the conclusion that it was more expedient to foster freedom of trade than to protect the few victims of usury, the statute regulating the rate of interest was repealed. So it was with our own country and it became free to money-lenders and all other persons to stipulate any rate of interest whatsoever.
Later on, the many-headed monster of usury began again to show signs of life and in our young country, forty years had scarcely elapsed when lo ! usury was rampant again and had become the great curse of our community.
In Great Britain usury has become at the present day as great an evil as it was formerly, and so disastrous did the results prove that in England, the very home of commercial freedom, they have not hesitated to brush away as irrelevant the objection taken

to tlie adoption of an anti-usury law as likely to interfere with freedom of trade. They did, in fact, pass and turn into law a Bill, which, in its main features at least, is similar to the measure which I now ask this House to put on our statute-hook.
in order to show, Sir, that the need of an anti-usury law is seriously felt in this country, I do not deem it necessary to enter into any lengthy details ; but, were I not afraid to trespass upon the indulgence of the House, I could give quite a long list of young lawyers, young notaries, young clerks, young professional men, young bank clerks, who after having occupied positions of trust which enabled them to handle the money of others, and who, having had the misfortune of falling into the hands of usurers, were induced to use other people's money to satisfy the exigencies of those money-lenders, and are now Within the walls of penitentiaries or fugitives from justice in the United States.
The usurers nowadays, I dare say, have emboldened to the point of stipulating rates of interest as high as from 5 to 10 per cent per month, which represents an interest of from 60 to 120 per cent a year. Nay, more, they are bold enough to go before the courts and in the sacred name of justice, ask the tribunals to sanction such exorbitant rates of interest.
1 now call to mind the case of a moneylender having lent a small sum at the rate of 12 per cent a day, sued his debtor, and obtained judgment at the rate of the stipulated interest, and why ? Because, Sir, as I he judge indignantly declared, the law left him no option, because he had no discretion in the matter, and liis hands were tied ; but lie did not hesitate to say that it was the duty of the legislature to grapple with the evil and remedy such a serious state of things.
It was after such judgments rendered by the courts and also in consequence of the remarks fallen from the Bench, that public opinion being stirred up, the press advocated drastic legislation against such abuses Then it was that the Bill, which I now bring forward, was introduced in the other House by Senator Dandurand. Last year, the Bill passed in the Senate, but came up for discussion in this House at too late a stage of the session to allow of its being passed into law. This year, I deemed it my duty to take charge of the Bill in this House, and it was in order to discharge such duty that X introduced this Bill.
From the reports published by various commissions organized in Great Britain, with a view to the passing of the Bill I have referred to, and also from the expression of opinion given by competent men in the matter. I gather that there are two means which may be adopted, if not for suppressing usury altogether, at least for remedying in some measure the evils attendant upon it. The first consists in giving 20
the courts power to go back to the origin of the transaction, to inquire into all the circumstances surrounding the loan, and to determine, as it appears to the judge, what amount should be legitimately charged in each case. The second means consists in determining, by statute, a maximum rate of interest, debarring the money-lender from recovering in justice any amount in excess of that maximum rate, and enabling the debtor to recover the amount so paid in excess.
The Bill now before the House follows the lines of the latter proposition. To leave to the judge the power to determine, in his discretion what rate of interest should be charged in each case would tend to destroy uniformity in the enforcement of the law. In fact, I know judges who would look upon a rate of 20 per cent in certain cases as reasonable and fair, while others under similar circumstances, would look upon the same as outrageous.
So far as the province of Quebec in particular is concerned, I must confess that such a system, in my opinion, is apparently impracticable. I am not familiar with the procedure followed in the other provinces, but in the province of Quebec when a debtor is sued by the lender for the amount claimed to be due, even if he acknowledged his indebtedness as to a portion only of the amount claimed, he must, in order to throw the costs of the contestation on the shoulders of the opposite party, tender and deposit the amount which he owes.
Were it left to the court to determine the rate of interest to be charged, the debtor would never be able to make a tender to the plaintiff, because he could not know what rate of interest the judge looks upon as reasonable and fair that is the reason why it is necessary to determine the rate of interest which the lender may collect; because it would be ridiculous to give such protection to the debtor, were he forced to pay additional costs instead of the interest. Under such circumstances, believing that the system of giving such powers to the courts would prove unworkable at least in our province, we deemed it preferable in framing the Bill, to fix a reasonable rate of interest as a maximum rate beyond which any amount exacted by the lender should be looked upon as usurious.
In the Bill now before this House the maximum rate is fixed at 20 per cent for loans below $500 ; and in the case of business transactions above that amount, the Bill does not apply. Those who are opposed to this Bill take objection to the fixing of a maximum rate of interest at 20 per cent on grounds which are diametrically opposed to each other. The first objection, and it is one which has been invariably taken to anti-usury laws in the past-goes to say that such legislation interferes with freedom of trade. The second objection is that, if you fix a rate of interest at 20 per



cent, you thereby encourage a rise in the rate of interest in general in all business transactions to that maximum, which would be too high a rate.
I quite agree that, nowadays more than ever before, money has become a commodity, the value of which fluctuates on the market just as much as any other commodity ; but I may remark here that I have incorporated in the Bill two provisions which obviate this difficulty. Thus, to meet the objection of those who think that the Bill is encroaching upon freedom of trade, it is enacted that in the case of larger loans, above that amount, in which greater risks are incurred and from which greater benefits are expected, the Bill does not apply.
As to great financial transactions and enterprises, such as railway construction, deepening of canals, mining operations and other similar operations for which considerable loans are made, and where the money-lender incurs great risks, the law governing the rate of interest remains as it stands today. This Bill aims at protecting those who borrow small sums without incurring any great risks or expecting to reap any large benefits; in short, men who go to the money-lender, just to meet certain expenditures in the ordinary course of their business, or in the practice of their profession, and who would be exposed to fall into the clutches of a Shylock, without any hope of ever succeeding to recover their freedom. In short, by limiting to 20 per cent the maximum rate of interest that can be legally charged on small loans below $500, there is a sufficient margin left for all reasonable business transactions.
Besides, in this matter of freedom of trade, it should be borne in mind that, the objection taken to the Bill in that regard has already been solved. Parliament did not believe that it was an infringement upon the liberty of commerce to i>ass laws against the organization of compacts or combines, by which certain parties control the sale of some products or commodities or raise the price of those articles at their sweet will. It never occurred to parliament that, when called upon to pass such legislation against combines, that they were interfering with or laying a sacrilegious hand upon the sacred principle of commercial freedom. So again, should parliament pass an Act prohibiting usurers' rates; of interest, I am of the opinion that far from being an encroachment upon that great principle, the limitation of the rate of interest would result In preventing money-lenders from giving money a fictitious and exhorbitant value.
Objection is taken to the fixing of a maximum rate of interest, say 20 per cent, as likely to bring about a rise in the rate of interest up to that figure in all business transactions ; but such objection, to my mind, is groundless. As a matter of fact, the money-lenders who now charge 60 per Mr. MADORE.
cent, 100 per cent and even 200 per cent, would undoubtedly exact the maximum of 20 per cent. But as to loans on which moneylenders, under the statute as it now stands, charge only 10, 12 or 15 per cent, it would not be fair to say that they would be induced to raise their rate of interest owing to a limitation having been fixed by the Bill, beyond which, the rate would be extortionate and usurious. They would very likely, under such circumstances, keep within reasonable bounds, and charge only a moderate interest.
Besides, we know from experience that the fixing of a rate of interest does not necessarily bring about such results. The Banking Act fixes a maximum rate, for the banks, of 7 per cent, for all current business transactions. But, as is well known, the banks, for loans of five thousand dollars and more, charge 5 per cent and even less, notwithstanding the fact that they are allowed under the statute to charge 7 per cent.
This Bill also provides that if a moneylender sues his creditor and obtains judgment against him, the rate of interest shall be reduced to the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of said judgment. In this connection, I may say that it was at the special request of the judicature of the province of Quebec and particularly of the district of Montreal that such provision was incorporated in this Bill. On two different occasions, I heard from the bench remarks to the effect that it was greatly to be deplored that the courts were not given the power, when rendering judgment, to reduce the rate of interest. Mr. Justice Gill, when rendering judgment in the case I referred to a little while ago, which condemned the defendant to pay 12 per cent interest per diem, complained bitterly and indignantly that the legislature had not yet grappled with this question and remedied the existing evil.
The Bill contains also a provision respecting existing contracts. From the time of the coming into force of this Bill, no rate of interest, stipulated in contracts or agreements entered into before such date and exceeding 20 per cent, shall bear a rate of interest greater than that maximum rate. Moreover, from the date of the coming into force of this Bill, no rate of interest greater than 6 per cent per annum shall be recovered upon any judgment rendered under the operation of the old Act, just as in the case of judgments rendered subsequent to the passage of this Bill. Of course, the Bill contains a provision for the protection of the rights of third parties, in the case of a money-lender having conveyed a note of hand drawn prior to the passage of this Act. Such third person may recover the amount thereof, but the party discharging such instrument may reclaim from the moneylender any amount paid thereon for interest or discount in excess of the amount allowed by this Act.

Then, we have incorporated in the Bill a penal clause which makes the moneylender who infringes this Act guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year, or to a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars.
The intention, in providing imprisonment was not only to frame a drastic law, but to attach opprobium to the business of the usurer.
We do not claim absolute perfection for the Bill, and the draft which is now before the House may, no doubt, be recast and improved. For my part, I shall be (happy to receive from members of experience in this House, any suggestion they may think proper. I am confident that, with the assistance of the hon. gentlemen, we can, if necessary, amend the Bill so as to render it more acceptable. There are portions of this Bill which can be discussed more practically in committee, when each clause is up for consideration, and when amendments may be suggested and considered. I believe that if it is remodelled in committee in that spirit, it may prove a very useful measure.
But irrespective of any amendment that may be made to this Bill, I appeal in a particular manner to the members of this House to spare no efforts in waging war against usury and removing the evils attendant upon it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Madore) proposes some very radical changes in this Bill, and it contains provisions which have never yet been investigated by a committee. I would ask him if he would state to the House briefly in English, the reasons he thinks would justify the House in adopting the measure.


Joseph Alexandre Camille Madore: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated in French, it has become necessary periodically to introduce a measure against Shylocks in different civilized countries during the past centuries. We have had in Canada, as there was in England, a law against usury. This law worked fairly well in England, until about 1853, when it was thought it was not necessary to keep it in force, and for the sake of what was called commercial liberty, the law was repealed. So it was in Canada. Since then, however, it has been found that moneylenders have multiplied everywhere, and that usury has become as great an evil at the present day, as it was when the usury law of England was first passed. Last year, a law was passed in the British House of Commons, containing about the same provisions as the Bill which I now have the honour to submit to this House. In Canada, usury has been the ruin of many young men in the province of Quebec, and, I presume, in other provinces as well. I could mention many and many names of young lawyers, young notaries, young professional 20i
men, young bank clerks who handle the money of others, and who having put themselves into the hands of a money-lender without a soul, have been obliged to use other people's money to satisfy the demands of the usurer, and are now either in our penitentiaries or fugitives from justice in foreign countries. It is well, therefore, that we should pass a law to restrict the rate of interest that can legally be charged on a loan. In this Bill, 1 have limited to 20 per cent per annum, the amount of interest that can legally be charged on loans under the sum of $500. In the case of large loans in which greater risks are incurred, and from which greater benefits are expected, this Bill does not apply. It only applies to loans made to young men for short periods in the general course of their own business. I think that 20 per cent under these circumstances is quite a reasonable rate, and should not be considered as an infringement of the liberty of commerce. These are the principal reasons which I have urged in French in favour of the Bill. The Bill also provides that if a moneylender sues and obtains judgment, a higher rate of interest than 6 per cent should not be allowed from the date of judgment. There is another class which says that for all previous loans which are still undue, from the time of the coming into force of this law, the rate of interest would be reduced to 12 per cent, and on all judgments rendered previously to the effect that the defendant should pay a higher rate of interest than 6 per cent, the rate would be reduced to 6 per cent from the very moment that this law comes into force. Then there is a penal clause which makes the money-lender guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year, or to a penalty not exceeding $1,000, who lends money at a higher rate of interest than that authorized by the Act. It has been thought well to provide for imprisonment, with a view of casting a stigma on the business of the usurer.


Mr. THOMAS FORTIN (Laval).: The question of regulating the rate of interest has in most civilized countries excited very much discussion and, at various times, provoked some legislation. From the very earliest period in the Roman state there were laws regulating the rate of interest. In the Middle Ages, as is well known, no interest whatever for the use of money was deemed to be legitimate ; and the word ' usury ' derives its etymology from that period. Coming down later, we find various statutes passed in England regulating the rate of interest. I believe the first English statute on the subject was 37 Henry VIII., chapter 9, which fixed the rate at 10 per cent per annum. This statute was subsequently repealed and again re-enacted ; and finally, the last statute regulating the rate of interest, and declaring an excess of the


Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Bothwell).: I regret that I was unable to follow the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill (Mr. Madore), but I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman's object is to remedy what he considers a very great evil. I wish to point out that the hon. gentleman is endeavouring to protect those who come under the exception rather than under the rule that prevails throughout the country. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) very aptly asked the promoter to state in English what the main objects of his Bill were. And the objects as the hon. gentleman gave them resolved themselves into this, to protect young men who live rather extravagantly-though he did not say that, nor am I going to say it, but young men who live beyond their means, properly or improperly-and become indebted to money-lenders, and become discredited and disgraced, and many of whom he says are now fugitives from justice. There may be such cases, but I am sure the House is not prepared to disturb a business useful to the country for the purpose of meeting cases of that kind. I should be glad to see young men protected from the evils the hon. gentleman has referred to; but, we must not injure the great mass of the people for the benefit of the few. If the hon. gentleman has given the slightest attention to usury laws, he knows that, as a rule they have not done what was expected of them. I do not mean to say that we should not restrain moneylenders at all, but it should be done with great care. You cannot lay down an arbitrary rule on this subject without interfering with a perfectly legitimate business in this country. Under the present law. where there is no contract, the borrower is always protected against extortionate rates. But, we must take care not to injure the large class of legitimate borrowers in this country. Take, for instance, the farmers who borrow money at short dates. I will suppose that the hon. gentleman is in the position of a money-lender, carrying on a private bank. No one will pretend to say that private bankers do not perform an important function in the business of the country. Chartered banks do not care for small loans at short dates. The class of borrowers dealt with give a security also that the chartered banks do not care for. Suppose that the hon. gentleman were in the habit of making loans at 20 per cent,

which is the maximum allowed under this Bill. A farmer comes in, and desiring to borrow $50 for fifteen days. For that loan the hon. gentleman would be allowed to charge only about forty cents. He has to look after the money, and see to its collection; and when it comes back, it may remain for fifteen or twenty days before being loaned again. What appears, when stated as a percentage, to be a very high rate, is really not a high rate when the circumstances are all considered. My own experience and observation is that in attempting such regulations as is here proposed, you are very apt to strike a severe blow at the class of people who, though they borrow money in small sums pay it back, and are not disgraced or brought into court. Who is the dependent person in these transactions 1 The man with the money is not dependent, he can make his own terms-if he cannot make them one way he can in another. These small short date loans would not be made upon negotiable security, but the lender would insist upon a chattel mortgage. So, if a man wished to borrow twenty-five or thirty dollars, it would cost him two or three dollars for drawing and registration. Such a transaction would he a mere evasion of this law ; but the man who most needs money will be driven to seek the loan even upon these onerous terms. Suppose a farmer wishes to hold his grain for twenty days, and goes to a private banker to borrow fifty or a hundred dollars. He does not object to paying twenty-five per cent. If, without it, he might be compelled to dispose of his grain at a time when the market was unfavourable, the loss would be far greater than the interest on the money.
I would ask the hon. gentleman if there is any general demand for this Bill. Is there any general outery against the sharks and Shylocks whom we have heard of here. There are some, no doubt, but there are men of great respectability carrying on private banks, men who do not charge such exorbitant rates as has been spoken of. The cases against which the hon. gentleman desires to direct legislation, I fancy occur mainly in great centres, where young men are in need of more money than others require. But these cases are comparatively few, and to injure the many in order to protect that few would be a great mistake. I do not think this Bill should go to a committee ; the House should have no difficulty in rejecting it at this stage, for it has not a single good feature in it.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I have not had the advantage of hearing the whole of the discussion on this Bill, but I am bound to say I am in favour of giving the measure a fair tidal. I do agree with my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) as to there not being a general demand for such a law as this. I did not gather from the remarks of the promoter of the Bill, Mr. CLANCY.
that the evil which is attempted to be cured is confined to a few young men who have led lives involving too much expense. It is well known in the city of Montreal that the evils of usury are not confined to this class of young men, but are general. The expense ot living in Montreal is considerable, and the revenues of a great many people-not young men only, but of many others of a diversified class-are far below what they ought to be to meet these expenses. Many are obliged to have a resort to the money-lenders, and the evil pointed out by my hon. friend from Hochelaga (Mr. Madore) arises. Nor is this state of affairs, I believe, confined to the city of Montreal. I believe we shall hear from members of this House that in many other large centres the same thing exists. It exists in England, as is evidenced by the fact that last year a Bill such as this, in fact a Bill after which this seems to have been drafted was passed by the British parliament, and is now on the statute-book, and known as 63-04 Vic., cap. 51, * The Money-lenders Act.' I have not given this British Act very careful study, but it seems to be exactly the same as the Bill now before us, allowing for some changes made necessary by the difference of circumstances. It is stated that this interferes with liberty. In the first place, let me point out that this Bill is aimed at the Shylocks only. Section 2, defines what a money-lender is. If a man chooses, under the circumstances pointed out by the hon. member for Bothwell, to come to the relief of a farmer, he does not come under the provisions of this Bill.


James Clancy: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, not as I understand it, because he is not a money-lender, a man who habitually lends money at a higher rate than 10 per cent; so I say the Bill is restricted to that class of people who make a habit of profiting by the misfortunes of others. As to the other clauses, I think that the limit fixed of 20 per cent is a very reasonable one. Even as in the case spoken of by the member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy),
I think the man who lends a sum only for a few days ought to be satisfied with 20 per cent interest. The great difficulty, I think, is that laws of this kind have been passed time and again and have failed to meet the evil. I question very much whether this law, carefully framed though it has been, and in view of the experience of a great number of years with the operations of these money-lenders, will attain the object aimed at. I would ask the hon. member for Hochelaga how he would solve, for instance, a case such as was submitted a moment ago by the hon. member for Lanark. Supposing the hon. member for Hochelaga gives me his note of hand for $100 for one month, and I go to you, Mr. Speaker, and sell it to you for $70 ; how will this Bill operate to relieve the

member for Hochelaga ? I do not think it is possible to meet a case such as that, although I And in section 4 that extraordinary power is given to the court to examine all the circumstances of the transaction, and the court can give relief if the circumstances appear to justify it. I think the fact that this remedy has been tried in England, where they have adopted an Act to give relief to a large class of people who suffer from the exactions of these money-lenders, would dispose me to give this law a fair trial. It was discussed thoroughly in the Senate last year, and adopted by that body, and I think we should give it a trial.


Mr.  L. P.@: DEMERS St. John and Iberville.) (Translation). Mr. Speaker, the measure brought forward by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Madore) deals with one of the most important and the most intricate problems which can engross the attention of a deliberative body. The trouble
is,	how to observe the golden means in dealing with a problem with regard to which there has always been such a broad divergence of opinion among men. The old axiom that money is barren and unproductive, no longer holds good nowadays. I believe that my hon. friend, in introducing this Bill, had in his mind the axiom Which says that [DOT] virtue is removed from extremes ' and that 1 you will go with the greatest safety in a middle path ' ; for, he has chosen a middle path between the extremes of absolute commercial freedom, as it exists now, and absolute restriction as it existed of old.
It is next to impossible to draft a Bill which is not open to some objection or other. It is very seldom that you find a legislation, which does not admit of some exception unforeseen by those who framed
it.	I think this Bill is entitled to our most serious consideration.
Now, coming to the principle of this Bill, I say that in order to determine whether il should be accepted, we have only to inquire whether there exists such an evil an usury in this country. The Bill now before us is an anti-usury legislation. Usury is the taking of more for the use of money than tile law allows, or the extortion of a sum beyond what Is legal. Under tills Bill the maximum rate of interest is fixed at 20 per cent, and it is an indictable offence to charge a higher rate than that.
That, in the great centres particularly usurers are found who charge extortionate rates of interest is beyond question. The leading newspapers in this country have been denouncing that crying evil for years and years.
Under the circumstances, parliament, I believe, should not hesitate to grapple with this problem, and to give its best consideration to the Bill, which was framed with a view to remedying this evil. The principle of this Bill Is excellent, and the committee
to which it is to be referred, will, no doubt, give it their best consideration.
They say that such legislation interferes With freedom of trade; but far from encroaching upon the liberty of commerce, it simply -aims at checking the rapacity of usurers and protecting our brothers and our children, and all those who are exposed, to be victimized by those Sliylocks. It must be borne in mind that liberty is not freedom to do wrong.
Although I agree in principle With this Bill. I reserve to myself the same rights as other lion, gentlemen have to discuss some of the details in committee, and assist the hon. gentleman (Mr. Madore) in making a workable measure out of the Bill he has brought forward. I believe that all usurious contracts and obligations should be declared null and void under' common law, for, a contract which contains unlawful or immoral stipulations is ipso facto null and void. Such is the principle of contracts such as laid down in our Civil Code, and such is the legislation in force In all countries which have adopted the principles of roman law.
That usurious contracts should be set aside is beyond question. But, I may be told : Are you not afraid of giving the sanction of the law to another immorality, I mean, the risk which the lender would incur of not being paid back ? No, Sir, I entertain no such fear, because the lender may have his recourse by means of another action, that Is to say, the lender may recover only to the extent of the amount by which the borrower has benefited.
We could well adopt section 11 of chap. 127 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, which deals with such cases.
I do not intend going at any greater length into the details of the Bill now before the House. I approve of the principle of the measure, and to my mind, the whole question may thus be summed up : Does there exist an evil which calls for such a remedy ?
We owe protection to the weak, and the argument put forward by those who say that the evil is not general enough to call for such drastic legislation, is unfounded. The evil exists, and it is the duty of parliament to grapple with it. In conclusion, l may say that the measure now under discussion is one Which deserves our best consideration, and one which commends itself to the approbation of the House.


Mr.  A. A. C.@: LaRIVIERE (Provencher). While most of those who are supporting the Bill speak from an urban standpoint, I may say that in the western part of Canada and in the new provinces, we need such legislation as that more, perhaps, than it is needed in older provinces. In the new provinces we have men who have failed, to some extent, to succeed in their former places of residence, and have moved out west with the view of bettering their con-

dition. They are not always provided with the means to start an establishment, and are therefore compelled, in many instances, to borrow money, and unfortunately they have to borrow it of those Shylocks, as they have been well described by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Fortin). We have too many of those money-lenders who take advantage of poor men who are trying to improve their condition, and are compelled to resort to men who make a business of lending money at a high rate of interest. Speaking from my own experience, I know many cases where farmers were improving their position, but were compelled to have recourse to these Shylocks, have been in consequence completely ruined ; their properties for which they had paid have been in a short time taken from them, and they have been thrown upon the road and ruined through having been compelled to pay as high as, not 20 per cent, not 50 per cent, but 300 or 400 per cent. I say it is time this House should take this monstrous evil into consideration, and adopt some such measure as that presented by my hon. friend from Hochelaga (Mr. Madore). It is high time that we should put a stop to the doings of these money sharks, because there is absolute need of legislation such as this in the newer provinces of Canada at least, if not in the older provinces.


Mr. T. B. FLINT (Yarmouth).: The old battle over free trade in money and attempts to restrict rates of interest, is now being fought over again to a certain extent in the discussion on this Bill. No doubt a great deal can be said from a practical standpoint as to the advantages of free trade in money, that is, leaving men at perfect liberty to hire or lend money. Under many aspects legislative efforts to restrict the rate of interest in matters of business are necessarily very difficult to enforce; but that there have been such efforts made in the past is evident from a study of history. Principles against taking excessive interest have always prevailed in the mother legislature, as well as in the various legislatures of Canada. The only question that can arise upon that point is whether these restrictions can be made available for the purpose of preventing extortion, and as to the effect of these efforts to protect certain persons that the legislature desires to protect. Those who have perused the reports upon the subject of litigation where excessive interest has been exacted, and where judges have been compelled by law to render judgments for large amounts of interest, have been shocked and wounded in their sense of justice. We must admit that the parties who have fallen into these traps are to be pitied, but in the main it is very difficult to protect them, even with the passage of such a measure as this. There are, unfortunately, persons who have Mr. LaRIVIERE.
no appreciation whatever of the significance of the contract which they have signed. They are, of course, severely pressed for the use of money, like many others, but they are unfortunately unqualified by education or knowledge of financial transactions to know the real nature of the contract which they signed and the obligations under which they are placed, and that the legislature should step in and protect this class of people from extortion I think no one can dispute. As to whether the provisions of this Bill will remedy these evils may be open to question. There are, no doubt, portions of the Bill which can be discussed more practically in committee when each clause is up for consideration and when amendments may be suggested and considered. I notice that this Bill is divided into two parts, to one of which only shall I allude in the few remarks that I propose to make. Clause 0 proposes to add an offence to the Criminal Code and to make persons liable to indictment who charge excessive interest over the rates provided for in this Bill. I question whether the general sense of the committee and the feeling of indignation which people have against those charging excessive interest have gone sufficiently far to declare that a contract which is voluntarily entered into by the supposed victim, and as to which there is necessarily no fraud, should involve a criminal offence. I question whether it is not stretching the powers of this parliament in its jurisdiction over indictable offences too far to make a criminal offence of that which heretofore has not been deemed a criminal offence and which has been deemed a venial offence even from the criminal standpoint. I think there may be discussion as to the advisability of adopting such a course. As to the other questions arising out of the Bill, I think, when we observe that it applies only to contracts where the sum involved is under $500, it is easily perceived that large financial transactions are not affected and that it is only parties who are requiring the use of smail sums of money that this Bill is designed to reach. Another question which may arise in committee is as to the definition of the term ' money-lender,' and as to whether the law, professedly operating for the benefit of practically the whole public, should not provide that one class of money-lenders should be placed entirely on the same basis as all other money-lenders. I think it would be found very difficult in practice, as a matter of litigation, to ascertain the real practical meaning of this term ' money-lender.' If the present practices operate so grievously against the poorer classes of the citizens as to require this drastic legislation,
I think it would be only proper that it should apply to all persons who lend money, whether they are regular money-lenders or not. With these exceptions, I think the principle of the Bill, as it has commended itself to the British parliament and as it

lias commended itself to a number of legislatures on tins continent, might well be accepted by the parliament of Canada and the details worked out in committee in order to carry out the design of the hon. gentleman who has brought this measure forward. As far as I am personally acquainted with business transactions in the maritime provinces I am not aware that extortion or that the evils which have been so graphically and picturesquely described by the hon. gentleman have resulted. The evils seem to be rather particular to the city of Montreal and to some of the larger centres of population in the country, and as my hon. friend (Mr. LaRivi&re), who preceded me, remarked, perhaps in some of the districts of the great west where farmers might find themselves unfortunately involved owing to their ignorance of the contracts they were entering into and owing to their necessities at certain seasons of the year. In the maritime provinces the matter has not been pressed to any great extent on the attention of public men, but with the evidence we have had from the hon. gentlemen who represent these two extremes, I think parliament is honestly bound to endeavour to provide a remedy for that state of affairs which appears to have pressed so grievously upon large classes of the people. I, therefore, while approving of the principle of the Bill, reserve the same right as other hon. gentlemen have to discuss some of the details in committee and endeavour, if possible, to assist my hon. friend in making a workable measure out of the Bill he has brought forward.


Mr.   I@: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I deem it my duty to offer my congratulations to my hon. friend from Hochelaga (Mr. Madore) for having introduced his measure in such eloquent terms. I also congratulate the hon. Senator Dandu-rand who, upon two different occasions, has brought this Bill before the Senate and has succeeded in having it endorsed by his colleagues. This is a measure of public policy, and although an hon. member has expressed the opinion that the victims of usury were not very numerous after all in this country, I may tell him this : that it is not the consideration of the amount at stake or of the number of victims which should induce us to support the Bill introduced by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Madore), but the serious character and the extent of the evil which we are called upon to grapple with.
Alongside with the freedom of doing good, there is also found the liberty of doing wrong, and it is the latter liberty which calls for a restrictive law. We are told that to pass this measure would constitute an infringement upon the freedom of trade. For my part, I confess that I harbour in my breast the highest respect for commercial freedom ; but is it not a matter of fact that every day this principle is being infringed
upon, and that commercial liberty is being curtailed ? Are not the customs and excise duties as many limitations of commercial liberty ? And still, handicapped as trade and commerce are by these necessary restrictions, nobody dreams of complaining about it. Therefore I say that parliament is empowered and is in duty bound to restrict the freedom which money-lenders enjoy of charging extortionate rates of interest. To my mind, the rate of interest stipulated by the present Bill is quite reasonable.
We have drifted very far from the doctrine of Christ. We claim to be a Christian people. Both the Imperial parliament and tlie Dominion parliament are said to be actuated by the most sincere Christian feelings. Now, Sir, without going back very far in the past, I perfectly remember the words of the Divine Master to his disciples : Mutuum date nihil inde sperantes, ' Lend, hoping for nothing again.' But, I ask, can it be said that we are living up to this divine precept when we, in a civilized country, are tolerating the exaction of such exorbitant rates of interest by money-lenders '? It is a well-known fact that money-lenders, particularly iu the city of Montreal, despoil their victims of everything and even of their honour. I speak with a full knowledge of the facts, and the hon. member for Hochelaga could give the names of money-lenders who charge as high as 200 per cent interest. During my professional career, I have been called upon to occupy in cases before the court of assize where it was shown that young men had been led to the penitentiary by those Shylocks whom my hon. friend has just denounced with so much vigour. Take for instance the case at the 'Banque Ville Marie,' when two young accountants were arrested, after having completely wrecked an institution which had so far been looked upon as perfectly solvent. One of them was sentenced to the penitentiary and the other discharged by reason of his youth. Those two young men had been brought before the court, in consequence of their relations with usurers.
All this goes to show that the existing evil calls for parliamentary interference, and the limitation of the rate of interest when, for instance, you prevent people from taking their money to the lotteries, do you not restrict their freedom ? And yet, parliament did not hesitate to pass legislation for doing away with these lotteries. Again, was it not, on the part of parliament an encroachment upon the liberty of commerce to incorporate in our criminal code clauses making it an indictable offence to form trade combines or trusts, having for their object the undue enhancement of prices. Now, if it is lawful to restrict freedom of trade, with a view to preventing the creation of trusts and combines, and the running of lotteries ; if it is lawful to impose customs and excise duties, I think it is still more lawful to adopt a legislation framed with

a view to protect weak or necessitous men from being overreached or oppressed by usurers.
On these several grounds, I intend to give my support to the Bill introduced by my hon. friend (Mr. Madore), and I hope it will be carried into law.


Mr. F. B. WADE (Annapolis).: The question of interest is regulated by chap. 127 R.S.C. and amending Acts. The law is not uniform for all the provinces, certain provisions applying to certain provinces only, and do not have general application. Some of its provisions relate to the province of Nova Scotia only. I refer particularly to section 13, chap. 127 as amended, which provides that at the present time interest upon real estate securities cannot exceed 7 per cent per annum, and on all other contracts, if there is not a stipulation, the rate is 5 per cent and there cannot be an agreement for over 10 per cent. Now, the Bi 1 which we are considering deals with transactions under $500, and legalizes the exacting of interest up to 20 per cent, and so would alter the law as it is in Nova Scotia by increasing the maximum rate of interest upon sums under $500 to 20 per cent. For that reason I object to the Bill. It does seem that the difficulty which is contemplated by the preamble of the Bill exists only in the province of Quebec and therefore it would be well to exempt the province of Nova -Scotia from its provisions, or let the same apply only to the province of Ontario and Quebec. If it is desirable that the law should apply to the province of Quebec I am sure I have no objection. We are not troubled with very many moneylenders in the province of Nova Scotia. The great worry with us is to find somebody to lend money to us.
utmost freedom of trade in the matter of lending and borrowing money. Many years ago the Usury laws so called, which prohibited the charging of more than a fixed rate of interest, were abolished, and the general opinion will be that since then money has become cheaper and cheaper year after year. I can remember very well when 10 per cent, or even 1 per cent per month was not considered a very inconsiderable charge to make for money on note of hand. That has all passed by now. In the maritime provinces on good security money can be freely borrowed at 5 per cent, and 6 per cent, 7 per cent, and 8 per cent is considered a good interest to pay on note of hand. My hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Fortin) stated the case in a nutshell when he said that while the principle of free trade in regard to the rate of interest is a good one, that possibly there might be exceptional circumstances which would justify a deviation from that good rule. The hon. gentleman from Hochelaga (Mr. Madore) told us that this Bill is based largely upon the Act which passed the Imperial House of Commons last year. I have given some attention to that English legislation and I read the report of the committee upon it and the debate in the House. It must be remembered that the law as it ultimately passed the British House of Commons is not at all of the same nature as the Bill now before us. There are special circumstances existing in England, particularly in London, which do not exist in Canada. Every one knows of the great scandals which resulted from the publication of the transactions of tlie celebrated usurer Isaac Gordon who died last year.


An hon. MEMBER.: Lewis.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I was filled with envy when I learned that the young men of Quebec were able to borrow money even at 20 per cent. We in Nova Scotia never found anyone who would favour us thus. I would therefore suggest that the province of Nova Scotia should be omitted from the provisions of this Bill, or if it goes to a committee, I trust that these matters may be considered so that the law may not be affected as it is in our province at the present time.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: There is evidently a broad divergence of opinion amongst hon. members with regard to this Bill, and I am glad to say that the cleavage of opinion is not upon political lines. I was not aware until it had been stated here that a similar Bill had been passed by the Senate last year. I knew it was introduced, but I was surprised to hear that it had received the sanction of the Senate. The policy of the government of -Canada (not of the existing administration, but of the government of Canada) has always been to permit the Mr. LEMIEUX.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No ; I refer to Isaac Gordon: Lewis was another. There is a class of money-lenders in England who carry on their business by means of circulars containing more or less misrepresentations, which class does not exist in this community at all. It was against that class alone that the English legislation was directed. But they did not pass that legislation hurriedly. The matter was brought before the British parliament some years ago, and a special committee, the members of which were selected for their peculiar qualification, was appointed to investigate. They heard a great many witnesses, including some of the most distinguished jurists of the High Court in England : Mr. Justice Mathew, Mr. Justice Hawkins, and that celebrated soli-tor, Mr. George Lewis. And, after hearing the evidence of these witnesses as to the existence of the peculiar evil which required remedy, the government introduced the Bill. There was a report made by the committee to which I have referred and upon which the legislation was subsequently based, and that report contains the following :

After carefully considering the evidence which has been given in regard to particular transactions and the general expressions of opinion of persons so well qualified to form a judgment as Sir Henry Hawkins, Sir James Charles Mathew, Sir George Lewis, the inspector general in bankruptcy and the county court judges, your committee have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the system of money-lending by professional moneylenders at high rates of interest is productive of crime, bankruptcy, unfair advantage over the creditors of the borrower, extortion from the borrower's family and friends, and other serious injuries to the community.
And although your committee are satisfied that the system is sometimes honestly conducted, they are of the opinion that only in rare cases is a person benefited by loan obtained from a professional money-lender, and that the evil attendant upon the system far outweighs the good.
They therefore consider that there is urgent need for the interposition of the legislature with a view to removing the evil.
I take it that if any facts were given to this House to show a condition of affairs in Canada similar to those that exists in England there would he little hesitation in passing the necessary legislation. But, who has contended in this House that the present system of lending at higher than 6 per cent, or 10 per cent, or perhaps higher than 20 per cent in exceptional cases ; who in this House has pretended to cite facts showing that that system has heen productive of ' crime, bankruptcy, unfair advantage over other creditors of the borrower and extortion from the borrower's family and others.' These things may exist in Canada, but we have not heard of them. Speaking for the part of the Dominion I have the honour to come from, I do not know that any such things exist. X have spoken with some of my maritime province friends and we are pretty well agreed that the evil does not exist to. any great extent in these provinces. The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Fortin), who is a distinguished member of the legal profession living in Montreal, is not able to state that in his judgment a very serious state of affairs exists there, and I understand it is largely upon the conditions said to exist in Montreal that this Bill is introduced.


Mr. LEMIEXJX.: In the whole province.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: While I do not challenge the statement which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) makes


Rodolphe Lemieux: And amongst the farmers too.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: So far as I can gather from statements of gentlemen on the other side of the House, there is no evil in the province of Ontario calling for this legislation. I know the evil does not exist in the maritime provinces, but on the statement of the hon. member for Proveneher (Mr. LaRivi6re) and the statement of the hon. gentleman from
Gaspg (Mr. Lemieux), the evil may exist in the provinces of Manitoba and Quebec. If it does exist to any great extent, I have no doubt the House will be prepared to grapple with it.
Let us just see what the Bill is which my hon. friend proposes. He does not propose as a rule to remedy the extortion, which he states sometimes exists, of undue interest. His Bill is intended to apply only to a particular class of cases, that is, in the first place, to loans below $500. Under his Bill you could charge 40, 60 or 70 per cent on a loan of $501 or above that. There is no attempt to limit the rate of interest on such loans. Therefore, he has to show a special condition of circumstances existing which justifies us in adopting the arbitrary limit of $500, and making illegal a rate of interest on sums below $500 which we are willing should be legal on sums above that amount. But the hon. gentleman says also, and says properly, that we must confine the legislation also to a particular class, that is, money-lenders. In defining this class he has tried to give definiteness to that which otherwise would be entirely vague. He proposes that the Bill shall apply only to one who makes a practice of lending money at a higher rate than 10 per cent per annum. That in itself is not very definite. It would be diffi-cut to prove, before the benefits of the law could be invoked, that any particular money-lender came within that category. The English law, of which this purports to be more or less a copy, provides that the money-lender shall be registered, both by name and by place of business, and that he shall only do business under the registered name, and at the registered place. He is thus made a special class set apart, and is registered under one of the departments of the state and receives a license. If he attempts to do business at any other place or under any other name than that registered, he is liable to a criminal prosecution and punishment.
My hon. friend will see further that it would lie absolutely essential to do in this Act what is done in the English Act-exempt from its operation all friendly societies. The hon. gentleman in his definition exempts pawnbrokers, and very properly. But that would not be sufficient. There are companies, such as building societies, loan companies and friendly societies, authorized by parliament to carry on business, and they might very well under some circumstances come within the operation of this Act. I take it that they would have to be exempted, as also all banking and insurance companies, who also might come under the operation of this Act, if left as it is now.
But assuming that we got on that far and agreed as to the class of people who should come within the purview of the Act, and those who should be exempted,

what would be the next step ? My hon. friend undertakes in the third section to make the contract illegal, and then he goes on to give power, in case a suit is brought under the contract, to the judges to intervene in certain cases. I venture to suggest to him that if his Bill goes to a committee, it would be better to follow the English Act, and not declare that the transaction in itself shall be illegal at all, but confine our legislation to two things-to refusing to permit the machinery of the courts to be used to give effect to an improper transaction when we define what an improper transaction is, and, if necessary, giving power to the borrower to have the transaction opened up in court.
The hon. gentleman proposes to make, as a criterion of what would be a rascally and unconscionable transaction, a fixed rate of interest. Now, I agree thoroughly with what the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Fortin) said. The mere mention of a rate of interest is no test of the bona fides or mala fides of a transaction. I can well conceive that under certain circumstances 20 per cent would be a most rascally rate of interest, while under other circumstances it would be nothing but fair. Every hon. gentleman knows that if a man were borrowing $1,000 or $2,000 on the security of a good farm, 20 per cent would be rascally extortion ; but if a man wanted to borrow $1,000 when his credit would not enable him to get it at a bank at the bank rate, when he had no security to deposit, nothing except his own name, it may well be that his credit would be so bad and the circumstances surrounding the transaction such that 20 per cent would be charged, and would be no evidence of mala fides at all. He might perhaps want the loan only for a day or for a week. My hon. friend from Laval cited the case of the celebrated Black Friday in New York, when as much as this prohibited rate of interest was charged for a week, let alone for a year ; and there are circumstances that occur from time to time in the lives of commercial men, particularly in large cities, when it is absolutely essential that they must have large sums of money ; and they must pay large rates of interest for it, because they do not happen to have, at the moment, the necessary security.
Therefore, I would venture to suggest to my hon. friend that he should follow the principle adopted in the English Act. What is that principle ? It is one which may not commend itself to every member of the House. It does not accept the rate of interest as the test, but the whole transaction as it will appear to the court, and it is left entirely to the court to be determined on the evidence, whether the transaction is an unconscionable one which ought to be set aside, or whether it is not. Many men will say, that is a very poo:' test, because some judges would take an ethical view of the


Sir LOUIS DAVIES.: facts, and others a very different view. I agree to that. I know judges who would look upon more than 10 per cent as outrageous under any conceivable circumstances, while others would look on 20 per cent as quite reasonable and fair. Therefore, to leave the matter absolutely to the courts to determine the character of each transaction, is very much like the test of the length of a judge's foot, or how far he will stretch his conscience ; but I know of no other, and that was the one adopted in the English Act eventually. As the Act was introduced, it contained a schedule with a fixed rate of interest beyond which it was illegal for the lender to charge ; but before the Bill passed through parliament that was eliminated, and it simply provided :
1.-(1.) Where proceedings are taken in any court by a money-lender for the recovery of any money lent after this Act comes into operation, or the enforcement of any agreement or security made or taken after the commencement of this Act in respect of money lent either before or after the commencement of this Act, and there is evidence which satisfies the court that the interest charged in respect of the sum actually lent is excessive, or that the amounts charged for expenses, inquiries, fines, bonus premium, renewals, or any other charges, are excessive, and that, in either case, the transaction is harsh and unconscionable, the court may re-open the transaction, and take an account between the money-lender and the person sued, and may, notwithstanding any statement or settlement of account or any agreement purporting to close previous dealings and create a new obligation, reopen any account already taken between them, and relieve the person sued from payment of any sum in excess of the sum adjudged by the court to be fairly due in respect of such principal, interest and charges as the court, having regard to the risk and all the circumstances, may adjudge to be reasonable ; and if any such excess has been paid, or allowed in account, by i Ike debtor, may order the creditor to repay it and may set aside, either wholly or in part, or revise, or alter, any security given or agreement made in respect of money lent by the moneylender, and if the money-lender has parted with the security may order him to indemnify the borrower or other person sued.
In the evidence taken before the House of Commons in England, it was shown that cases were brought before the courts of such an excessively cruel and harsh nature that the county court judges had either to evade the law or else be a party to a gross injustice. In England the courts have the power to make judgments payable by instalments, and in some cases they made the instalments so ridiculously low that the amount could never be recovered by the lender. In that way the courts evaded the law and protected the borrower against gross injustice. To put an end to this condition of affairs, the English Act provided that the judges dealing with such cases could inquire into all the circumstances, and give a judgment decreeing what they thought reasonable and fair. If a judge came to the conclusion that the transaction

was a harsh and unconscionable transaction, he had power to open it up again, but not otherwise. That provision I suggest to the hon. member for consideration, as one which he might incorporate in his Bill, but he has taken an entirely different line by establishing an arbitrary rate of Interest, without taking into consideration the circumstances under which the loan may have been made or the person to whom it was given.
I would draw my hon. friend's attention to what may have been unintentional on his part, and that is, that he has made the section retroactive. The provisions of his Bill extend to transactions which are legal under the law as it stands. I do not suppose he intended to make his measure retroactive and apply it to transactions which were perfectly legal under the present law.
There is another feature of the English law which commends itself to my mind, and that is, that not only can the court reopen the whole case when the suit is brought by the lender, but the borrower himself has the right to initiate proceedings to have the transaction declared harsh and unconscionable. Suppose a money-lender chooses to lay upon his oars and say : This young man has prospects in the future, I will not sue him now, my note is bearing 2 per cent a month, and I can afford to put it by in the safe and let it lie there until I can collect it. Well, under the English law, the borrower would have the right to initiate proceedings himself in order to have the transaction set aside and a fair agreement come to.
Therefore, I submit to my hon. friend that the principle adopted in England is entirely different from that he asks us to adopt, and that instead of fixing the rate of interest he should leave that entirely to the judgment of the courts.
Then, provisions should be made to protect the bona fide assignee of a note.


Joseph Alexandre Camille Madore: Section 5 does this.
The MINISTER	OF MARINE AND
FISHERIES. I do not think it goes far enough. This section provides :
The bona fide holder, before maturity of a negotiable instrument discounted by a preceding holder at a rate of interest exceeding that authorized by this Act, may nevertheless recover the amount thereof?
From whom ?


Joseph Alexandre Camille Madore: From the lender.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The English legislature very properly protected the bona fide holder for value without notice. It provides that nothing In the Act shall affect the rights of any bona fide assignee or holder for value without notice.
Then, there is a very objectionable principle in the Bill referred to by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Fortin), and that is, you are, in a partial way at least, giving
legislative sanction to an exorbitant rate of interest. One part of the Bill provides for an interest of 20 per cent, and that rate would be accepted by the whole community as the legal rate of interest up to $500. I do not think we should give legislative sanction to a 20 per cent rate of interest, because we would be thereby re-enacting the usury law to that extent. We have hitherto let the lending and borrowing of money depend upon the contract the parties might make between them, and if you determine to interfere with that policy, you should only do so to a very limited extent, and only where you have evidence of very serious evils which call for interference.
Section 9, in my opinion, would have to be remodelled, because it is certainly retroactive and unfair. My hon. friend from Yarmouth (Mr. Flint) seemed to doubt whether we had the power to pass legislation of this kind, but no doubt we have the power, whatever may be our view of the policy, of incorporating criminal and civil legislation in the one Bill. Our power to make the practice a criminal one is unquestionable.
In my opinion the frame of the Bill will have to be largely recast before it can be accepted by this House. We should drop the fixing of any special rate in the Bill as evidence that the transaction is bona fide or mala fide; and, if we attempt to proceed at all, we must proceed on the lines of only prohibiting the forms and the powers of the court from being used to enforce an unrighteous contract ; let the judge determine on all the facts of the case, whether the transaction brought before him comes within that definition or not; and, if it is a harsh, and unconscionable, and unjust contract, give the judge the power to open it up, and let him determine on the facts of the case. I think, also, we shall have to agree upon defining what a money-lender is. We must exempt the societies and corporations to which I referred, otherwise they would be brought within the purview of the Act, and we would have to decide whether the money-lenders we are striking at ought not to be registered, and have their business governed by the law as under the English Act.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: Speaking for Toronto, and from what I know of Ontario, I do not think there is any need for this Bill. I have heard very little complaint, certainly of late years, of any great hardship in connection with usury. When times are hard, it is quite natural that cases will happen of very high rates of interest being charged. But, I do not think many such cases prevail, at any rate, in the older communities. I dare say that in Manitoba things may be different, and that there, money being scarce, very high rates will be charged. I think it would be a mistake to enact such a law as this, for it is not required now, and it would have a very

bad effect as interfering with freedom of trade in this regard. If a man is desparate-ly hard up, he will borrow money from a money-lender if he can, no matter what laws you make to prevent him doing so; and, often the more difficult you make the borrowing of money under these circumstances, the higher the rate the borrower has to pay, because of the greater risk the lender runs; and yet the lending and borrowing will go on where men are bound to have money, and other men will lend it at a very high rate taking risks. I fail to see how any good can come of this Bill, even if it is passed by the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
(In Committee.)
Mr. BRITTON.: There is a great deal of opposition to this Bill in the country. I express now no opinion on the merits of the measure; but those who are opposing it and making representations to this House with reference to it, expect that the Bill will go to the Committee on Banking and Commerce, and that they can state their wishes there. It seems to me that putting the Bill through the different stages now, would only invite the opposition to it which, perhaps, will not tend to such calm and fair discussion of it as would result if the Bill were referred, and further time taken for the discussion of its provision.


Mr. TISDALE.: I beg to move that the Committee rise.


Thomas Barnard Flint: I think there is a great deal of force in the recommendation of my hon. friend from Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale), if he desires further consideration. But the effect of that motion would be that the Bill would be practically destroyed.


David Tisdale: That is what I moved for.


Thomas Barnard Flint: If the motion were that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again-


David Tisdale: No, we want to get a vote on the Bill.


Thomas Barnard Flint: The effect of the motion 1 speak of would be to continue the Bill on the Order paper. As one favourable to the principle, but objecting to some of the details, I would not object to the Committee reporting, that we might have further time for discussion. The contention of my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Britton) that this Bill should go before the Banking and Commerce Committee has much force in. Though this is a public Bill, and does not necessarily go to the Banking and Commerce Committee, the House has always recognized that in the case of any Bills of an exceptional character it is well to have them discussed either before a standing committee of the House or before a special committee. The


Edmund Boyd Osler: Banking and Commerce Committee would have the advantage not only of the opinions of very able members representing the legal and commercial classes, but there would be a full hearing from gentlemen outside who could give valuable evidence as to some of the questions of fact that have come up in this discussion. The questions of fact raised are as to the necessity for the Bill in, say, the maritime provinces or the province of Ontario, or whether certain provinces might not well be exempt from its operations. My hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) has raised the question whether, if this Bill should be adopted, there would not be a necessity for amending some of the laws relating to usury in the province of Nova Scotia. I have not looked into that question, but it is well worthy of consideration. If it is in accordance with the rules of the House, I would move in amendment that this Bill be referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce.


Mr. SPEAKER.: That would be irregular; it could not be done.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I want the gentleman who introduced the Bill, which certainly received some support from both sides of the House, to have something, like fair-play in the matter. I stated my objections to the Bill very frankly and fully, and suggested lines on which I thought he might redraft it. For one, I am not prepared to kill the Bill right off without giving some time, at any rate, for him to consider the suggestions made on both sides of the House. I recognize that this Bill is not an ordinary Bill, it is a matter of grave importance, affecting the commercial transactions of our people from one end of Canada to the other, and, therefore, it is not to be treated hastily. I do not think it is a fair way to treat the Bill to move that the Committee rise, at any rate, until after my hon. friend tells me that he will not consider the suggestions. If he says he will not consider the suggestions made on the second reading at all, or consider the propriety of redrafting his Bill, why, that would be another thing. But I understand that he is prepared to consider the suggestions made, and, therefore, I thought that we ought not to rise, but that we ought to report progress.


David Tisdale: I have no such desire, but I gathered from the expressions of opinion that were made that we were simply wasting the time of the House, because the feeling is against the Bill. I have no desire whatever to interfere with the Bill or be unfair to the Bill. If there is any such suggestion as that, I beg to withdraw my motion. I thought the members had sufficiently expressed themselves, and I wanted to go on with the Bill.
Motion withdrawn.


Joseph Alexandre Camille Madore: X need not say to the Committee that I am quite prepared to receive any suggestions that may be made from either side of the House, or from a committee to which that Bill may be referred later on. The draft I have just submitted contains the principle of the Bill, and provided that principle is admitted, I am quite willing to go either to a Committee of the whole House or to a special committee, there to consider any suggestions that may be made. For instance, the suggestions made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries are certainly deserving of discussion and consideration. We did not follow the lines of the English Bill because we considered that the circumstances in this country are not the same as in England, especially those in the province of Quebec. We did not propose to give to the judge the power to reopen the case, to go back to the beginning of the transaction, in order to ascertain whether the rate of interest charged is too high or not, and to leave that question altogether to his discretion. We thought that according to our procedure in the province of Quebec such a provision would be almost impracticable. When the borrower was sued by the lender for the amount claimed to be due, capital and interest, if the rate of interest was too high, and if it was left entirely to the judge to decide what amount should be charged, the defendant, even if he admitted his indebtedness, could not know the exact amount he would have to pay, and he could not make a tender to the plaintiff because in order to do so he must tender the amount that he really owes. If he does not tender the full amount of his debt, even if he succeeded in having the rate of interest claimed from him reduced, the whole cost of the contestation would fall on his shoulders.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Not necessarily ; a judge has discretion.


Joseph Alexandre Camille Madore: A judge has discretion, no doubt, but this is the general principle followed in the province of Quebec, and it requires extraordinary circumstances before a judge can change that almost universal principle. Then the debtor would succeed in having the rate of interest reduced, and would have to pay the costs, perhaps more costs than if he had paid the whole amount demanded from him by the action. This is one of the objections we discussed when we framed the Bill, and this is one of the considerations that determined us to take other means, that is, fixing the maximum rate of interest, and that is why we have put it in the draft. Now, after discussion, we might come to the conclusion that the means adopted by the English parliament are better than those incorporated in the draft. But I think we should be given an opportunity of discussing the various provisions, and it is for that reason, now that the motion of my hon. friend has been withdrawn, that I move that this committee do now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: So far as any question of fairness in the motion of my hon. friend behind me (Mr. Tisdale) is concerned, I do not think that will arise at all. because if it is the opinion of the House that the Bill should not proceed further, it is perfectly proper for my hon. friend to make the motion that he did. So far as the object of the Bill is concerned, I have no doubt it is intended to redress what may have been an evil. It may be a question, however, whether it is an evil that can be redressed by legislation, because the complexity of business matters is such, and there are so many degrees of improvidence in the manner in which people conduct their business, that it is absolutely impossible to cover every case of the kind by legislation. If parliament is to deal with this matter at all, I would mucli prefer it should deal with it on the lines of the English legislation, for reasons which have been set forth by many hon. gentlemen in the House, and which I need not repeat. The idea of the English legislation seems to be this : There are contracts which the courts will set aside on account of the situation of the parties, for example, by reason of duress, or by reason of certain relations existing between the parties, such as those of solicitor and client, or guardian and ward. Now, what the English parliament has done is simply to add to the grounds upon which the courts can set aside contracts, the circumstances that an excessive rate of interest has been taken. One disadvantage attending that mode of dealing with it is, of course, that it may involve a long and protracted inquiry, and involve a large amount of costs with respect to a comparatively small sum. Still, on the whole, I should think, if we are to deal with this matter at all by legislation, that would be better than the way proposed in the Bill before the committee. I would think that a better course to take with regard to this Bill would be to refer it to the Committee on Banking and Commerce. We understand that last year, in the Senate, a Bill of a somewhat similar character was referred to a special committee, and that committee made a very exhaustive inquiry. For my part, I would think that if this Bill is to be proceeded with, it would be better to discharge the order and to move to have it committed to the Committee on Banking and Commerce, and then that committee could make such amendments to it as might be suggested by the hon. gentleman who has introduced the Bill or by any other hon. gentleman. Under such circumstances, we could deal with the Bill more effectively than we can at present.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am favourable, as my Uoii. friend knows, to bis Bill, but it occurs to me that the feeling of the House at the present time is against it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Not at all.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In its present form. I think the best way to deal with the Bill would be to refer it, as was done in the Senate, to a special committee, upon which there would be representatives from each province, who could confer and also compare with it the English legislation which in many details differs from those of this Bill. When that has been done the House will be better able to appreciate the Bill than it is to-day.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The motion made by my hon. friend is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. The only reason that I for one did not press the motion to go into Committee was that there had been a good deal of discussion on the second reading, half finished discussion, which really ought to have been a discussion in Committee, and I thought when we got here and commenced to discuss the details, we would proceed a certain distance, and if the feeling of the House was against the Bill, we could report progress, or dispose of it in Committee the way we pleased. It is quite evident that the Bill will either have to go to a select committee named for the purpose, or to one of the standing committees of the House, such as the Banking and Commerce Committee. My hon. friend in moving that the committee rise and report progress, is taking a step in that direction. He will consider afterwards which course he will take, refer the Bill to a special committee, or refer it to a standing committee.


James Clancy: I think the House ought to know now the course that the hon. gentleman proposes to adopt. This is a very important Bill, and a great many valuable suggestions have been thrown out on the assumption that the Bill shall be passed in some form or another. There are a very large number of hon. gentlemen in this House who think that the Bill should not pass in any form. The House ought to know what course the hon. gentleman proposes to take.
Mr. MADOItE. Mr. Chairman, the course I intend to take is to ask that this Bill be referred either to the Banking and Commerce Committee or to a special committee, formed as suggested by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). As I have had no time to think over that last pioposal, and as I would like the committee to be as equal and impartial as'possible, between both sides of the House, and to be representative of the different


Robert Laird Borden: provinces, I ask that the committee rise, so that between now* and the next sitting, we will have an opportunity of agreeing together.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, I have formed an opinion of this Bill, and before voting upon it, I think I have a right to demand the fullest information which can be given in regard to a measure of this character. It is very evident that the circumstances which have occasioned it, and the scope and application of the Bill, are largely confined to one province, and are not applicable to the other provinces of the Dominion. Therefore, I, an inhabitant of another portion of the country than that which is the subject of this Bill, ask for some better reasons than those which have been given by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Madore), who has brought this Bill forward and who is appealing to the judgment of those from other provinces in order to influence their opinions, and to induce them to give their sanction to a Bill of a very severe character. If I read correctly this Bill, and I do not profess to be a lawyer, the court has to come in and nullify, if necessary, an agreement entered upon in good faith. Further on in this Bill, if I understand it, there is a very severe penalty imposed upon any one who violates its provisions, and who, by one inducement or another, is prevailed upon to lend money at a rate of interest in excess of that stipulated in the Bill. I consider, although the object of the Bill may be a good one, although the hon. gentleman may aim, in the principle of his Bill, at putting down an improper practice which may prevail in his portion of the country, especially where this Bill will have application to one of th& provinces in the country, and where the conditions complained of do not exist, that the measure is one of a very harmful character. I see in the 9th clause that every money-lender who lends money at a rate in excess of the rate set down in the Bill, is guilty of an indictable offence, and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to a penalty not exceeding $1,000. I consider that provision one which should demand the fullest attention of hon. gentlemen in this House, and also that hon. gentlemen from other provinces in the Dominion should consider whether the situation of the country demands the passage of such a severe measure as this, imposing such restrictions and penalties. I know, Sir, that a money-lender is a very odious object in this country, I know that a man who has money is sometimes an object of opprobium, and I know a great many people are willing to inveigh against people who have money, to declare that they are an injury to the community, and that as speedily as possible, either by Act of parliament, or by act of the persons themselves, this money shall be got away from-

those who have it and distributed amongst those who have none. 1 know that to stand up and defend money-lenders, or bankers, or any of that objectionable class, is sometimes a work of supererogation, and that the person who does so renders himself an object of suspicion to all sorts of people. Now, Sir, it may be that the person who lends money, under precisely the circumstances set out in this Bill, may do the individual who has accepted the loan a life-long benefit. I know that young men who, under certain distressing circumstances, would have given 100 per cent, afterwards to be paid, if they could have got a loan which would have saved them from disgrace and utter ruin when their prospects were such that a kindly loan of a little money would have relieved them perhaps from the severe strain through which they had to pass. If a person would come forward and make a loan under those circumstances, a borrower would look upon him as a life-long benefactor. There are other situations like that which I have disclosed, but there are also circumstances in which a man might become involved commercially. A man also may have a speculation in hand which may return him a large amount of profit, but, he is unable to embark upon it, simply from the fact that he has not the fulcrum upon which to place the lever. In my experience I have often helped people with small loans of money, and I will give a little suggestion to some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, who, on some occasions, may be disposed to be benevolent. I find that in some cases it was not safe to charge any rate of interest at all, but to place the thing simply upon the honour of the individual, because, if you charged 10 per cent, or 25 per cent, or 50 per cent, the borrower would say : That man paid himself out of the money he extorted from me out of my necessities, and I will not pay him back again. If you stand upon a man's honour and give him a timely loan, he is very far down in the scale of manhood, if he has the money, if he does not come forward and pay you for the loan. There is another case ; there are a great many gentlemen who come to you for a small loan for a very short time, and it is always safe to lend such a one a small amount, because in a great many cases he will never come back to see you, and if he does come back, perhaps he will pay that loan and want to borrow more from you. Now, this Bill is to a great extent founded in reprobation of the practices of the Jews. We know the history of the Jews. Some hon. gentlemen opposite know the history of the Jews. Some do not.
I am not going to refer to the history of Jews as set down in the sacred books, because T know every gentleman opposite is familiar with that ; but, I am going to 01
refer briefly to the history of the Jews in the Dark Ages. You will remember that from A.D. 600 to the time of the Reformation, the Jews were very prevalent in Spain and Portugal and Germany. They did not deal in real estate nor in tangible securities ; they usually looked to the good faith of the individual, and they were keen judges of character, but they had a uniform rate of 5 per cent per month interest. The interest for two years ate up the principal, and if there were any mortgage attached to the loan, the Jew got the property. That condition continued until the Jews had secured a very large portion of the real estate in those countries. It, therefore, became an object for all those who were debtors of the Jews, or those who hated the Jews, to unite in those frightful persecutions which took place in the Dark Ages so called. Now, Sir, I think there is something of the spirit of that persecution in this Bill. Perhaps the hon. gentleman himself or some of his friends have suffered from the exactions of the Jews in the province of Quebec. In that happy portion of the Dominion whence I come, and from which the hon. leader of the opposition comes, the great difficulty there is to obtain a reliable person to whom to lend any money. In fact, if one bank obtains a good loan all the directors and the manager and the clerks of the rival banks set out to say to the borrower : Oh, the bank over there has charged you 54 per cent, and we have lots of money that we lend out to railway corporations-sometimes on pretty good security and sometimes on pretty bad security-come over to our bank and we will treat you well. And if the borrower has good responsibles and security, and if it be an undertaking which, in addition to its own inherent merit, has something of popular favour to commend it, why, all the directors of that bank unite to use their personal influence, and sometimes their political influence, to induce the corporation or individual to take the loan from them, which starts the undertaking on its way and which undertaking may ultimately prove a benefit to the individual as well as to the people of the country. In my portion of the country, not only were the banks content to lend to all customers who could bring forward good security, but they came up to the city of Montreal, this pest district that has been referred to. They entered into rivalry with the Bank of Montreal and the Bank of Toronto and the bank of everywhere else, and they loaned money to all good customers who had proper securities at lower rates than the Bank of Montreal or the Bank of Toronto, or any of those protected institutions could afford to. Why, these banks were driven to the state of New York to lend their money, and the Bank of Nova Scotia, and the other banks in my province have come up to Canada to stay. They have opened up there benevolent institutions in other provinces ; they have



gone to tlie extreme verge of civilization on the Pacific coast to open branches ; they have gone to the West Indies ; they have gone to Trinidad, and they have gone to all parts of the earth from that little city of Halifax to lend money to every one who needed it, and who could bring forward good security. The good security is the thing, gentlemen. These banking institutions from Nova Scotia have gone to other nationalities ; they have gone to Brazil, and they have loaned money there to build railways, and they have loaned money to build railways in Jamaica, and if any person came forward with a good and matured scheme for completing the Panama canal or building the Nicaragua canal, there is plenty of capital in this country which enterprising men would lend to construct these great public works which carry on the commerce of the world. That brings me home to the subject of this Bill, and I say that the Bill has running through it the negative to the main essential of every Bill of a sumptuary character, which is, that the loaning of money is dependent upon good security, and that the money will follow the good security. Without asking for proof or* without any general corroboration of the statements made by hon. gentlemen, I will assume it to be a fact that there is usury in the city of Montreal. Those money-lenders always scrutinize carefully the quality of the security, and it is because there is a risk in the security, and the man is afraid that he will neither get his principal or his interest, that he charges a high rate. The moneylender ought to be paid for that .risk, and he also ought to be pai d for the opprobrium 'that a man in his business experiences. The fact that he first of all possesses the money, and secondly, that he has not yielded to the solicitation of the borrower sooner but has put him off from day to day, is also to be considered. Now, what remedy is [DOT]suggested ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Madore) has told us that his province is suffering under the exactions of these moneylenders, and he has disclosed a situation which is alarming. But I would like to know what would be the situation if the money-lenders were not there ? Has the hon. gentleman ever contemplated the condition of people in desperate circumstances where there is no money-lender to relieve them at 10 per cent or 20 per cent or 50 per cent ? Does he not know that there are extreme cases of poverty and want occurring from day to day where a man wishes only to obtain a temporary loan, where a little ready money would be a great relief to families, and when those men who have money to lend are hailed as benefactors ?
. Now, Sir, I set out with these two essen-' tials: the security, and the money that is to be loaned upon the security. But, I would say this, that if this money-lending is so profitable in that portion of the country, under the ordinary law of supply and de-Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).
maud would not capital flow in ? Should not there be many money-lenders ? Would they not preponderate in the community until they -would outnumber the borrowers? Would not those men who are ready to embark in precarious enterprises, who are willing to risk a good deal with the object of making a good deal, go and open in Montreal their pawnbroking shops, and their money-lending shops, in order to lend money to needy people ? And would not they, among them, reduce the rate of interest to ordinary commercial limits ?
I have not at all referred to those risks which are specially precarious-those which are speculative, like the stock exchange, like lotteries, like other operations which may be termed gambling. I have not gone into anything of that kind-into cases where perhaps a young gentleman has contracted a debt of honour, or those cases where a person has assumed a personal obligation, under circumstances which demand of him the discharge of his obligation. But, I have used ordinary commercial transactions, and 1 have hinted at remedies which can be brought forward in the ordinary commercial way.
Now, if the hon. gentleman would be content to take one provision of his Bill, and make the forfeiture of the loan the penalty for charging an excessive rate of interest, perhaps there would be many in this House who would be disposed to give their support to his measure. His intentions are benevolent and right. I have no doubt he has been shocked to see how many persons in the community have perhaps been beggared, or deprived to a large extent of their means, by the excessive rates charged by these money-lenders. To me, the tiling was quite a novelty. I did not know that it existed in the community. My poor wits have been exercised for a long time in money institutions in endeavouring to find profitable modes of investment for money- to procure good customers who would take loans, and who, the security being good, would be able to pay a fair rate of interest. In other provinces of the Dominion the rate of interest is speedily diminishing, and people who have capital to embark, and who obtain their livelihood from the interest derivable from their capital, are seeking for places of investment. I think the remedy for the evil aimed at by this Bill would be to strike out the clause which calls for fine and imprisonment, and make the loan unlawful when an excessive rate of interest is charged.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Six o'clock.


William Roche: 
Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: When the House rose at six o'clock, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) was addressing the House on the Bill now before the committee, and I am sorry the hon. gentleman is not now present, as some of the remarks I intend to make have special reference to what he said. Many of the clauses of this Bill have my support because they are intended to relieve the habitants in the province of Quebec from the exactions of the money-lenders, and judging from the enthusiasm thrown into the debate by the hon. gentlemen who support this measure, the Quebec habitant must be suffering severely. My hon. friend from Halifax undertook to show us that the money-lenders ought to have the sympathy of this House, but for my part my sympathies are all drawn to the poor habitant of Lower Canada. We all know how difficult it is for men who have settled on the soil to make both ends meet, especially when blest with the large families which are one of the characteristics of our French Canadian compatriots. In old France I believe there is a premium offered for large families, and I think it would be a better policy on the part of this government to pay a premium for a similar purpose here rather than spend the money in bringing out immigrants from the old world.
The hon. member for Halifax, I am told, is a farmer, but he is also one of the wealthiest men in this House. In fact, I believe he is a millionaire. Let me say here that the hon. gentleman is a personal friend of mine, whom I hold in very high esteem, and I am sorry he is not now in the House. He is, I believe, a philosopher, a thoughtful man, and do yon know, Mr. Chairman, I have an invitation to visit him in Halifax. He is the first millionaire I ever had an invitation to visit, and I expect he will be the last.
I am satisfied that it would be impossible for the Lower Canadian habitant, if he lived in the province of Ontario, to pay 20 per cent interest on money, and I do not think that the soil in the province of Quebec is any better than it is in Ontario. And these Shylocks-I am not introducing the name- wlio are stripping the agriculturists of this country of everything they can earn, will
no doubt have a great deal to answer for, if there is another world. Six per cent, in my opinion, is ample interest to charge for advances, and I do not believe that the men who ask that rate should go to jail.
I do not believe in sending any man to jail, because then the country has to keep him, for he does not earn anything like enough to pay the cost of his living, even when he is employed making binder twine.
In my opinion, this Bill should be recast. It should be submitted to a special committee composed of some of the best men in this House, and in which the farming element will be represented, and then we may have a Bill which will protect the habitant in the province of Quebec from being imposed upon and robbed of his home, as we are told he is to-day. Just fancy a poor habitant, with ten or a dozen children, and only 100 acres of land. Of course the children may be of considerable help to him, but when they grow up, only one of the boys can have the farm and the others have to leave, and unfortunately many of them go to the southern republic. We are trying to provide homes for them in the North-west and many are going there, but in any case only one of the boys remains on the farm, and he has to work day and night until he has paid off their share to the others. Then when he marries and his family grows up the same process takes place again. Consequently each farmer has to go to the loan company and mortgage his little farm to pay off his brothers and sisters ; and if he is a hard-working man, and is blest with a good and industrious wife, he may succeed in paying off the debt, but by that time there will be another family of ten to provide for. This is why the farmers have to go to the money-lenders and Shylocks and build up a class of millionaires in this country.
We do not want only two sets of men in this country, millionaires and paupers, but we are coming to that as fast as we can and it is time we should pass some legislation to give the poor habitant a chance.
Progress reported.



ALIEN LABOUR LAW AMENDMENT.

Mr. GEORGE  A.@: CLARE (South Waterloo) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 5) to amend the ' Act to restrict the importation and employment of aliens.' He said : The object of this Bill is to provide a simple way to carry out the law now in force, which was passed in 1897. I do not believe that the mechanics and labourers of this country wish to have high-salaried officers to carry out the Act, if a more simple, efficient and economical way can be found to enforce that law. As it is at present, the Act is entirely in the hands of the government to enforce it, and I do not

believe that the government has enforced it in the interest of the labouring class and mechanics of this country. On the other hand, I believe that the officers who were appointed to enforce the law were engaged more for the purpose of keeping the government and the members of the government party out of trouble than of assisting the mechanics and labouring .class.'1 The Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding), the other evening, in discussing the question of the ownership of railways, stated that he believed that it was impossible for the government to manage the railways without political interference; and, I believe, he was correct so far as this government goes. And, 1 believe that, in the same way, they have enforced the Alien Labour law for their own interest and to assist themselves politically. To prove this, I wish to refer to what happened last year in this House. The Alien Labour law was passed in 1897; and three years later, in this House the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) asked the following question :
Since the Alien Labour law was enacted in 1897 has one conviction been secured by any agent or officer of the government under the law?
And the Prime Minister replied :
I am informed by the Department of Justice that no prosecutions have taken place under this Act.
This, as I say, was three years after the Act had been placed on the statute-book. A few years later the same gentleman asked the government what amount of money had been expended under the Act, and the reply by the Solicitor General was that up to that time $2,550 had been expended. Up to June 30tli, 1900, some $000 or $700, more had been spent; and we have the statement by the premier that, since that, $1,000 have been spent. And we find in the estimates for next year an appropriation of $9,000. But of this money, $2,550 was spent, and not even a single prosecution had been carried out. I believe that if the Bill I am now discussing were enacted, the law would be more strictly carried out, and with not one cent of expense. My Bill provides that any person, for instance, any labouring man or mechanic who is interested, should have the power to lay information before two magistrates and so enforce the law. That would not cost the country one cent, for those who are most interested, the mechanics and labouring men, will see that the law is strictly enforced. I myself have quite a number of men in my employ. In my own business I am protected from foreign competition, and I see no reason why the labouring class and mechanics in my employ and in the employ of other manufacturers of this country should not be as well protected from foreign competition as I am, especially as the people to the south of us have a law to the same effect.


Mr. CLARE.: 


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I will have to ask my hon. friend not to object if I ask him to agree to a suspension of the consideration of this Bill until another day. The reason is that there are one or two Bills-one at any rate-of a similar character on the Order paper, which will come up at the next sitting when this order of business is taken up. I have also to inform my hon. friend and the House that the government is contemplating the Introduction of a measure to amend the existing law. I am not in a position to say whether a Bill will be introduced, hut the subject is engaging the attention of the government at this moment. I shall, therefore, have to move that the debate be adjourned. It will be taken up again on Wednesday next, and then the government will be in a position to declare to my hon. friend what policy they intend to pursue with regard to this Bill.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I merely wished to lay before the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister this consideration-if I mistake not the other Bills on this subject if not textually the same as this one, seek to amend the law in the same direction. I have here Bill No. 11, introduced by the hon. member from Vancouver (Mr. Smith), and X find that there is practically no difference between it and the Bill now before the House, except in certain minor details. A further consideration 1 would lay before the House is this-the Bill before us seeks to remedy an evil which has been in existence for a very long time, and I think the non-enforcement of the law against the employment of aliens as it is now is largely due to the fact that we have not this machinery which my hon. friend (Mr. 'Clare) seeks to provide. As the right hon. premier knows, in the province of Quebec, we have, in respect of most laws of this nature, exactly this kind of machinery-that is to say, we allow the individual, in case of violation of the law, to intervene and recover the penalty. The consequence is a considerable economy for the provincial government, and also a closer observance of the law. To give an instance which is quite recent, I am informed, though I have not yet confirmation of the fact, that in the town of Lachine, within the last few days, eleven or twelve employees of the factory were dismissed summarily because they asked for what they thought a legitimate increase in their wages, and a like number of men were imported from the United States to take their places. There is no question whatever, knowing the feeling that exists in the town of Lachine, that if we had such machinery as this, some individuals in the town of Lachine would have seen to the application of a law, the principle of which has been admitted by parliament. Now. in the United States they have exactly such a machinery as is provided in this Bill. The House will find that disposition in the sup-

plemeut to the Revised Statutes of the United States, volume 1, page 479, second edition :
That for every violation of any of the provisions of section 1 of this Act the person, partnership, company or corporation violating the same, by knowingly assisting, encouraging or soliciting the migration or importation of any alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, into the United States, its territories, or the district of Columbia, to perform labour or service of any kind under contract or agreement, express or implied, parol or special, with such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, previous to becoming residents or citizens of the United States, shall forfeit and pay for every such offence the sum of $1,000, which may be sued for and recovered by the United States or by any person who shall first bring his action therefor, including any such alien or foreigner who may be a party to any such contract or agreement, as debts of like amount are now recovered in the circuit courts of the United States; the proceeds to be paid into the treasury of the United States ; and separate suits may be brought for each alien or foreigner being a party to such contract or agreement aforesaid. And it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the proper district to prosecute every such suit at the expense of the United States.
Now, if these other Bills have the same object, and if the evil which has been so often mentioned In this House exists at the present moment, why should we not proceed with the examination of this Bill at once, and have it passed into law so that it may afford relief in such cases as I have just indicated ? There are. of course, certain points of detail which would have to be modified when the House goes into Committee on the Bill ; but I think the matter is so urgent that the leader of the House ought to let us go into Committee on this Biil without delay.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: I have two Bills before me on the same subject. This question has engaged the attention of parliament year after year for many years past. With the law on the statutes to-day, chap. 11, 60 and 61 Victoria, we might reasonably ask why it is that we have so many of these Bills introduced at the present time. It is simply because, when the government took charge of the Bill before, after handling it very discreetly for their own purposes for a few years, when they found they could not shift it off any longer, they passed a Bill that was of very little use in preventing the importation of aliens. In that Bill, who is to act ? The Attorney General of Canada. Aliens are Imported under contract of labour, the Attorney General has appointed no person to look after that. The Attorney General is communicated with, the Attorney General is slow to act, the Attorney General will appoint one of his own friends, and that friend will be an instrument in the hands of the government, and the parties cannot get redress. That is why we need another Bill, that is the reason why we have these
two Bills before us at the present time. Now the government contemplates scaving it off a little longer, and say that they are considering the question at the present time. They said that five years ago, they said it four years ago, they said it three years ago, they are still considering the question, and the trouble is going on as it has been in the past. Unless there is some specific measure put on the statute-book that will work automatically, under which any person can take action when aliens are imported, this evil will continue. Now, if the government prevent the hon. member from Waterloo from going on with his Bill until they bring down their own, and then make some other amendments in the law that will make it practically inoperative, they will be able to stave off the matter a year or two longer, and we will be standing a year hence, perhaps, very much in the position we are in to-day. It seems to me the premier ought to give this House some assurance that whatever Bill they may pass, it will be one that can be put into operation at any time by any private individual or any corporation, instead of leaving it in the hands of the government, or in the power of the government to act at their own discretion in setting the law in motion. I think the premier ought to give us some assurance to that effect.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am not prepared to give such an assurance to the hon. gentleman, but I am prepared to say to the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) that he will have every opportunity to discuss his Bill. The government are seriously contemplating whether it is advisable to amend the statute which is now on our books. We are not prepared to give any opinion to the House at this moment, but we will be prepared to do so when the Bill comes up again, and I can assure my hon. friend that he will have every opportunity to have his Bill discussed again.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).: I desire to take this opportunity of impressing upon the Prime Minister and upon the House that this is a matter that ought not to be delayed for one minute. I come from a border county and know what is happening in the neighbouring city of Buffalo and along the Niagara frontier, and know how badly the citizens of Canada are being treated under the alien labour laws of the United States, which have just been read by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). Knowing how the honest labourers and workingmen of this country are now being treated on the other side of the line, I cannot urge too strongly upon the hon. premier that he should take back what he has just said, and immediately comply with the request which has been made by the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule), and give us the assurance that private individuals will be allowed to put

this law In motion, as they are allowed to do with regard to any other law. I say to the hon. premier that we should stop trafficking in a sort of bureaucracy, we should stop dealing politically when we come to the enforcement of the criminal law. We heard from the Postmaster General the other night that the government still go on cutting off the heads of the postmasters for political purposes ; do they propose also to stop the administration of justice in this country ? It seems that they are only willing to enforce the criminal law when it suits their convenience. It is my duty to urge the government to consider the rights of. the people of this country, the rights of our workingmen in regard to the importation of alien labour. Can they give any sound reason why a law that applies for the protection of the workingmen of this country should not be enforced in the same manner as any other law upon the statute-books ? What good or sound reason can there be for not enforcing it, or for refusing to say unit they are going to enforce it ? Why should they not be willing to assure us at once that this law will be enforced in exactly the same way as any other, so that a person who is aggrieved can go to the nearest magistrate and lay his complaint, and secure redress In the same way as he can do with regard to any other law ?
This matter, being one that affects my constituency as much, and perhaps more than other constituencies in this country, I think it is my duty to submit with all the force I can, to this House and the government, that this matter must be, in the interests of Canada, attended to, and attended to at once, so that we cannot have it said, as it is said, and I am sorry to say, said truly, that young men from St. Catharines or Merritton, who are skilled artisans, who have learned their trade well, cannot go over to Buffalo if they are thrown out of work without being turned back. We had an instance not long ago when one of our largest factories in St. Catharines by tire was shut down. Axe makers, saw makers and agricultural implement makers, 300 and odd of them, were thrown out of employment, who were as able to do good work as any men in the Dominion of Canada. Some of them went over to Buffalo seeking in every way they could for work. They were turned back at once, unless they would swear allegiance to the United States. They were turned back without going to Washington to And out whether they should be turned back or not. Canadians are sent back because they are considered to be aliens and must not be allowed to get employment until they have made themselves citizens of the United States. If we are going to have reciprocity in tariff's or anything else, let us have reciprocity also in protecting our workingmen the same as the United States protect their working-Mr. LANCASTER.
men. Let us say, that, if our young men are to be turned back, we shall turn back theirs. If this law, now on the statute-book, is a good one, enforce it and enforce it the same as you would any other law. I do not think that I am called upon to argue in this case upon the question as to whether we should protect our workingmen or not. It seems to me that the law as it stands on the statute-book does protect them ; at least it is supposed to do so, and the people will insist upon enforcing it in the amplest and fullest manner as soon as possible. I urge upon the House and upon the government that this is a matter which ought to be attended to, and we ought to have an assurance that it will be attended to as expeditiously as possible upon the lines proposed by the hon. gentleman who has introduced this Bill.


Mr. WILLIAM F. McCREARY (Selkirk).: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to say anything in connection with this Bill, but a statement has been made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster), who has just sat down, that I think conflicts with what are the facts. He says that certain young men went over from St. Catharines to Buffalo and were returned to Canada under the provisions of the United States Alien Labour Laws. As I understand the meaning of the American law, it is that when they go under an agreement made in the United States, capable of being enforced in the United States by both parties, it is then the object and purpose of the law to keep aliens from securing employment in the United States, and to deport them. The American Act, up to 1897 could not be enforced in that country, and if my hon. friend will look up the records of tiie litigation that has taken place under the American Alien Labour Act up to and including 1897, he will not find one case in the American reports, including those of the state of New York, but will show that the Act was defeated when it went to court. I had something to do with the enforcement of this Act in 1897 in Winnipeg, and I ascertained this to be the fact. I have had considerable correspondence with Mr. Powderly, the Commissioner of Immigration at Washington and his subordinate officials, and I found, that, although they have been amending their Act from 1890 up to the present time, it is still inoperative. I saw a good deal of their Alien Labour officer at Winnipeg, and he made the statement that while they might stop one, nine hundred would go across, because they could not stop the balance. A more flagrant case of the violation of any Alien Labour law could not have happened than that which took place last year under my own eyes. An agent from California came to tiie Northwest Territories to get labour to work in the mill. He went amongst the Doukho-bors and took away from the North-west Territories 150 of them, under a contract

which 1 proved to have been made to perform work in the United States. I had detectives put on the case, and I got the actual contract in the Russian and English language. I produced that before the commissioner at Pembina. I proved that these men were going to the United States under contract, and I wished to stop them. 1 went with a Canadian Pacific official to the customs officer at Pembina, and he said that their Act was no good. If this Bill is referred to a committee I will have before this committee the various amendments made to the United States Alien Labour law and the correspondence and contracts for the removal of these Doukhobors, and I will convince this hon. gentleman that the United States Act was inoperative. I submit that if these young men came back it was because they were afraid of Mr. De Barry, and what he would do, but, had they remained there and appealed against his decision, they would have been in the United States yet. There is nothing in that Act that can prevent these people taking employment there. I submit that in enforcing the Act the greatest difficulty is experienced in procuring evidence. United States attorneys will tell you that when the Act is really tested in the court they have no means of procuring evidence, and, I think, before any amendments are made to the Canadian law, they will have to be thoroughly considered, and that every one of the cases in which the American Act has been tried in the American courts should be brought to the notice of a committee and of the legal gentlemen who are members of it.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: The hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) forgets something. He forgets in his righteous indignation that the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has, as le grand jongleur, undertaken with his sunny ways to correct all the troubles that exist between Canada and the United States, and that with his sunny ways to prevail upon the Americans to agree to a treaty fixing the boundary between Canada and Alaska, to give ns a reciprocity treaty, and to settle a number of other questions. He has been doing that for quite a number of years, he is doing that to-day, and he believes that ultimately he will succeed. 1 do not think he is going to succeed at all. I think he has found out that sunny ways will not succeed in regard to the United States. That comes down to what my hon. friend has said here to-night ; the only way to deal with the United States is to give them law for law, tariff for tariff, and reciprocity for reciprocity. The country is sick of this postponing everything for consideration, and saying : Oh, do not do anything ; just wait until we can negotiate with the Americans. Just wait until our sunny ways ' succeed. Sunny ways will not succeed.
The country expects the government to quit talking sunny ways and to treat the United States as they do us. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) says that the American law is not enforced. It is enforced, and Canadians are deported every day, and sent back from Buffalo to Toronto. We have lots of cases. Young men who have been sent back to Toronto come into my office and tell me about it. The only way to maintain our position as a nation, is to hold our own, enforce the law, and give them law for law, tariff for tariff', every day in the week, and every day in the year.


The PRIME MINISTER.: And own the railways 1


William Findlay Maclean: No, we will not give them the railways ; we will keep the railways for our own country. I will take the right hon. gentleman at his word again tonight, as I took him, at it last night, that he is going to do something but it will be a long time ahead, I think. I trust now that we have heard the last of what sunny ways will do with our friends to the south, and that instead of sunny ways we will have something that is substantial and something that will maintain the national dignity of the Canadian people. So long as we lie down and let them whale us with their laws so long will they continue to do so. If we followed the example of M. De Witte with regard to the counter-vailing duty on sugar, we would bring them to time in twenty-four hours. That is the only way to deal with them. I trust that when the right hon. gentleman takes the matter into consideration and submits his proposal to the House, it will be on the line of law for law, and not based on the idea he has advocated for so many years of treating the Americans by sunny ways.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM (East Elgin).: I am sorry that the right hon. gentleman proposes to treat this Bill in a different manner from that in which he has treated other Bills on i the Order paper, which he has consented to being read the second time without committing the government to the principles contained in them. The Bill of the hon. gentleman from Vancouver (Mr. Smith) deals also with the subject under consideration, and if the government intends to amend the Act now on the statute-book, they should deal with these two Bills, which are the only i ones before us relating to the subject of alien law. To my mind the present law is too severe in some cases, and it is a step in the right direction for my hon. friend (Mr. Clare) to propose in his Bill to reduce the penalty of $1,000 to not more than $200 nor less than $50. Let me point out an objection to the present Act. Suppose a man comes from Buffalo to St. Catharines and the authorities know quite well that he is an American citizen coming to Canada

under contract, the Act introduced by my bon. friend (Mr. Clare) will make the law so simple that the justice of the peace in St. Catharines, or to whomsoever is delegated the power, would deal with it at once and if it were necessary to impose a penalty of $200, well and good. There is too much red tape and too much machinery about the present law. Why should It be necessary to first communicate with and obtain the consent of the Attorney General of Canada before proceeding with a case ? Section 8 of the present Act says :
No proceedings under this Act or prosecutions for violation thereof shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, or some person duly authorized by him.
Section 3 of the Act already provides for that, and therefore the proposal of my hon. friend (Mr. Clare) to repeal section 8 is in the right direction. If a manufacturer in Canada imports a man to perform certain labour, and if that man is competing with any class of skilled or unskilled Canadian labour, then the sooner that case is dealt with the better it will be for Canadian labour. I have heard the Canadian Alien Labour law discussed for a good many sessions in this House, and I formerly took the ground, with other hon. gentlemen, that we should not be harsh with our American neighbours in passing legislation of this kind, even though the Americans had been harsh with us. For years that was the policy of a great many hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House. In 1890 a special committee was appointed to investigate this question, and it was only in 1897 that an Alien Labour Act was passed ; an Act which has never since been carried out, and an Act that has not given satisfaction to the people of this country. Perhaps I am going too far in saying that the Act has never been put in operation, but I am perfectly safe in saying that it has not been administered in a way which meets the approval of the workingmen of Canada. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) talks about the American law being inoperative, and he says it only deals with persons who only go to the United States under contract. I live in a city situated between Detroit and Buffalo where we have skilled labour and unskilled labour passing through from the state of Michigan to the state of New York. It is on the highway of what we term an American railway, and I can state that several cases have come under my own observation in which Canadians, who have gone into the state of Michigan and the state of New York, not under contract, but to visit their relatives, and if they came across a better position than they had in Canada intending to remain in the United States ; but the very moment they cross the line they were met by Mr. DeBarry or some similar person and were at once told that they must return to Canada. These men did not i


Andrew B. Ingram: complain to the Attorney General of Canada and furnish the information that they were sent back improperly, because that was too much trouble and bother, but they simply returned to this country and were disgusted because the Canadian government did not pass a similar law, so that American workmen coming to Canada could be dealt with in the same way as Canadian workmen going to the United States are dealt with. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) says that a committee should be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the United States law, but what have we got to do with the United States law. We cannot amend it; we cannot add one word to it or take one word from it, and that being so it is idle nonsense to talk of remaining any longer quietly submitting to the treatment we have received. I have no hard feeling towards the government or the people of the United States. If they think it is in their interests to have legislation of that kind well and good, but when that legislation interferes with Canadian subjects it is my duty and it is the duty of every hon. gentleman in this House to support legislation which will protect the workingmen of Canada.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) has proven the wisdom of the Canadian statute as it now stands. He will agree that those Canadians who went to visit their friends and were sent back were not properly treated under the United States law as it exists to-day.


Andrew B. Ingram: But they were sent back.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Then the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) would want a Canadian law to make it possible for evil-disposed persons to treat Americans in the same harsh way when they did not come here under contract. Does he think that that kind of legislation would promote harmonious feeling between the two countries ? If some official in the United States violates the law of his country because of over-zeal, or perhaps in a desire to become popula r. is that any reason Why we should follow the bad example ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) know what was the answer of the Washington government when their attention was called to the manner in which Canadians were treated when they entered the United States ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I do not know what answer was made.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then ask your leader.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I shall be glad to have the information, but at any rate I feel sure from the statements made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) himself, that it is a very wise provision of our law to have some one in authority to authorize a pro-

secution against those who come from the United States under contract. I do not think we should undertake to impose penalties when we have no law for it. I have not very much sympathy with legislation of this kind. I believe it was adopted in both countries to fool the workingmen and try to get their votes.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Hon. gentlemen opposite started it, and I am not going to exonerate those who keep it up.


Robert Laird Borden: What do you wish to continue that state of things for V


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It is here because hon. gentlemen opposite started it, and I sup-1 pose that like many otner things it takes a while to get it off the statute-books. But,
I do not think it is becoming in two great peoples to act like that. 1 may be told that the Americans began it. No doubt they did. Fancy Great Britain passing such legislation as we do; and yet if any person from Great Britain went under a contract to the United States he would be treated exactly as Canadians are. The British nation is too big for a small thing like that; and I think that if we treated it wisely, and did not make it appear to be a tremendous thing, it would in the end die a natural death. I do not deny that it appeals to very much in a man's nature, and I do not blame the people of Canada very much lor taking the position that when the people of the United States act like that, we should act in the same way. . I can understand that feeling very well; but, after all, is it not just like the school boy who has been struck by another boy, and who says ; Because you struck me, I will strike back, is that wisdom ? The Act may have to be amended; but, 1 think the suggestion made is the correct one. A week's consideration by the gentlemen who introduced this Bill, and by the government, who say they are going to Inquire into the subject, is after all the wisest way to deal with it. 1 think we are agreed that if it is necessary to have legislation of this kind, we should have the wisest and best, and it should be so framed as to be effective. I am only expressing my own view, when I say that I do not think very much wisdom underlay the action of the United States Congress when to suit certain parties they passed that legislation. It may be very natural for us to retaliate; but there may be a wiser and better way, by which we can understand each other; and 1 think the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), who, as a labouring man, I am bound to say speaks with a breadth which does him credit, when he comes to think of it, will understand and appreciate what I say, that it would not be well for us to put upon the statute-book a law that would enable Canadians to do the very thing that he says was
done in the state of Michigan. I admit that our friends to the south are neither wise nor considerate very often; but such as they are they are there, and I think that by putting this question off for a week we are likely to arrive at a better conclusion.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR (South Leeds).: The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) advises Canadians to continue to suffer the indignities which they have been suffering for a great many years past. 1 hope the Bill of my hon. friend from South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) will not, if referred to a special committee, meet with the same fate as the Bill which I had the honour to introduce into this House year after year. In 1896, the Prime Minister gave me the distinct promise that if I withdrew the Bill, and brought it in the following year, the Canadian parliament would pass an Act, letter for letter and word for word like the American law. The next year I did introduce that Bill, but previous to my doing so, the Prime Minister put up one of his own supporters to get a Bill on the paper ahead of mine. We then had the two Bills-the one presented by one of the members for Essex, and the Bill which I had introduced year after year. 1 may say that when I first introduced my Bill, the government granted a special committee to consider it. That committee called witnesses before it, and brought in a report stating that it had been proved that Canadians had year after year suffered Indignities from the enforcement of the Alien Labour law by the United States. On the strength of that, I introduced my Bill in 1896. It was then that I received the promise of the Prime Minister that in the following year we would pass a law, word for word like the American law. In 1897, the Bill introduced by the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) and my Bill were referred to a special committee. What did the special committee do ? Bring in a Bill, word for word and letter for letter like the American Bill ? No; they mutilated the Bill in such a way that it has been ineffective ever since. Last year I brought a case before the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) said he had not heard of more than one case in which a Canadian has been deported.


William Forsythe McCreary: Pardon me. That is not the statement I made. I said, of those cases contested in the courts in only one had the Act been held good. In all the others the parties succeeded.


George Taylor: I want to ask my hon. friend, who has had some experience of immigration, if a poor Canadian goes to the other side to work, and Mr. DeBarry tells him :	If you don't go back, I will
prosecute you, and says to his employer, if you do not send this man back I will sue you for 8200 or .$300, what happens ? The

66a
man probably lias not the money to contest the case, and he sends him back. I brought a case before the Prime Minister last year. I read the following letter :
Prescott, May 8, 1900.
Dear Sir,-I am mailing you under a separate cover a Prescott ' Messenger ' of May 4, 1900, marked on last page where one of our citizens was ordered back to Canada. I am well acquainted with Mr. White. He is one of our best men, and I had an interview with him to-day relative to this matter. He says that while at work in the store in Ogdensburg he was served with papers to return to Canada at once or be imprisoned. He had moved his wife and family to Ogdensburg, N.Y., and was practically a citizen of New York. There are now, and have been, citizens of Ogdensburg working in our town in defiance of the Alien Labour law.
Here is the case of a gentleman who went from Prescott to work in a store In Ogdensburg. He worked a few days, and then moved his family over. Some person made a complaint, and he was served with papers calling upon him to go back to Canada. The storekeeper was also notified that if he kept this man, an action would be brought against him, and the man was sent back to Prescott. I brought that case to the attention of the Prime Minister last year, and he made this reply :
In answer to the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor), I beg to say that the case he has brought to the attention of the House, judging from the letter he has read, is not a case of violation of the American Alien Labour law. Mr. White had not gone from Canada to the United States in violation of that law, and if be was deported, that was an abuse of the law. This is the second instance of the kind, however, which has been brought-to my attention. My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, brought to my attention the case of another Canadian who appears to have been deported from the United States under the pretense of a violation of the American Labour law, when in fact there was none. This is a case which calls for diplomatic representation by this government to the American authorities that some of their officials, under colour of the Alien Labour law, were going outside that law.
He says this was a case to bring before tlie attention of the American authorities, and I ask tlie right lion, the Prime Minister if lie has done so. But tlie case of Mr. White is not the only one. Here is a letter dated Gananoque, July 16, of which my hon. friend from Kingston'will know something :
Gananoque, Ont., July 16, 1900.
Dear Sir,-The oarsmen of this neighbourhood consider that they have a substantial grievance against the authorities of the country in the non-enforcement of the Alien Labour law. Instances are occurring here of the bringing in of oarsmen from the American side to row fishing parties who are stopping here and fishing in Canadian waters, the result being that we who have to provide and maintain expensive outfits are left idle, and without the means of earning our livelihood. This is all the more unsatisfactory when we find the American authorities opposite us strictly enforcing the Alien Mr. TAYLOR.
Labour Act on the American side of the line, in the interests of their own citizens. Only last week a number of Queen's College students were sent from the American side, and were not permitted to act as waiters. We would bespeak on our behalf a similar enforcement of the Act, which you were largely instrumental in having introduced, but which, it is to be regretted, is not, at any rate in this locality, attempted to he enforced.
Faithfully yours,



BENJAMIN LONGUEUIL, FRANK LATTIMORE,

[Stage Direction]
On behalf of the Gananoque Oarsmen.
A lot of students went down from Kingston during the vacation and engaged to work as waiters in one of tlie hotels at a watering place in tlie United States, but the American officer entrusted with the enforcement of the Alien Labour law notified these young men and the hotelkeeper who was emiiloy-ing them, that he would bring an action, and these students had to pack up their kits and return. Yet the bon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) says that our young men must be content to suffer these indignities.
My bon. friend asked bow much money was spent in enforcing this law since 1897. I find by the Auditor General's Report that this is what it cost tlie government for tlie whole year, from June 1, 1899, to June 1, 1900 :
E. P. Bremner, agent New Denver, B.O., salary from June 7th to June 30th, 1900,
.$100 ; travel, $65.55 ; to account for
$34.45	$200 Ofr
William Keys, Montreal, services as agent between July 3rd, 1899, and May 31, 1900,
ninety-one days at $5	 455 00
W. B. McMurrich, Toronto, legal services 23 02
[Stage Direction]
This amount was spent for the enforcement of tlie Alien Labour law, and yet tlie government never deported anybody.
But I find another gentleman who, I presume, was enforcing the Alien Labour law, Mr. R. C. Clute. of Toronto, who is down for remuneration from November 10, 1899, to May 5, 19(H), 1161 days, at $40 per day, or $4,660 paid to this Mr. Clute, who goes around stuffing ballot boxes and fighting tlie battles of the party In the country. That is not all. Besides that $40 per day, lie was paid travelling expenses and sundry disbursements, amounting to $1,526.78.
That is tlie way these gentlemen are enforcing the Alien Labour law. I brought the two matters I have mentioned to the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister last year and expected there would have been correspondence between this government and tlie government at Washington, and that we would have obtained some reparation for tlie indignity to which Mr. White had been subjected, and the Queen's College students. But not a bit of it. These people were driven back, and tlie hon. mem-

her for Guysborougli says they have to put up with these indignities.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: From what page of the Auditor General's Report is the hon. gentleman quoting the payments to Mr. Glute ? Is he quoting under the heading of ' enforcement of the Alien Labour law ?'


George Taylor: No ; ' inquiry into labour troubles.'


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman knows that that has nothing to do with the Alien Labour law.


George Taylor: I did not know what the government paid Mr. Clute $40 per day for. My hon. friend beside me says he was out stumping in his county.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If I had not turned this up, the hon. gentleman would have left the Committee under the impression that Mr. Clute was paid for enforcing the Alien Labour law.


George Taylor: I said that he was paid $40 a day with reference to labour troubles.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: And he earned his money well by effecting a settlement of the labour disputes in British Columbia.


George Taylor: I am quoting to prove that this government have broken their pledge to the workingman that they would pass a labour law, word for word, similar to that in force in the United States, and would enforce it. But when the Bill came before the committee, of which the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries was a member, I predicted that it would never pass, and it did not. It was so mutilated that it became a dead letter, although our workingmen have been driven back from the United States, all along the line from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Should my hon. friend allow his Bill to be sent to a subcommittee, it will be altered beyond recognition by government supporters, just as was the Bill I presented, although we had the distinct understanding from the right lion, the Prime Minister that he would give us a Bill, word for word, similar to the American law, which my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier read here to-night.
The law we have is worthless, and the workingmen of this country know it, and this government must assume the responsibility of coming to the rescue and allowing the Bill of the hon. member for South Waterloo to pass, or so amend the present statute as to make it just as workable as is the American law.


James Clancy: I am sure the House is in accord with the view that this matter should be dealt with in a
very temperate manner. But this is no new measure, it is one that has been before the House a long time, so that there is no excuse for delaying its consideration. We have had experience after experience of very harsh treatment from the American people, and have borne with it patiently for years. Year after year we hoped that the government might succeed in carrying out some of its promises. But not only have we failure on the part of the government to do this, but we have had the spectacle of a Canadian official going to the United States in order to have the American labour law enforced against people leaving Canada. We have had the hon. member for Selkirk stating that when he was immigration commissioner, he went to the United States and did this. That was a most extraordinary procedure. And what does the hon. gentleman say now ? He says that the law is entirely ineffective, because he was not able to succeed in his object. I do not wonder that these hon. gentlemen should fail to sympathize with any movement for the purpose of protecting our Canadian workingmen when they not only refuse to do anything, but send their own officials to assist the American officials in preventing people from leaving their homes.


Mr. CLARKE.: The exodus had not stopped.


James Clancy: a man on the shoulder and order him back to Canada lest worse befall him. The officials threaten the employers, and the employers rather than go to court to test the validity of the law, And the easier way is to tell their Canadian employees to return to Canada. I think we have now come to the end of the string ; and there is but one course left for us consistant with national dignity, and that is to pass such legislation as will meet the Americans precisely on their own ground, and give them the same treatment that they are meting out to the Canadian people.


Mr. E. F. SUTHERLAND (North Essex).: In rising to address this House for the first time, for a few moments, I desire to express at the outset my entire dissent from the opinion expressed by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), when he said it was time that the sunny ways of the government were discontinued. If the sunny ways and the practical common sense applied to the business of the country for four years have caused an increase of the trade of the country, as it never increased before, have advertised the country as it never was advertised before, have removed from politics questions very dangerous as they were not removed before, I think the people of this country will say, as they did on the 7th of November last, that they have confidence in the government, and will continue it in power for many years to come. Among the practical pieces of legislation that this government placed on the statute-book was the Act that is under discussion to-night. For years, this question had be.en trifled with by their predecessors in office. The hon. member from South Leeds (Mr. Taylor), who spoke a moment ago with such assumed indignation, had been trifling with this matter for years prior to this government coming into power ; and it was only when the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) introduced this practical piece of legislation that the hon. member for South Leeds became anxious to press the matter to an issue, which he had never been before. It was only when a member of the Liberal party, supporting the new government, was proceeding to put a practical piece of legislation upon the statute-book, that he became anxious to do what he had been pretending to do for years before. This is not a matter to be dealt with in any rash or reckless way. I happen to come from a constituency where we are brought face to face with this question in a most practical way. In the city of Windsor, which is part of the constituency I represent, and in the towns of Walkerville and Sandwich, there are four or five hundred people 'who take the ferry and cross to the city of Detroit, where they are employed. Every time this question conies up for discussion, every time there is a rumour that


James Clancy: there is to be hostile action between Canada and tlie United States, there is a threat held out by their employers in Detroit that in a few days they will be told they cannot continue to have employment in Detroit unless they remove to the American side. And every time it comes up, the citizens of Windsor are concerned lest the result be that, instead of Windsor increasing as few other cities have-as it has been doing in the past few years-its progress may be retarded. Therefore, hon. gentlemen should not treat this question in any hasty or flippant way. It is a matter to be dealt with most soberly and with a great deal of caution. In view of the facts I have stated, I think every hon. gentleman should accede to the reasonable request that this should be sent to the committee, and there discussed soberly and carefully. Hon. gentlemen will notice that in the amendment which is proposed it is suggested that the information may be laid by any person before two justices of the peace of the county. Is that not pretty radical and pretty far-reaching ? Any person, perhaps some man who has applied for a position, and not got it, or some man who has been discharged for cause and wishes to wreak his vengeance upon somebody else, some merely irresponsible person, may launch into motion that which will place difficulties in the way of these places in my own riding, and of the two countries at large. Is that a rational thing to put on the statute-book ? Until I have had time to consider the question further, I think not. I think the Bill now on the statute-book is a more reasonable one and ought to commend itself to the members of this House. The existing law says :
For every violation of the provisions of section 1 of this Act the person, partnership, company or corporation violating it .	.	. shall
forfeit and pay the sum of $1,000, which may he sued for and recovered by Her Majesty's Attorney General of Canada, or the person duly authorized thereto by him.
Now, is it not a matter of sufficient importance, before an action of this kind is set on foot, that some person of reputation and standing should have the facts laid before him, in order that he may determine whether it is a proper case, in dealing with these difficult questions, to set the law in motion ? I submit to this House, very respectfully, that it is, and that to say that any person, however irresponsible, for whatever cause or motive, can be able, by merely laying information before a couple of justices of the peace, to set the law in motion, is placing a power in his hands which we ought not to do without considering it fully. Therefore, while most anxious to protect the rights of the working man in every practical way, I would urge upon this House that, in a matter of this importance, there can not possibly be a more reasonable thing than the sugges-

tion of the Prime Minister that the matter shall be left over for a week, sent to the committee, and carefully considered before we place this amendment upon the statute-book.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: I quite agree with a part of the careful and deliberate speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland, Essex), who has just taken his seat. I too think this is a matter which we should approach with due deliberation, and that the House should take sufficient time to consider the case in all its aspects, so as to enact such a measure as will redound to the benefit of the class mainly to be affected, and incidentally to the benefit of the whole Dominion. But, that being the case, is it not all the more incumbent upon this House to get to work now 1 It is understood that this will probably be a short session. Should we not, without delay, and without regard to any political bias or any question except the best interest of the country, consider what we should do to assert ourselves fairly and squarely before the people we represent, and before the people of the United States, as to how we shall protect ourselves within the limits of the constitution ?
Now, we are not at the threshold of this matter. The principle has been affirmed, the Act has been passed, and we are now taking stock to see exactly where we stand. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has told us, if I understood him aright, that every time this matter has come up in the House difficulties arise over at the border. If that is the case the proper time to consider it was when the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) introduced his Bill. Now, I submit to the House this proposition, that the Act passed a few years ago was either right or wrong. If it is right, keep it and enforce it like men; if it is wrong, then repeal it and be done with it. But instead of that, we are met with a plea for delay, we are met with the persuasive words of some hon. gentlemen, some of them almost get down on their knees and beg of us to be very careful, to go very cautiously in this matter. We have been very considerate so far, and I must say that it is no credit to Canada that a law should be put upon our statute-book and allowed to remain a dead letter. Britons have always been able to hold their own. I do not say this in any aggressive spirit whatever, but I say it because, if it is right for the United States to have a law upon their statute-books to protect their labourers, it is right for us to have a law on our statute-books to protect our labourers. Our labourers are as good, are as honest, are as able man for man, as are the labourers of the United States, and we should be just as ready to protect them as the United States are ready to protect theirs.
I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that there is a sturdy class of
men in this country who deserve protection at our hands, who deserve that their interests should be conserved by their representatives in parliament. Last night, through the effort of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, we were able to protect the farmers of this Dominion, and I think we will be taking a wise step if tonight we improve this opportunity to pass another bit of legislation that would protect the labouring classes of this country as well. From what class do we draw some of our best soldiers-soldiers that we count upon to defend this country and to defend Britain ? Why, we draw them from the ranks of these same labouring men-it is to them we look to a large extent to protect us in the hour of need.
Now, I have great deference of course for any suggestions thrown out in such a nice way by the premier; and for the moment, inexperienced as I am, I was almost led away by his suggestions to leave the matter over for a little while longer. I have noticed, however, that lie makes that request of us pretty often. In the matter of the sugar-beet discussion, I understood that he would have been very glad to have it left over indefinitely, or for another season. If I understood him and the members of the government aright yesterday, when we were discussing the binder twine question


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Order, the hon. gentleman is referring to a previous discussion.


Haughton Lennox: 

validity of tlieir Act they have not taken the people into their confidence, they have not told us that they have a doubt as to its validity. If they have, they should let the country know it. I understand that they profess to have an Act upon the statute-book, and to have officials for the purpose of enforcing it to some extent, but that they have not been enforcing it. The object of this amendment is to put this Act in the same position as other statutes, so that it can be enforced by the ordinary machinery employed for the administration of justice, so that we may have in every eounty, in every riding, in every municipality, at our own doors, and in our own courts, machinery by which we can enforce this Act instead of being obliged to appeal to the government to secure our rights.
Now, the other argument the hon. member for Selkirk advanced was one which I confess is the most extraordinary argument I ever heard. Of course, I have not had much parliamentary experience yet, and perhaps, after I have heard some more speeches from lion, gentlemen opposite 1 shall not be surprised at anything. But, I was very much surprised to hear that lion, gentleman say that we would have to collect all the American cases, refer them to a committee or something of that kind, consider them, jiass an opinion upon them, be governed by them, and after we have done all this, we, the representatives of the people of Canada, could then begin to act. That is a most extraordinary proposition. It may be right, it may be wrong ; but speaking for myself and the people whom I represent, I will never consent by my vote to such a course, never, never, never.
I just want to refer to the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser). I understand he is out of the House, so I will hit him lightly, although I cannot perhaps hit him very hard in any case. He points out the great danger that we are in. It may be so, but I do not so understand the temper of the American people. I understand them as a kindred race with ourselves. I understand that they are fair-minded and that they will, instead of retaliating if we protect ourselves, begin to appreciate us and understand that we are a self-reliant people prepared to vindicate our rights. But, if there is danger, I am prepared to meet the danger. The hon. member for Guysborough gives us his illustration of children, and says that it seems something like a couple of school boys wanting to hit each other, that it is a ease of blow for blow. I am unable to follow his argument. It is a ' childish ' illustration, and association sometimes breeds things of that kind. I urge my view upon this House from no party feeling at all; I urge it because I believe hon. gentlemen on the government side ought to be as much interested as we are. I urge it because I understand, that, more than upon this side of tire House, it is the province of


Haughton Lennox: the government to devise the best measures for meeting these questions as they arise. It is for them to be prepared to meet the varied wants of Canada or to give place to other men. If we pass this Bill we are just acting fairly and honestly by a large and deserving class of the community. We are doing what we pretended to do in 1897 when this Act was passed. We are no longer perpetrating a false pretense upon the country ; we no longer proclaim ourselves to the people of the United States as people who have not the courage of their convictions and are afraid to enforce that which they pretend to enact. I would do justice to our own people, and in doing justice we will never be visited with anything that will do us harm. I understand this to be a fair measure of protection ; and not because there are a great many of these men in my own riding, but, because it is fair to the whole Dominion of Canada, and for this reason I will support the measure introduced by my hon. friend.


Mr. JOHN D. REID (South Grenville).: Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow this matter to pass without entering my protest against the manner in which the Alien Labour law has been enforced since it was put upon the statute-book. My hon. friend the member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has mentioned the case of Mr. White. Mr. White resided in my constituency and kept a store there for a number of years. He gave up his business and moved his family to Ogdensburg, but he was sent back again, as my hon. friend has stated, after he had secured a position in Ogdensburg. He complained to me as well as to my hon. friend. I told him there was no use, that nothing could be done, because, while the Alien Labour law was on the statute-book, it was an impossibility to make it work. In the town of Prescott we have a number of Americans ; they are coming there day after day and securing employment in that town. Canadians cannot go into Ogdensburg. I think this is most unfair, and after this one example no Canadians have sought employment in the bordering town. I notice that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) was very indignant at my hon. friend the member for South Leeds when he stated that Mr. Clute had received $40 a day, and when he insinuated that it should be placed to the credit of the Alien Labour law. I suppose that was for legal services in the case of strikes or something of that kind, and that is the reason why the hon. minister objected to that item.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: I did not object to the item. I was quite aware of the item existing and of the money having been paid. What I objected to was that the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor), having before him the Auditor General's Report showing the exact amounts paid for the enforcement of the law, and
.FEBRUARY 28, 1901
having before him the Auditor General's Report showing, in so many words, that this money, paid to Mr. Clute, was not paid in connection with the Alien Labour law at all, but in connection, as the report said, and which he had right before his eyes, with the inquiry into the labour troubles in the British Columbia mines, should have suppressed that information and tried to mislead the younger members of this House who said that they desired to form an honest opinion upon the question.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, I did not understand it in that way. The point I wish to make is, that I claim that every strike we have had in this Dominion has been on account of Americans coming over and taking the places of Canadians. I will give an instance. In Valleyfield the great strike was due to so many American spinners coming to that town, being employed and working up the strike that took place and caused so much trouble there. The same thing has taken place in British Columbia on account of the aliens there. Americans come in, cut down the price of labour and cause the strikes. I was very much amused at the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Sutherland) giving us an account of the state of affairs as it existed in the town of Windsor. I just looked up ' Hansard' to see what the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) said when he introduced his Bill in 1897. At that time, in his speech
ly declare that on the 11th day of January, A.D. 1897, I was on a M. C. R. train, travelling on a ticket purchased at Dutton station, where I took the train for Detroit. My baggage was examined, and the officer asked me my age, where my home was, and how much money I had. I gave him the information, and had about $8.50. He then asked me what X was going to Detroit for. I replied, to visit my uncle in Detroit, and gave him his address. I had some private letters in my valise. He opened them, and one was an answer to an application I had made for a situation several months before, stating they had no opening. And I was ordered back to Canada, and they refused to permit me to enter the United States. I had no contract with any person to enter into or engage in any employment in the United States, but was on my way to a friend's. I after crossed on another ferry and went to my friend's, and am to-day on my return to my home in Canada.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of ' The Canada Evidence Act, 1893.'



W. J. SUTHERLAND.

[Stage Direction]
Declared before me at the city of Windsor, in the county of Essex, this 19th day of January, A.D. 1897.

[Stage Direction]
A Commissioner.
Then, again, there is another long letter which the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Cowau) places on record witli regard to the case of Mr. D. Llewellyn Irvine, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan), in the course of his speech, makes this statement :
he said :
A short time ago I picked up the Windsor Record, and I found the following article :
' Another outrage was committed on a young Canadian this morning by Detroit customs officials.
' W. J. Sutherland, a young man of about twenty years, from Wallacetown, Elgin county, came through on the Michigan Central Railway this morning to visit his uncle, Mr. F. Offer, at Detroit.
' He was met on the other side by one of the immigration agents of the United States, and asked to explain himself. The young man said he was going to visit his uncle. This did not satisfy the officers, and they proceeded to overhaul his baggage and open his letters found in his valise. Among them was one received some time ago from a firm in Detroit to whom Mr. Sutherland had applied for a situation. The letter was a refusal. The officers then assumed that he was again looking for a situation, and, after the usual compliments to Canada and Canadians, the young man was fired back over the river.'
After reading that article, and being desirous of securing information on the subject, and the true circumstances of the case, I sought out the young man and took from him a declaration, which I will read to the House. It is as follows :-
Dominion of Canada,
County of Essex,
To wit :
In the matter of W. J. Sutherland and his return to Canada under order from American customs.	.
I, William J. Sutherland, of the hamlet of W'allacetown, in the county of Elgin, do solemn-
Coming, as I do, from a frontier city and a border county, representing, as I do, a constituency whose shores are washed by the international waters that divide both countries, I know whereof I speak when I say that constituents of mine have had indignities heaped upon them, their private correspondence searched, their breeches pockets gone through, as in the case of young Sutherland, to see what money they possessed, as if they were moral lepers or Chinese highbinders. I say that the initiation, the inauguration, the enforcement and the Perpetuation of that policy is an insult to the citizens of the country initiating and enforcing it.
That is from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan) who resides in the same city of Windsor with the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Sutherland). It is hard for me to understand how the hon. gentleman (Mi1. Sutherland) can make the statement he made to-night. It looks as if he does not know what is going on in his own city, and it is quite evident that he has nothing to do with the labouring classes, or that he does not take any interest in them. I feel, Sir, that I would not be doing my duty when a question of this kind comes before parliament if I did not strenuously urge upon the government to put the Canadian labour law in such shape that it may be workable, and that the labouring men can have a ease tested before the ordinary | tribunals of the country. Why, the gravest criminal case is first tried before a justice [DOT] of the peace. Is there any good reason
[Stage Direction]
against the infractions of this law being tried before a justice of the peace with the right of appeal ? I believe that the government should not hesitate about giving our working classes a chance of enforcing this law with the least possible trouble and expense to them, so as to protect their interests.
Byron Moffatt Britton: The discussion has wandered a long way from the Bill before the House, and from the Alien Labour Act of 1897. The instances which have been cited to the House have no bearing upon the actual Act itself. If these occurrences are correctly stated, they simply show a highhanded proceeding on the part of the United States officials in reference to Canadians who have gone there, and no law which we could pass would in any way be applicable. The whole point of citing the case mentioned by the hou. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) ; the declaration of the man upon whom the indignity was cast, tends to prove the fact that he was not going over there in violation of the United States Act, but that, nevertheless, he was sent back. The grievance there is that instead of the United States offi cials enforcing their law, they went a long way outside of it. I am sure that the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) will not contend that the action of his constituent, Mr. White, of Prescott, who took some member of his family to Ogdensburg to work, was a violation of the Alien Labour Act of the United States.


John Dowsley Reid: The customs official made him return, family and all.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I am not disputing what the hon. gentleman says, but his own statement shows that Mr. White did not violate the American Alien Act, and if he did not, then the officials were wrong in interfering with him. The Bill introduced by the hon. member (Mr. Clare) does not profess to redress a grievance of that kind. Take the case of the students from Kingston who went to Alexandria Bay, with the very laudable and praiseworthy intention of earning money by acting as waiters at the summer hotel. It is not pretended that they were engaged in Kingston for that work, and the sending of them back was a highhanded act on the part of the United States official ; but this Bill does not touch that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Britton) what all that shows ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: Let me answer that question by asking another. If these people were not in violation of the United States Act, how are we to remedy that, either by the present Act or by the Bill now proposed ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would suggest to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Britton) that these cases show the extreme vigilance exercised


John Dowsley Reid: by the United States officials to enforce their Alien Labour law.


Byron Moffatt Britton: It does not show an extreme vigilance to enforce the law, but it shows an extreme vigilance to go outside of the law.


Mr. COCHRANE.: And, therefore, we should do nothing ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: We should.


William Findlay Maclean: We should lie down.


Byron Moffatt Britton: We should stand up.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Well, stand up.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I am standing up, but we should not attempt to do anything that is contrary to the law ourselves. We should be careful not to do what we have no authority in law to do.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: We are not doing what we have authority to do.


Mr. TALBOT.: Stand up.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Shut up.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I do not pay much attention to the hon. gentleman from East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane).


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I was not referring to you. I was talking to that coon behind you.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I hope I can proceed without interruption. The first section of the Act which the hon. gentleman from Waterloo (Mr. Clare) does not desire to repeal has reference simply to the employment in the United States of persons who come over here to work, and he does not seek in any way to change that provision in our Act of 1897. The amending Bill only deals with the enforcing of the Act. A penalty can be enforced in any way ; but before anything can be recovered, for a violation of the law, we have to establish that there has been a violation of it. I do not say that there has not been a violation, or if there has, that we should not attempt to enforce it. We should enforce it if there has been a violation, because if there has been in the United States, as our hon. friends say, such extreme vigilance to enforce their law that they have gone beyond the law. then we, at least, ought to go the length of enforcing the law as we have it on the statute-book.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Byron Moffatt Britton: But I venture to say that if hon. gentlemen opposite cannot find better cases than those they have given tonight, there has been no violation of it. The cases given have not been violations of the law, and any attempt to enforce such cases as if they were violations of the law, would bring us into contempt, because we would necessarily fail.

The hon. gentleman seeks to amend the Act, in the first place, by reducing the penalty. I dare say that Is wise, because it would perhaps have the effect desired, of haying the Act enforced for the recovery of the penalty, as it is easier to collect $200 than $1,000, and there is no doubt that in some cases a large penalty is a disadvantage in the enforcement of a law. But when we come to the hon. gentleman's mode of recovering the penalty, we come to the principal objection, and I think the acting leader of the opposition admitted that. I do not know what else he could refer to when he said that the Bill as introduced, was not workable, but would have to be amended in committee.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I said there were certain details.


Byron Moffatt Britton: It is the details I am talking about.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Every Bill is like that.


Byron Moffatt Britton: 'No, not every Bill. Some Bills are so nearly perfect at the beginning that everybody appreciates the fact. But this Is so imperfect, that I do not see what objection any one could have to delaying it for further consideration. The hon. gentleman seeks to amend the method of enforcing the Act by providing that instead of the Attorney General or somebody under him having charge of its enforcement, as at present, any one may go before two justices of the peace of the county into which such alien or foreigner is imported and lay the information ; and he also provides that the penalty may be recovered in the same manner as debts of like amount are now recovered in any competent court in Canada. Now, I do not pretend to speak as a lawyer, but simply as any one would speak who would read this section. I do not know but that it might be held that the last part of the section killed the first part, so far as the recovery of the penalty is concerned, and that the only way to recover it would be to bring an action in those courts where debts of that amount would be recoverable. Perhaps, in addition to going before two justices of the peace, a person could sue in the division court for an infraction of the Act which may have occurred in the United States. Any lawyer will see the difficulty of a position of that kind, and will see that this is an ill-considered measure as it stands at present, and is therefore one that ought to have a good deal of consideration given to it before it or anything like it becomes law.
Then, another point. The complaint of hon. gentlemen to-night has been as to the enforcement of the American labour law by the deportation of our people who have gone over there, and they ask that retaliatory measures be adopted by us in reference to Americans who come over here.
Now, what authority is there on the part of this government or any other individual in Canada to report an American who comes to Canada and does anything in violation of this Act ? That is provided for by another section of the Act, which the hon. gentleman does not propose to touch at all. Section 6 of the Act of 1897 provides for that, but he does not p ropose to repeal that. There is nothing in this Bill at all except that it reduces the penalty and provides another way of recovering it. The Bill does not touch the offence in any way.
Before I sit down I wish to say that I do not yield to any of the hon. gentlemen opposite, although they may parade so much every session their deep, devoted interest in the workingman, and their desire at ail times and places to protect him who is so much oppressed by this government and those who support it. I do not use any such arguments as that; but I do not yield to any hon. gentleman on either side of the House in my desire to do what is right by those men ; and where the law has been violated I think the law ought to be enforced. But I am satisfied that there has been, from the time this law was passed, an honest desire on the part of the government to enforce it, but in such a way that international relations might not be strained. There is no use of making a fuss where there is no evidence to show that an offence has been committed. Yon ought not to try to make international trouble by taking up cases such as those that have been talked about from time to time, like the case of Mr. White who went to Ogdensburg, and the case of those students. But where there has been a clear violation of the law it ought to be applied, and I believe that the persons whom this government have employed from time to time to enforce the Alien Labour Act, if they had found a case which they had evidence to support, would have prosecuted it and obtained justice.


Mr. SAMUEL BARKER (Hamilton).: I do not rise, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the merits of an Alien Labour law. It is sufficient for me that I find such a law on the statute-book of this Dominion, and I assume, as I think every member of this House has a right to assume, that that law being there, was put there with a purpose and an object. It is of no use, I think, for the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) to tell us that the statute law of the United States is almost as bad as ours. If that means anything it means that our law wants improving, and I think the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) is making an effort to improve it. If I had any doubt upon the merits of the Bill which we are discussing, I think that doubt would have been removed by the language which I find in ' Hansard,' uttered by the right hon. gentleman who leads this House, when addressing the House in regard to the



particular statute which the hon. member for South Waterloo now seeks to amend. At page 658 of ' Hansard ' of 1897, the right hon. gentleman is reported as having used . these words with reference to it :
There cannot be any doubt as to the position of the government upon this Bill. In fact, I do not know, that it is at all advisable to prolong the debate any longer, because, so far as I can interpret the sentiment of the House, there is a unanimous feeling at this moment, whatever raay have been the opinions held by members in the past, that the persistence of the American Congress in keeping upon the statute-book these very obnoxious clauses, leaves no alternative to the Canadian people but to apply the same law themselves. The course adopted by our neighbours seems to leave no option to us but to apply to them the same measure of justice or injustice as they apply to us.
I would like to know if, in the last four years during which this statute has been upon our statute-books, any attempt has been made on the part of the Dominion to apply to the citizens of the United States, the same law that they apply to us.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Give au instance of any demand on our government to that effect.


Samuel Barker: I will tell the hon. gentleman in a moment what I have to say upon this subject. I am not here to he cross-examined by him. I assume, when I find a statute upon the books of this Dominion, that it was put there for a particular purpose, and it seems to me that the only purpose for which this statute could have been enacted was the protection of Canadian workingmen. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) has argued that there is nothing to be done under this statute. Well, after what the right hon. the leader of the government said in 1897, as to the necessity. for this law, I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything In reply to the hon. gentleman. But, I ask if there are no cases to which this statute can he applied, what harm can there be in our complying with the request of the hon. member for South Waterloo, by striking out of the statute the string that has prevented its enforcement during the last four years ? On the other hand, if there are cases to which this law may he applied, surely in common justice to the workingmen, in whom the hon. member for .Kingston seems to take such particular interest, we should amend it in such a way as to enable it to be enforced. I do not want to take up time discussing the merits of a question that has been fully discussed and determined by a previous parliament. The statute is there, and it is the duty of the government either to see that it is enforced or else remove it from the statute-books altogether. Are these hon. gentlemen prepared to say that the law is not only inoperative and a nulity, but of no use ? If so, let them introduce a Bill to wipe it out. But, so long as it remains, it is evidence that necessity exists Mr. BARKER.
to protect our workingmen, and it should be made workable.
As to the particular section objected to, section No. 8, the insertion of such a clause in a law of this kind-a clause leaving the enforcement of the law completely in the hands of the Attorney General-seems to me an utter absurdity. Let us suppose an alien labourer infringes this Act when entering this Dominion at Halifax or Vancouver. Under the present statute no action can be taken against him at either of these places, but the complainant must come or write or telegraph to Ottawa and ask the Attorney General of the Dominion to investigate the case and for permission to prosecute the offender, and if the right hon. the leader of the government thinks as he did in 1897, he should favour the amending of the statute so as to make it really effective.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES (lion. Sir Louis Davies).: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat quoted the remarks made by the right lion, the First Minister in 1897, and rather tried to leave the impression on the House that the First Minister had not carried out the promise he then made. Well, I happened to be ou the committee to which was referred the Alien Labour Bill of that session, and which reported to the House. That committee acted on the promise made by the right hon. the First Minister in the remarks which my hon. friend has quoted. We took the Alien Labour law of the United States and copied it verbatim, ^and the Bill we reported to the House, and which passed is an exact copy of that law.


Samuel Barker: Did the United States tie up their Acts as you did yours ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The clause to which the hon. gentleman refers was introduced by us because this was not a domestic measure alone, but an international measure, and it was deemed desirable and proper that the government should take the responsibility of enforcing the law in a matter that affected our international relations. I shall not discuss that point now as the First Minister lias intimated that the matter will come up when the government policy is announced.
There has been a great deal of talking to the galleries to-night. The hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has sought to impress upon the new members of the House the idea that he is really in earnest, and is advocating the passage of such a law in the interest of the workingmen rather than of the party to which he belongs. That may deceive some of the new members, but not any one who has been here the last ten or twelve years. Why ? Because we know such is not the object of the hon. gentleman. I remember well ills introducing a Bill of this kind every session for years when his own party was in power,

but never attempting to pass it into law. He made a great flourish about introducing an Alien Labour law, but when the leader of his party told him to subside he quietly withdrew the Bill. This farce he regularly went through every session for years.
When my right lion, friend came into oflice, he said that inasmuch as an Alien Labour law seemed to be desired by a portion of the community, because our cousins to the south had one in their statute-book, he would advocate our adopting one in identically the same terms. But the committee to which the matter was referred thought that, inasmuch as it affected our international relations with the United States, it was desirable that the responsibility of taking action should be upon the government, and that the government should initiate any prosecutions under the Act. I am not yet convinced that it is desirable to hand these prosecutions over to any man in the community who may choose to initiate proceedings. I think there is considerable force in the argument made use of by my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Britton), who pointed out that to allow, for instance, a dismissed employee to prosecute the company which dismissed him, without any responsibility whatever, would be going very far.
I merely rise to point out to my hon. friend this fact, that the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Waterloo is one which, I venture to say, not a legal gentleman on the other side will assert can be carried out in its present shape. I do not know what it means, and I would like to know if anybody can tell me what it means. I know the hon. gentleman's object, but it is not expressed in the Bill. But the law at present is clear and definite and capable of being enforced, and I have not heard it stated that the Attorney General has refused to prosecute in any case brought before him. I heard the hon. member for Grenville say that there were some breaches of the law in his constituency. Did he ever bring them before the Attorney General, and ask him to prosecute these Americans who had come to Prescott ? Does he desire that they should be prosecuted and driven out of the town ? I ask him, did he lay an information before the Attorney General, and ask him to prosecute ?


John Dowsley Reid: When this matter was brought before the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) as minister of the Crown was it not his duty, and the duty of the government, and the duty of the Attorney General of the Dominion to take action ? It was brought up by the hon. member for Leeds, and the record given.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: My hon. friend (Mr. Reid, South Grenville) complained that there were some instances within his knowledge where the law was not enforced. I understood him to say that there were a number of 224
Americans in Prescott in violation of this law.	[DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: So there are.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Are they there against the wish of the hon. gentleman ?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Has the hon. gentleman reported the fact to the Attorney General of Canada, that prosecution may take place ?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: How is the Attorney General to know of the case then ?


John Dowsley Reid: I did not report the cases, because other cases have been brought before the Attorney General and no prosecution has followed.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Will the hon. gentleman name a case.


John Dowsley Reid: I have read a case.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Will the hon. gentleman, on his responsibility as a member of this House, name one case and let it go on record in ' Hansard' ? So far as I know, the Attorney General has prosecuted all cases that were brought before him where there was sufficient evidence.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many prosecutions have there been ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That has nothing to do with it. The law may not have been violated, the law is sufficient as it stands, and the Attorney General has not been neglectful of his duty. And I have merely been pointing out that the hon. member for South Grenville (Mr. Reid) who stated, in a casual way, that the law was being violated at Prescott admits that he has never brought the case to the notice of the Attorney General.


John Dowsley Reid: Was a case ever brought before the Attorney General, to the knowledge of the hon. gentleman, since this became law ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not know. I do not recall a case in the maritime provinces that has ever been reported.


John Dowsley Reid: Then, the hon. minister is in the same position as I am. I would like to ask him if he could name a case where the government has taken action ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As I am informed, the Attorney General has taken action in every case where the facts have been represented to him. But it appears that those who make an outcry in this House do not desire to enforce the law. One hon. gentleman took half an hour inveighing against the government because certain people are in his constituency in violation of the law. But when I asked him : Did you give that information to the Attorney General to be made the basis of a prosecution ? he says : No, I never did. How is the law to be put in force if hon. gentlemen like this who know that it is being violated secrete that information ? There is no difficulty about the law. But it is like other laws, for instance, the Scott Act. It will not enforce itself. Hon. gentlemen opposite will not enforce it or lend themselves to the enforcement of it, but will play to the galleries and make out that the law is not being enforced. My hon. friend (Mr. Clare) who introduced the Bill, has been met in a very proper way by the leader of the House. And I am glad to say also that he met the leader in a frank and straightforward way and said : I accept fully and frankly the statement of the leader of the House and I am well satisfied. The government asked to lay the matter over for a week, when they will be ready to announce what course they will take, and the promoter of the Bill is perfectly satisfied. But the politicians, who have been playing with this question for political purposes for the last ten or twelve years-at the head of whom is the hon. member for Leeds-are not satisfied ; and they have wasted the whole night talking about the enforcement of this Bill which the promoter knows, cannot be passed in the way in which it is introduced-it is not English and not law, and no lawyer would seek to put it upon the statute-book until it was revised and corrected.


William Findlay Maclean: Must not a man who is not a lawyer draft the Bill for this House ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not understand the relevancy of the question, it does not require a man to be a lawyer to draft a Bill. Sometimes laymen draft Bills better than lawyers do, and write, better English. What I am saying is that if we do proceed with this Bill, let us make that Bill-


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Unworkable.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am willing to accept that as the official announcement by the party opposite. There is no man better qualified to speak for his party than my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) ; and on reading the Bill, it seems to me that it is drawn up just to carry out his idea.	[DOT]


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. minister a question, if he has no objection.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: None whatever.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is this Bill and a similar one standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith). We have discussed this question since eight o'clock, that is for two hours and a half. In this measure is there anything contrary to the principle of these two Bills. Because, if there is nothing of that kind, then, after two hours and a half of discussion, should we not decide to either adopt or reject the principle of the Bill ? Because, at this stage, we are not dealing with the details but with the principle of the measure.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As it happened, the right hon. Prime Minister did not announce the introduction of a measure. He said that there were several Bills on the paper and that the government wished to consider the matter as one that had engaged their attention, and said that the conclusion reached would be announced on Wednesday next when the Bill came up again.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think that hon. members on both sides will agree with me that it is deeply to be regretted that, when a question of such vital importance to the working people of this country is under consideration, we had not the presence of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Muloek) to assist in our deliberations. I am glad, however, that before the discussion closes, we may have the advantage and pleasure of hearing what he has to say upon this important matter. I think hon. members will agree with me, too, when I say that the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) has placed the working classes of the Dominion under lasting obligations to him. The workingmen in his own constituency are espepially under obligation to him because of the frank, manly statement he made in moving the second reading of his Bill this evening. The hon. gentleman is a self-made man, he has grown up from the ranks, a man who, by his indomitable industry, by his integrity, by his great ability, has achieved the honourable position which he occupies as one of the largest, one of the most progressive manufacturers in Ontario west. And when a gentleman who knows the wants, the requirements, the wishes of the working classes of this country as well as he does, takes the trouble at the earliest opportunity to rectify an Act which has been found to be unworkable, which has been upon the statutes of this country for nearly four years, and which has been practically a dead letter, he is entitled to the sympathy and the support of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House. It is


John Dowsley Reid: not fair to meet him with that carping criticism to which he has been subjected to-night. If there are some minor defects in the amendments which he proposes to make to the Alien Labour Act, those defects could have been remedied in committee. But until the hon. gentleman gave notice of his intention to introduce this Bill, no other hon. member of this House had given any intimation of an intention to amend the Alien Labour law and make it workable, and it is only this evening that we are informed for the first time by the premier that the government are considering this matter, and may possibly bring down a measure amending the present unworkable law. Why, Mr. Speaker, statements have been made across the floor of the House for the past four years that the government have been considering this matter ; but I think I am within the judgment of the House in saying that the consideration which the government has been giving to this matter has for its object how to avoid their plain duty in the matter of enforcing an Act which was intended to be of some benefit to the people in whose interests it was passed. The hon. member for Hamilton read a statement made by the premier some three or four years ago when the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) proposed to introduce his Bill. I need not repeat the statement made by the premier on that occasion, but taking those words at their plain meaning, there is no hon. member in this House but will confess that they lead to the conviction that the intention of the government at that time was to put a workable measure upon the statute-book and to enforce it up to the hilt, as the United States authorities have persistently enforced their measure up to the hilt from 1897 to the present time.
Sir, I was amused, if that is a parliamentary expression, to hear the statement in the House to-night that the American Alien Labour law is not a workable measure. What appropriations have Congress made year after year for the enforcement of that law ? What reports have been made by the Alien Labour law commissioner as to the success which has attended his efforts in the enforcement of that law ? What figures has he given as to the number of men who have been deported, sent back from the frontier ? This information can all be obtained in the library, or from the authorities at Washington, by any hon. gentleman on the opposite side of the House, and if they take the trouble to look for that information they will find that every year a large appropriation has been made by the United States authorities for the enforcement of that law, and that every year that law has been vigorously enforced. It is only within the past two or three weeks that a statement has appeared in the press as to the action taken at Buffalo with regard to the deportation of Canadian workmen who were engaged in repairing one of the international bridges. So vigilant were the Alien Labour law officers of the United States that they actually deported these men who had been employed along with American workmen in repairing that bridge from the Canadian to the United States side of the river. Sir, the conduct and action of the United States Alien Labour law commissioner are in striking contrast with the conduct of the so-called la,bour commissioners that have been appointed from year to year to enforce the Alien Labour law here. American workmen were permitted to come over to the Canadian side of the river and assist in repairs on the Canadian side of that bridge, but when the repairs were completed on this side, and when it was necessary that Canadian workmen along with the Americans should go to the United States side of the bridge, they were deported, they were prohibited from going on with their work, they were sent back by the Alien Labour law commissioner ; and he proved by that act alone the Alien Labour law of the United States was capable of being enforced and was being enforced every day in the year. I have in my hand here a statement from the annual report of the secretary of the Treasury of the United States, and in speaking with regard to immigration and the number of people deported, he says :
In addition to the foregoing, there were excluded at the Mexican and Canadian borders a total of 1,616 aliens.
We will be told by and by that the great majority of them were sent back from the Mexican border, we will not be given information as to how many were sent back from the Canadian border, prohibited from entering the United States. I find further on in the same report:
Co-operation with organized labour in this country has been found useful in detecting violations of the contract labour law.
Instead of ridiculing the idea of invoking the aid and assurance of the workingmen to enable them to enforce the Alien Labour law, as was done by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and others to-night, the Alien Labour law commissioners of the United States solicited the assistance and co-operation of the officers of the organized unions on the other side to assist them in enforcing that law.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman is entirely wrong in imputing such a motive to me, I used no such language. I did not ridicule the aid of the workingmen ; on the contrary, I stated explicitly that whenever information had been given to the Attorney General of a breach of the law, he had given instructions to enforce it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why, Mr. Speaker, the echoes of the voice of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries have hardly died away in this Chamber, he said only a few minutes ago that to allow an employee to prosecute a company from which he had been dismissed, and to take action against it would have been outrageous, and still he challenges the accuracy of the statement that I have just made. The minister will find out that the statement he made a few minutes afterwards, that we had wasted the time of the House in discussing this matter, is not a statement that will he accepted by the workingmen of the country, who asked the hon. gentlemen opposite three or four years ago for fair-play, and have got hut scant and cold justice from them up to the present time. We have another statement here from the annual report of the Treasurer of the United States. He says :
For the enforcement of the alien contract labour laws there was expended during the year

That is during the year ending June 30, 1900.
-the sum of $99,598.51, leaving a balance of the annual appropriation of $401.49.
$100,000 had been appropriated by the Congress of the United States for the enforcement of the Alien Labour law, and the commissioners were so active and diligent that they expended every dollar of that amount, less $400.


William Forsythe McCreary: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to explain that that $100,000 voted by Congress is not only for the enforcement of the Alien Labour law, but also of the pauper immigration laws of the United States.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman will have to go to the library and get these books, they are as available for him as for myself, and lest he should not understand, I will read again the statement that I have just read :
For the enforcement of the alien contract la-hour laws there was expended during the year the sum of $99,598.51, leaving a balance of the annual appropriation of $401.49.
I am giving the House the information contained in the annual report of the secretary of the Treasury of the United States. If the hon. gentleman wants further information I would advise him to refer to that gentleman, or to the Alien Labour law commissioner of the United States. I am not an authority on this matter, I prefer to quote the gentleman who occupies the distinguished position of the secretary of the Treasury of the United States.
Sir, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries let some further light into the reasons, or gave some further information of the reasons which caused the government to Sir LOUIS DAVIES.
insert clause 8 in the Bill passed in 1897. He says that this was an international matter, that they had to proceed very carefully, that therefore every safeguard had to be thrown about the Bill so that it would work no prejudice to the amicable international relations existing between the two countries. Now, Sir, I do not doubt but that may have been in the mind of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries at that time, and that was the reason why clause 8 was inserted in this Bill. But may I ask the permission of the House to give the reasons of one of his colleagues as to why this Bill was framed and passed in the shape in which we find it ? Am I within my rights in quoting from a statement made by the colleague of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the Secretary of State, as to what his opinion of this measure was, and what he thought the prospects were of the enforcement of this Act after it was passed ? If so, I would like to read a few sentences from a statement which the hon. the Secretary of State made in another place :
I do not think the Act is likely to be enforced, and when it is not enforced it is a pity to place it on the statute-books, because it is not on a line with the views of the people of Canada. I should be sorry to see it on the statute-books because I know it would be an idle Act.
That is the opinion of the Secretary of State. He told another branch of the legislature of this country that it was not the intention to enforce the Act, that it would be an idle Act, and that it should not, for these reasons, be placed upon the statute-books. What does the hon. gentleman say to that explanation ? The hon. Secretary of State goes on further to deal with this very clause 8 that the hon. gentleman has discussed and explained at such great length. He says :
Under this Act persons can come in by thousands, and it is only when a report is sent to the Attorney General, and he makes inquiry that any action will be taken, and of course the party would by that time be absorbed in the community, and that would be an end of it. It is something we do not propose to carry out.
Now, I need not proceed any further to show he marked divergence of opinion that existed between the hon. gentlemen themselves in regard to this measure. Whether the intention of the government was as the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has stated it, and I am bound to accept his explanation, or whether the hon. Secretary of State was speaking wide of the mark in the remarks which he made upon this measure, the hon. gentleman in the other Chamber was the better prophet of the two. The Act has been a dead letter, no honest attempt has been made to enforce it from the time it was put on the statute-book up to about six weeks before November 7 last, when the elections were held. Then, a little spurt was made, then a little flash in the

6S6
pail was seen, and lion, gentlemen opposite endeavoured to persuade the workingmen of Ontario that they were honest in their determination to enforce this Act. But, the workingmen of Ontario have had experience of these lion, gentlemen, and when the opportunity was afforded them in November of expressing their opinion upon the conduct of the government, they had not the slight est hesitation in expressing that opinion. But, the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries asks : Has any case been brought before the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice, and has he refused to prosecute upon any occasion when the facts were laid before him ? If the hon. gentleman wants any information upon this subject let me quote to him the letter written by the hon. Minister of Justice in reply to an appeal made to that hon. gentleman by the mayor of the city of Hamilton, the mayor of the city of which my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) sitting behind me. is one ot the worthy representatives. This is what the hon. gentleman's colleague said :
Ottawa, May 27, 1899.
J. V. Teetzel, Mayor, Hamilton, Ont.:
The Attorney General is not at liberty to give his assent to the prosecution for the infraction of the Alien Labour 'law to which you refer, au understanding having been reached last summer by the international commissioners that the Alien Labour law, until the negotiations were concluded, should remain in abeyance in Canada in respect to persons coming from the United States and in the United States in respect to persons going thither from Canada. Until it is shown that this understanding is not observed by the United States officers, no action can be taken here.



DAVID MILLS.

[Stage Direction]
Is that sufficient answer to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to show that, there is a case where the hon. Minister of Justice was invited to do justice to the operatives of the city of Hamilton, and that he refused to allow any action to be taken- V
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That.was perfectly right.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), or no member of the government, has yet been frank enough to take the House into his confidence and tell us when the understanding so reached between the Canadian and American commissioners came to an end. We have a right to know, if such an agreement did exist, when it was abrogated, and what were the causes of its abrogation, and if the abrogation of that agreement is the cause of an appropriation of $9,000 being asked in the estimates for the enforcement of the Alien Labour law during the coming year. We have had no information of that kind vouchsafed to us. but we have had statements made again and again, and oft repeated by the alien labour commissioner at Buffalo and the collector of customs at Port Huron, that so far
as they knew there was no arrangement or understanding made for the non-enforcement of the United States Alien Labour law, but that, on the contrary, at all times and under all circumstances, the law has been vigorously enforced. This is the answer made to the allegations which we have heard again and again, but is it a sufficient reason why the Canadian Alien Labour law was not enforced ? I do not think 1 shall take up any more of the time of the House discussing this matter, because it seems to me that the proposition of my hon. friend (Mr. Clare), coming from a gentleman of his experience, coming from a gentleman who is a large employer of labour, is such a reasonable proposition, is such a conservative proposition, is such a just proposition. that it should not have been treated as the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) proposes to treat it, of being shelved for a week or ten days. The hon. gentleman has given great attention to this matter, he has seen the disabilities under which his own and other workmen labour by the non-enforcement of this Alien Labour law, he has seen that strikes have been engendered. that bad feeling has been fostered because of the facilities which have been given through the non-enforcement of this law to employers of labour on this side of the line when they had a disagreement with their operatives to bring American operatives from the other side without let or hindrance to take their places. It has caused a great deal of bitterness between employers" and their employees. If there had been an honest, straightforward enforcement of the law the disputes which take place from time to time between employers and employees would have been settled in a more amicable and satisfactory way, and the friction which has resulted would not have ensued. I hope that the proposition of my hon. friend, so fair and so reasonable, will be accepted by the ma jority in this House, and that at the earliest possible moment the Alien Labour law will be put into a workable condition and will be enforced fairly and reasonably from one end of this Dominion to the other. The workmen of this country have a right to that measure of justice and protection from the government. Sneers were made by an hon. gentleman opposite at my hon. friend from South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) because he had not been successful from year to year in securing the passage of an alien labour law by the House of Commons. Sir, whatever credit is due for the passage of a measure of that kind cannot be wrested from the hon. member for South Leeds. Year in and year out he 'persisted, whether his friends were in office or whether his opponents were in office, in introducing this measure for the protection of Canadian workmen into the parliament of Canada. He drew public attention to the matter, he aroused and cultivated public opinion as to

tlie necessity of a measure of that kind, and if he was not suceesful up to the year 1896, it was not his fault. The hon. gentleman opposite who has sneered at him tonight must share the responsibility of that failure, because neither that hon. gentleman nor any of his supporters, from the first time my hon. friend introduced his measure in 1890, or 1891, up to 1896, uttered one word in favour of a motion of that kind, or in favour of the adoption of the Bill which my hon. friend placed before the parliament of Canada.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) withdrew his Bill.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The man who insisted upon forcing that measure upon the attention of the people got little or no support from hon. gentlemen opposite. If they had been as anxious before 1896 as they were professedly since then, to do justice to the workingmen, they would have given the hon. member for South Leeds their assistance and co-operation in providing a law that would be workable, instead of one that is practically a dead letter. I hope that this measure will be passed to its second reading to-night, that the House will resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, that any imperfections that may be found will be struck out, and that it will be improved, with the assistance of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries and of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Mulock). We look to the hon. Minister of Labour, as a matter of course, to come to the assistance of the workingmen in perfecting this measure. With the assistance of these two ministers, and with the assistance of other hon. gentlemen, we will have a measure that will be of some advantage to the workingmen of the country, and they will appreciate the action of parliament if it completes tint work to-night.


Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland).: It is to me somewhat amusing to hear hon. gentlemen opposite prate so loudly and so long in the interests of the labouring men of this country, when for eighteen years they supported a government which absolutely and positively refused to pass an Alien Labour law in Canada. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) says that if the Liberal party, when in opposition, had supported the hon. gentleman for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) in his proposal yearly brought up in the House, that possibly the government of that day might have been forced to enact an Alien Labour law. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) desires to take his policy from the Liberal party. He is getting his policy from the Liberal party now: he will get it from the Liberal party fcr many years to come.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Oh. no.


William Manley German: Sir, there have been several statements made to the House to-


Edward Frederick Clarke: night, as to whether or not the Attorney General of Canada has ever enforced the Alien Labour law since it was placed upon the statute-book. I am inclined to think that if hon. gentlemen opposite had more fully desired the actual enforcement of that law, rather than desiring to make political capital against the government, it would be found that the Alien Labour law would be enforced every time they sought to enforce it. I venture to say that the hon. gentleman from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has never on one single occasion endeavoured to have the Alien Labour law enforced in this country. I ask him now, if he ever approached the Attorney General of Canada with the suggestion that the Alien Labour law should be enforced.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. gentleman desires an answer, I will give it to him. 1 have gone to the superior of the Minister of Justice; I have gone to the Prime Minister again and again from my place in this House, and I have appealed to him to have that Alien Labour law enforced.


William Manley German: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) cannot get out of it in that kind of way. The statute distinctly says that it shall be enforced on an application to the Attorney General of Canada, and not to the premier of Canada. I will venture to say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) has never gone to the Attorney General, notwithstanding the redundancy of feeling which he tries to exhibit in the interest of the workingmen. He has a large number of them in West Toronto, and he endeavours to get their votes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am proud to say I get them.


William Manley German: Yes, he usually gets them. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that I have been more energetic in the interest of the constituency I have the honour to represent than has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke), because I have seen that the law was enforced, and enforced promptly and effectively. We had in the town of Welland in which I live, contractors bringing Italians from the United States to do work on our public streets. I wired the Attorney General of Canada that the Alien Labour law was being violated, and I at once received a wire in reply authorizing me to see that the law was enforced, and in twelve hours from that time these men were deported from Canada.
Air. PUTTEE, Does the hon. gentleman wish us to understand that Italians were deported to the United States?
ill'. GERMAN. They certainly were. We have Italians in Canada who are Canadian subjects, and there are Italians in the United States who are American citizens, and these Italians who were American citizens and aliens had no right to come to

Canada and do work which Canadians could and would do, and they were deported immediately. The same thing happened along the shore of Lake Erie, where American citizens were building summer residences.


Mr. WALLACE.: Would the hon. gentleman tell the House the date of that deportation ?


William Manley German: It was about May of last year; it was early in the spring of last year. The contractors were building a granolithic sidewalk in the town of Welland.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: About the time you got your nomination.


William Manley German: No, sir; it was very much earlier than the time I got my nomination, and whether I had got my nomination or not I would try and see that the Alien Labour law was enforced, because I take a greater interest in the workingmen than do the hon. gentlemen opposite. These men prate of their Canadian loyalty in this House, but outside of this House they are meek and mild as lambs. The hon. gentleman from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) spoke about the work being done on the international bridge. I happen to know something about that. The International Bridge Company brought expert workmen from the United States; men that they could not get here, and there never was a complaint from any person in Canada. I challenge the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) to say that any Canadian expert workman who worked on that bridge on the American side of the Niagara river was ever deported. I defy him to mention the name of one.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I say they were. 1 can tell my hon. friend (Mr. German) that I know they were.


William Manley German: Give us the names, if you please.
Mi-. LANCASTER. I have not the names here.


William Manley German: The hon. gentleman cannot mention the name of an expert workman from Canada working on the international bridge wdio was deported. Why, they have only begun to work on the American side of that bridge within the last mouth. This all shows that hon. gentlemen opposite in order to make a point if possible against the government, will endeavour to garble the facts. I happen to know that the international bridge has not been built to the international channel until the last month. It is not all completed yet. They have just begun at the drawbridge there lately. There has never been an expert Canadian w-ho worked on the international bridge deported even by Mr. DeBarry, who has been the most effective officer in the United States service so far as .
deporting aliens is concerned. The Canadian Alien Labour law is, with slight exceptions, a verbatim copy of the United States Alien Labour law. The greatest difficulty that has arisen hitherto in regard to the enforcement of the Canadian Alien Labour law has been by reason of the very active operations of Mr. DeBarry, of Buffalo. We do not hear any complaint about it between Detroit and Windsor. We do not hear any complaint about it between the town of Niagara Falls on the Canadian side, and the city of Niagara Falls on the American side. I have heard something to-night about Prescott. I know nothing about the St. Lawrence district, but I venture to say that east of British Columbia, Mr. DeBarry the United States official has created more difficulty in regard to the operation of the Alien Labour law than any other one man either in the United States or Canada, by reason of his very great industry. He appears to be supported by the labour unions in the city of Buffalo, and he has continually and deliberately violated the Alien Labour law of the United States. He has exceeded the duty imposed upon him by the law of the United States. I know that he has taken Canadians who have gone to the United States and sent them back, just as illegally as he would take me or any other hon. member of this House by the shoulder and send us back. He has done it in violation of the Act, by reason of the pressure brought to bear upon him by the labour unions of the city of Buffalo. However, it has been done, in the county I have the honour to represent, it has created a good deal of friction. It was used as a political influence against me in the last election. It was said that I was not doing my duty to the labouring men, although I showed the people that I had been doing my duty. My opponent endeavoured to convince the public that the government had not been doing its duty-that it had put a law on the statute-book, and had not been endeavouring to enforce it. So far as I am concerned, I desire to see the Alien Labour law of this country enforced, and enforced properly in the interest of the public.
There are cases when it is in the interest of the Canadian people themselves that aliens should be employed in this country. There are occasions when you cannot get in this country the labouring men to do the work which you want done. There are occasions arising continually when you need employees whom you cannot get here, and it is necessary to get them in another country. Consequently, we have to be exceedingly careful in placing a law on the statute-book which will affect the rights of the public, as an Alien Labour law will affect those rights if improperly drawn and improperly carried out.
I am inclined to think the law as it at present stands will bear amendment. I had intended to propose an amendment myself,

and I am not certain that before this session is over 1 shall not do so, except that I hear from the government to-night that they desire that these matters shall stand over for a time, as they contemplate proposing a policy which they think may be satisfactory to the House. I am willing to bide my time and see what the proposition of the government is. If they bring down a Bill which is satisfactory, I shall be prepared to support it. If they bring down a Bill which is not satisfactory, I will rise in my place and to the best of my ability endeavour to make it satisfactory, at any rate, to me and the people whom I have the honour to represent. There is one respect in which, I think, the Alien Labour law can very properly be amended. The law at present is that you cannot contract outside the country ; that
is,	you cannot bring into this country aliens under contract made outside of the country. Men attempt to violate that law by telling employees to come to Canada and they will employ them here. If that objection can be got over, the law as it stands is as perfect as any Alien Labour law you can have. We have officers throughout the country with intelligence to enforce the law. I think possibly it might be made a little more elastic than it is ; it probably will be ; but I can say that the Alien Labour law as it stands to-day on the statute-book has been effective. It has been enforced wherever any gentleman has endeavoured to enforce
it,	and it has been a great benefit to the people of the country wherever they desired to take the benefit of it. It can be improved, but without improvement it is exceedingly better than anything hon. gentlemen opposite ever gave to the people of this country.


Mr. A. S. KENDALL (Cape Breton).: Mr. Speaker, I will not yield to the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) in his zeal for the workingmen. I happened to have been, along with my hon. colleague, elected for the county of Cape Breton by a majority of the votes of the workingmen of that county ; and we were elected, Sir, because during the time we served in the local legislature of Nova Scotia, we put on the statute-book of that province a considerable amount of legislation for the benefit of the miners. We can, I think, claim it as some tribute to that legislation that when a few months ago 140,000 American miners went out on strike, they struck for the very same concessions from the capitalists which we in Nova Scotia had secured by statute, chiefly at the request of the workingmen themselves. So that I have some authority to speak for the workingmen in the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
Now, I cannot support this Bill, for two reasons. . In the first place, it will prohibit the importation of skilled labour from another country into this country, no matter how much we may require it. If the great Mr. GERMAN.
iron works in Cape Breton and the contemplated iron works at Sault Ste. Marie are not to be allowed to import alien labour, it will be impossible for us to get those great industries started in this country. Further, if the importation of such labour is prohibited, it will cut off the labour from the coal miners of this country and even the ordinary labourers, and diminish the market of the agriculturists. We have everything to lose by making an inflexible law on this question.
For one, I do not care to submit the interpretation of this law to the judgment of any two magistrates. I think we must recognize that only some man or body of men with a due sense of their responsibility can be properly entrusted with the enforcement of this Act. I know magistrates, numbers of them, who no doubt would put this Act into operation with prudence ; but we all know that there are scores of magistrates in almost every constituency who could not be trusted to adjudicate upon it with discretion and prudence.
I believe I am speaking in the interest of a great many thousands of workingmen in Cape Breton and the eastern part of Nova Scotia when I say that I oppose this Bill for the reasons I have given. At the same time, it may be possible before very long to introduce some machinery for the carrying out of this law without the difficulty of approaching the Minister of Labour or the Attorney General of Canada. But, for the reasons given, I cannot see my way clear to support the Bill.
Motion of the Prime Minister agreed to, and debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. *
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What estimates will be taken up to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Public Works.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I would like to ask the Minster of Public Works whether before liis estimates are reached to-morrow he will be able to lay on the Table 'the return promised over a year ago in regard to the telegraph service?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not promise it a year ago.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The Prime Minister did. He promised to have it immediately prepared. I ask now whether the Minister of Public Works will be able to lay it on the Table before his estimates are taken up.



G93 MARCH 1, 1901

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All I can say is that my deputy told me to-day that this return would be ready tomorrow.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: So we shall have it before the hon. gentleman's estimates are taken up ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 1, 1901.