[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. G3) to amend the Franchise Act, 1898.-Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick.

[Stage Direction]
The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) asked for leave to introduce Bill (No. 64) to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900.
He said :	This Bill provides for amendments to the section respecting the posting of proclamations in the Territories. It also provides that in the case of the deposit required with the returning officer, a certified cheque on a bank will be available as deposit. Then it provides for a change in the form of the ballot to obviate difficulties arising in certain sections of Ontario where some of the voters marked their ballots outside the space opposite the name. It also provides that in the ease of manhood suffrage voters, those who move from one district to another will not iose their votes, and makes provision that in the event of manhood suffrage registration lists having been prepared under the Dominion Act within tlie year previous to a by-election, they may be available for that new election, and do away with the necessity of making a new list, as is the case now with the lists in force in the provinces.
Mr. MACLEAN.: Does the hon. gentleman intend to make any provision for Mr. Thornton getting the seat to which he has been elected, and for the reference of cases arising out of little imperfections in carrying out the law, to a county judge, where speedy justice can be obtained, as in the case of a recount and in municipal election cases ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The para-ticular election of West Durham is a matter which does not come within the purview of my powers, but within the powers of the House generally. The hon. gentleman's second point deserves consideration, and when the Bill comes up I will try to provide some short method of disposing of preliminary objections.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: All my hon. friend meant was whether the provision of the Bill with respect to a certified cheque would be made retroactive.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I would have to ask my hon. friend's opinion as to
the propriety of such retroactive legislation.


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

Mr. THOMAS  G.@: RODDICK (Montreal, St. Antoine) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 65) to provide for the establishment of a Medical Council in Canada.
He said : -I am very glad to have the opportunity of explaining this measure which, I think, is one of very considerable importance, and somewhat misunderstood in some quarters. Confederation had hardly been consummated when the medical profession of the four provinces, then constituting the Dominion, made up their mind that a mistake had been probably made in leaving the profession In the hands of the provincial governments. While common school education, grammar school education, and academy education, might well have been left in the hands of the provincial governments, it is questionable whether it was good policy or advisable to leave the professions, especially the profession of medicine, entirely under their control. Medicine, which is so cosmopolitan, it was thought, might well have been left to the central or Dominion government. In fact so thoroughly convinced on this point did the profession appear to be, that immediately after the British North America Act was passed, representatives of the profession from Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, met in the city of Quebec, as early in the history of confederation as 1867, the year of its birth. The president on that occasion elected was Dr. Tupper, now Sir Charles Tupper, and representatives of all nationalities and creeds were present. It was decided, after some discussion, to draft a Bill which should be presented to the Dominion government, to the effect that so far as the profession of medicine was concerned, the British North America Act should be amended so as to give the profession of medicine over to the central government. This Bill was worked up very thoroughly for two years, and in this city, in 1869, a meeting of the profession was held, then under the name of the Canadian Medical Association. This Bill was discussed at very considerable length during several days, but was not passed by the Canadian Medical Association and was practically killed. I believe that the want of success on that occasion was due to the fact that an attempt was being made to override the British North America Act by taking away from the provinces all power in connection with the medical profession and the granting of medical degrees. Another reason, I think, was that too large representation was asked by the universities. On that account the Bill was killed, and very little further was done in that direction. But, on many occasions, at the annual meetings of the Canadian Medical Association, this subject was brought up ; and, at last, about seven or eight years ago, it was


Mr. FIELDING.: decided to attempt to bring about a scheme of interprovincial registration. That means that the provinces should have an understanding among themselves that a man having a license to practice in one province should be allowed, on crossing the imaginary boundary line, to practice in the next province. This scheme went on fairly well until the Ontario Medical Council enacted that, before anything of that kind could be done it was necessary that a central examining board should be established in each province. Up to that time some of the provinces had no such examining board. Quebec never had from the very first. This central examining board was necessary according to the Ontario men, in order that the licentiates should receive recognition by the province of Ontario. There was a very strong feeling on the part of the profession in the province of Quebec in favour of bringing this about if possible, and establishing a central examining board in Quebec. The profession in that province went so far as to frame a Bill, which was presented before the local government at Quebec. But during that session of the legislature of Quebec, and when the Bill was about to come up, the heads of the three universities in the province of Quebec-McGill, Laval and Bishop's-appeared and opposed this Bill. They said that they could not allow their charter rights to be disturbed. According to the present usage, and from the time of confederation, it has been customary for the diplomas of these three universities to be accepted by the licensing body of the province of Quebec as sufficient to allow the holder to practice medicine in that province. Having discovered that it was impossible to meet the conditions of the Ontario Medical Council, and considering also that this provincial reciprocity would simply be a kind of understanding among the provinces which might have been destroyed at any moment, and also that it would stand in the way of a measure as general as we should like, thus preventing reciprocity with Great Britain and probably with France, the interprovincial scheme was dropped. Then, at a meeting of the profession in the province of Quebec three years ago, it being found that the scheme proposed was impracticable, the association representing the profession in the whole Dominion passed the following resolution :
Your committee desire to recommend that further steps he taken to ascertain the practicability of further legislation leading to the establishment of a federal qualification which will also place the profession in Canada on an equal footing with that of Great Britain, and that Dr. Roddick be authorized to take the necessary steps in the matter.
On the same occasion another resolution was passed, appointing a strong committee representative of the various provinces to assist and strengthen Dr. Roddick's hands
before the government. With this committee, Sir, I began to look about for a scheme. I consulted the law officers of the Crown, the parliamentary law officers and other legal friends, with a view to getting as much information as possible. I found that there were only two ways in which this parliament could interfere in this matter to gain what we sought. One was to bring about an amendment to the British North America Act. That, you know. Sir, is a large and heavy contract, and probably would never come to anything. An amendment to the British North America Act means that you must have, first or all, the assent of the two Houses of parliament in this country, then of the House of Lords and the House of Commons in Great Britain -and then, after all, the chances are, that when the matter was brought before the Privy Council it would be annulled and destroyed. So, that idea had to be given up. Then, I found-or rather, these legal friends found for me-another way out of the difficulty. Under section 91 of the British North America Act, the Dominion parliament has power to make laws

-for the peace, order and good government of Canada in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the legislature of the provinces.
Under this section, the Canada Medical Act and the Adulteration Act have been worked out since confederation. And I think you will agree with me, Sir, when I can prove, as can easily be done, that a medical man cannot cross the imaginary line between the provinces, cannot cross a river such as the Ottawa, without running the risk ot' being fined and, perhaps, imprisoned when he is atempting to save the lives of citizens of Canada, that the peace, order and good government of Canada are violated.
In order to bring about the change we desire, it will be necessary,, of course, to get the co-operaiton of all the provinces. It would be a mistake, in fact, it would be suicidal, to attempt anything without that co-operation. The autonomy of the provinces must not be disturbed in any way, nor need it be disturbed if the method that I shall propose is pursued. It will be necessary. either before or after the passage of the Bill in this House, for the medical board in each province of Canada to have an amendment made in the Medical Act of the province to the effect that, after the establishment of a Dominion medical council and a Dominion examining board, any one having the qualification which that council and that examining board will give him may go to another province in Canada and ask for admission to practice medicine in that province. Bach medical board will have to have a short enactment tacked on to the present Act in order that this may be carried out. Whether we have a permissive Bill here, a Bill which will anticipate or

precede the local enactment, or whether It shall succeed it, 1 think is a matter of very little consequence. There is one advantage in having it precede the local enactment, and that is, that it hurries up the local boards and the local parliaments in making their enactment. But, of course, it is a disadvantage in that it appears to be forcing the hand of the provinces, which I should be very sorry indeed to do.
Probably it does not occur to you, Mr. Speaker, or to other members of this House that it would be quite competent for this parliament to establish a Dominion medical board. It would be quite competent for the Minister of Militia and Defence to insist that every militia officer under the control of the Dominion government shall be examined before a Dominion examining board: it would he quite competent for the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice to insist that every penitentiary surgeon shall pass an examination before a Dominion board ; it would be quite competent for the Minister of the Interior to insist that his mounted police, those under his control, shall have a Dominion qualification ; and in every new territory which is established by the Dominion of Canada under the control of this parliament, the same conditions might be exacted. Therefore, Sir, I think it is quite competent for this parliament to establish a Dominion examining board, and to pass a Dominion Act of this character. Of course, men who would have that qualification would, on the strength of that, have no right to practice in the various provinces, where provincial rights exist, and on that account it is too contracted in its character, and I should not advise that anything of the kind should be done.
Now, Sir, I think it can be proved that a Dominion medical council can be established. How is that council to be constituted V That is a very difficult question, and one which has given me more thought than any other. Shall this council be established on the principle of representation by population ? Shall it be established on the principle of the province having the greater number of medical men being represented in proportion on that council ? Worked out on a scheme of representation by population, it would mean a very large and unwieldy board. Ontario has 2,500 medical men ; Prince Edward Island has only 90, so faking Prince Edward Island as a unit, Ontario would be entitled to 28 representatives on this board ; Quebec with its 1,400 doctors would have 15 ; Nova Scotia with its 476 doctors would have 5; New Brunswick with its 243 doctors would have 2 and a fraction ; Manitoba with its 344 doctor's would have 3 ; British Columbia with its 214 doctors would have 2 ; the North-west Territories with their 95 doctors would have one and a fraction.
Now, Sir, would this be fair to the smaller provinces, considering the fact that we are Mr. RODDICK.
not going to disturb the status quo, that the medical boards of the provinces shall exist as they have always, done ? There is no intention to disturb them in any way ; they must exist under any circumstances for the purposes of discipline and taxation ; because the federal medical council could have nothing to do with discipline, that must be left entirely to the provincial boards. Considering the fact that we are not disturbing the provincial boards, do you think it would be necessary for Ontario to have 27 representatives on this board, for Quebec to have 15, for Prince Edward Island to have one, and so on ? I think not. I think a fairer way, under the circumstances, would be for each province to have the same number. That seems odd ; but we know that when the American constitution was drafted, the little state of Rhode Island was given two representatives in the Senate of the United States, and the great state of New York only two, and that system still exists.
I think a scheme would answer every purpose under which there would be three representatives on this council from each province of the Dominion, including the North-'
. west Territories, and making altogether 24. I would propose this method of electing them : The president of each medical council in each province would be ex-officio a member of this council, one would be elected from among the council, and one would be appointed by the Governor General in Council. That would give a representation of three from each province. Of course the question will be asked,/ why have a representative appointed by the Governor General in Council ? I will give you my reasons for making this proposition. This board of 24 with three others to be added, as I will explain in a moment, should become and will become what the British Medical Council is to Great Britain, and what the Council of Hygiene is to France, namely an advisory board to the Dominion government, a board that can be called upon in case of dangerous pestilence or incursion of disease of any kind, to give the best possible advice under the circumstances to the health officers of the Crown, and to the health officers of the various provinces. Of course the best men should be selected, and I think we could trust any government to see to it that politics would not enter into the selection. I am satisfied that every government would feel bound, in recommending these men as their advisers, to select those who were eminent in their profession, men who were perhaps professors in universities, men who would possess special qualifications. Under this scheme of three from each province you have a board of 24. But I am satisfied that three men could do the work which is required as well as 30 men. They are only expected to see that the conditions are carried out which are mentioned in this Bill. They are to see that the standard of education is not lowered, that the examination is at least
as high as it would be in any province of the Dominion of Canada. Three men, who have their local board to fall back upon for advice and counsel will do the work as well as thirty. I think that three will be quite sufficient.
Besides these we require to have three more. A question which met me in working out this scheme was that the homeopaths and those who practice homeopathy in this country have certain rights in all the provinces and that these rights must be respected. On that account I would suggest, and the suggestion did not come directly from me but from the homeopathic body, that three homeopaths be added to this council. In every province in Canada they have rights ; of course these rights must be respected, and I think it would be only fair to give them three representatives. I would have these three representatives elected by the homeopaths themselves by ballot from the whole Dominion, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Wherever there are homeopaths let them have a vote and be allowed to select their three representatives on this council. They should also, besides that, have the right to examine in certain subjects which especially have to do with the practice of medicine, and they should have the privilege of having examiners. That will make a board of 27.


Mr. HYMAN.: May I ask the non. gentleman whether the homeopaths are satisfied with the provisions spoken of ?


Mr. RODDICK.: which are well worth having, the West India medical appointments and the appointments in India and in every British possession over which the British flag flies. They are now debarred from these prizes, and I say it is hardly fair, considering that we have the students and graduates of another colony where the facilities for teaching are not any better, if as good as they are in Canada, enjoying these privileges. Of course, I cannot speak authoritatively, hut in a conversation which I had three years ago with Dr. Charles Richer, who is well known as one of the ablest scientists in France, who is the professor of physiology in the University of Paris, and who is on the committee on constitution of the University of Paris, I had from him the assurance that if we had established in this Canada of ours, a Dominion board, qualifying for the practice of medicine, he had very little doubt indeed that he would be able to persuade his colleagues to acceiit those having that qualification. Therefore, not only would our English medical men have the British empire to roam in, but I feel satisfied from what I have learned that our French graduates would have France and her possessions for their field of labour. These are very strong reasons why this Bill should be well and favourably considered.
Of course, I am satisfied that the financial aspect of the question has to be taken into consideration. This medical council cannot be started, or at all events operated at the beginning, without some assistance, and when the matter is better understood I hope we will be able to persuade the right lion, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance that it would be nothing outre to give a grant towards this object at any rate for the first three or five years. This grant need not be very large; $3,000 or $4,000 would probably suffice. It would be necessary to pay the expenses of the examiners who shall be called on to hold examinations in the great centres of the country, and especially where there are hospital facilities. This being a Dominion measure and the government having practically the power to appoint one of these examiners, we may I think hope for some assistance from the Dominion treasury.
I have, of course, only glanced superficially over the provisions of the Bill, but I might further state that there is a clause which has reference to the profession of to-day. There is what you might call a retroactive clause in the Bill, to the effect that when any medical man has practised medicine for a certain number of years-the number of years has not been settled upon yet as to whether it shall be five years or seven years or longer-but when a man shall have been a practitioner of medicine in any province in the Dominion for a certain number of years he shall be allowed to take advantage of this legislation, and by paying the registration fee he will Mr. RODDICK.
be allowed to practice medicine in any province he may choose.
Now, to sum up the advantages of the Bill. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that we may expect from it a higher standard of medical education, and from the fact of having five years to study, we may hope to get a better class of medical men than under a four years course. One great point to be remembered in connection with this measure is, that it is going to break down the barriers which at present exist, betwmen the various provinces. It may not be known to every member in this House, that at the present time it is illegal and practically impossible for a medical man to step across an imaginary boundary line from one province to another to practice his profession. I know a doctor living at River Beaudette, who has been fined three times already for crossing the imaginary line into the province of Ontario to attend to his patients. That man cannot go out at night without entering- the province of Ontario; his patients are in the province of Ontario and within sight of his own house, and yet it is practically impossible for him to avoid the operation of this existing law. It is the same way between Hull and Ottawa here. If you, Mr. Speaker, lived in the city of Hull, and for some personal or business reasons you were obliged to come to the city of Ottawa and to bring your family with you, it would be impossible for you to have your own medical man to follow you, unless he had a license to practice in the province of Ontario. That is unquestionably a very great hardship. Some one may ask me: why does he not get a diploma in the province of Ontario. The answer is: that it may have been impossible for him to do so. If a student begins to study medicine in one province by complying with the provincial enactment in reference to matriculation, he may be debarred for ever from getting into another province, so absurd are the regulations to-day. These barriers exist in no other country under the sun, and it is the object of this Bill to break them down. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that between the unfriendly countries of France and Germany, (and you know they are not very fond of each other), they have a neutral zone of fifteen miles on the frontier especially arranged for medical men to pass the sentries in the discharge of their professional duties; while here in this enlightened Dominion, a medical man is unable to cross an imaginary provincial boundary to save life. When you think how cosmopolitan medicine is; that a broken leg is a broken leg in Canada as in Russia and Siberia, and that pneumonia is treated on exactly the same principles here as elsewhere; it does seem hard that some more satisfactory arrangement cannot be made for our profession. I can understand that in law where you have the Code Napoleon in the province of Quebec and the English
civil law in the other provinces, it might be difficult though not impossible to have interprovincial reciprocity in that profession ; but such difficulties do not exist in connection with the practice of medicine. Another very great advantage of having a medical examining board empowered to give diplomas to practice in any part of the Dominion or of the empire, is, that you would relieve the congestion which no doubt exists in our profession in the Dominion. If all the fields for the display of energy which I have referred to were open to Canadians it would place our men in a far more advantageous position. Instances in connection with the South African war have been cited to me time and again, in which our Canadian doctors who accompanied the regiments were debarred from attending any but Canadian soldiers. They were good enough and as able as any other doctors in the field, but they could not attend any soldiers other than Canadians. That places the profession under a very great disadvantage. It throws a slur on our Canadian doctors. As I have stated, many of our Canadians were as capable as any medical men in the field, and it is too bad to think they were turned down simply because they did not have a diploma which they could not get, but which they will be able to get should this Bill become law. I hope that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister will consider this Bill of sufficient importance to appoint a committee of the medical men of this House to consider it. There are some thirteen or fifteen of us here now, all of whom would I am sure be pleased to assist i*!' r - r measure which would be satisfactory to ail; and of course we would like to have them supplemented by others, especially members of the legal profession. I apologize to the House for occupying so much of its time.


William Findlay Maclean: The Bill which the hon. gentleman has introduced raises the question of the benefits of a legislative union as compared with those of a federative union, such as we have in Canada. There are cases in which a federative union is a disadvantage ; and we ought to consider not only how best to cure the evil which has been pointed out in reference to the practice of medicine, but other difficulties which are constantly arising in this country ; for instance, the question of our divorce and marriage laws, and the definition of an insolvent, a creditor and a debtor. In each of these cases there are a number of definitions, one province adopting one and another province another. The day is coming when a way out of these difficulties should be found. It is absurd that a practitioner of medicine cannot practice in every province of the Dominion. I believe the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roddick) has found a solution of that difficulty ; but he has only touched the margin of a
very important question. I do not think we can now ever come to a legislative union ; but I believe the cure will be found in appointing a royal commission of eminent men-say one of the judges of the Supreme Court, a man like the Clerk of this House, a representative of the Quebec judiciary, a representative of the Ontario judiciary, and so on, to study the question ; and when some kind of constitutional revision comes, as it must come in this country before many years, we shall have a fund of information collected which will be of the greatest value. There is something else coming. There is a great deal of talk, not only in this portion of the empire, but in every other portion, of the value and merit of Imperial unity. Imperial unity to my mind will have its value and its strength when the same laws obtain throughout the empire rather than in any kind of an Imperial federation. Why should there not be a code for the whole empire which would define, for instance, what a husband and a wife are, what a debtor and a creditor are ?


Mr. OSLER.: That is a pretty tough thing.


William Findlay Maclean: No, it is not. The right of a husband or a wife differs very largely in all the provinces of the Dominion. The same thing applies to the parties connected with a note and the parties connected with an insolvency. We will have to straighten out all these things in Canada, and some day throughout the empire; and when we have them straightened throughout the empire, and have an Imperial code that defines them in the same way in every part of the empire, then we shall have a bond of Imperial unity, uniting all the people of the empire together. It is an important question. But in regard to the particular matter before the House, the time has come when this parliament should deal with the question and enable a Canadian doctor to practice, not only all over Canada, but throughout the empire, just as doctors in the old country have a right to practice in Australia. I hope the suggestion made by the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Roddick) will receive the consideration of the government; that he will get the committee he asks for, and the assistance of the government and the legal gentlemen in this House in the direction of securing uniformity throughout the Dominion.


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


Mr. BLAIN asked :: At what dates were the changes made in the prices of binder twine during 1900, and what were the changed prices ?
141)3


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: In the absence of the Solicitor General, I beg to answer. In January, 1900, the prices for twine were fixed as follows
Quantities.	Manila.	Mixed.	New Zealand.In lots of 50 tons and upwards.	.125	[DOT] 09J	.085In car-load lots (less than 50	tons) 	.13	.10	.09In lots of one ton up to a car-	load 	.135	.105	.095In lots of less than one ton	.14	.11	.10
Terms in all cases cash on delivery.
In June the prices were fixed as follows
		New
Quantities.	Manila.	Zealand.
	.12 .125	.075 .08
In lots of 50 tons 			
In car-load lots (less than 50		
	.13 .135	.085 .09
In lots of less than a car-load.		
Prices for mixed twine (Beaver) as follows :
Fifty tons and over	09
Car-load lots	095
Ton. lots	10
Under a ton	10J
On July 11, the prices were as follows :
Quantities.	Mixed Manila Beaver.	New Zealand Standard.	Pure Sisal.	Pure Manila.In 50 ton lots..	.08	.061	.08$	.105Car-loads 	[DOT] 08J	.065	.09	.11Ton lots	.085	. 063	.091	.115Less than a ton	.09	.07	.095	.12


MR. WM. MOORE.
Mr. CULBERT asked :: 1.	Has William Moore been dismissed from the position of caretaker of the public buildings at the town of Brockville ?
2.	If so, when ?
3.	When was he appointed ?
4.	Were there any charges preferred against him ?
5.	If so, by whom ?
6.	Was there an investigation ?
7.	Has a successor been appointed ?
8.	If so, whom ?
9.	Have any complaints been made against the present caretaker for neglecting his duties ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1.	Mr. Moore's services were dispensed with.
2.	December 15, 1900.


Mr. BLAIN.: 3.	January 8, 1896.
4 and 5. The minister satisfied himself that the dismissal of Mr. Moore was required in the public interest.
6.	No.
7.	Yes.
8.	Wm. Purvis.
9.	None, so far as known.


MR. J. GALLANT.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	From what place did F. Gallant, deputy returning officer at poll No. 6, West Prince, claim mileage fees for taking vote at said poll on November 7, 1900 ?
2.	What was the amount of travelling fees claimed ?
3.	Was the claim paid ? If not, why not ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir
Wilfrid Laurier) :
1.	F. Gallant, deputy returning officer at poll No. 6, West Prince, P.E.I., claimed mileage from Chatham, N.B.
2.	The amount claimed was $25.25.
3.	The claim was not paid, because section 13 of the Dominion Elections Act provides that ' no person shall be appointed deputy returning officer, election clerk or poll clerk who is not a resident of the electoral district within which he is to act.'


ALBERTON, P.E.I.-POSTMASTER.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Who is the postmaster at Alberton, Prince Edward Island ?
2.	When was he appointed and what is his salary with or without office room ?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND :: 1.	Mary Jane Clark is postmistress at Alberton, P.E.I.
2.	She was appointed on April 1, 1900. Her salary is $450 per annum. She has also a rent allowance of $60 per annum.


SAFES TO POSTMASTERS.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: Is it the intention of the government to supply safes to postmasters at places of considerable importance, as Tignish, P.E.I., when salary of the postmaster is too restrictive to permit him to provide one for himself ?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND.: It is not the intention of the government at present to make any change in regulations hitherto prevailing, according to which postmasters in offices not located in public buildings have been required to furnish suitable protection for the mails under their charge at their own cost.


PORT COLBORNE.
Mr. INGRAM asked :: 1.	What was the total expenditure by the government on Port Colborne harbour since June 30, 1896 ?
2.	What is the amount expended each year on said harbour since June 30, 1896 ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1.	Expenditure by Department of Public Works, $1,706.72.
2.	In 189S-9, $598.43 ; 1899-1900, $340.25 ; to March 1, 1901, $768.04.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: What was the expenditure by the Department of Railways and Canals ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no further information. We will let the question stand.


LACHINE CANAL.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Have tenders been asked for the construction or extension of the Montreal new lock of the Lachine Canal ?
2.	If so, have any tenders been received, and from whom ?
3.	On how many different occasions have tenders been asked for ?
4.	What was the amount of each tender of each person tendering on each occasion ?
5.	Has the contract been awarded to any person ? If so, to whom, and for what amount ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The contract has not been awarded.


MAIL CARRIAGE-SIMCOE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
Have any contracts for the carrying of mails In the ridings of East, North or South Simcoe been renewed since the 15th day of July, 1896 ? If so, what ones were so renewed ? Have any temporary arrangements been made in any cases ?
James Sutherland: Some contracts have been renewed, but it would be quite impossible, with the staff we have in the department, to prepare the answer at the present time. If my hon. friend will move for a return, the whole information will be brought down.


MISS ELIZABETH CAYOUETTE.
Mr. MORIN asked :: 1.	Has Elizabeth Cayouette, formerly postmistress of Langevin, county of Dorchester, province of Quebec, been dismissed?
2.	If so, for what reason ?
3.	If dismissed, who is her successor ?


James Sutherland: She has not been dismissed.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
Copies of all petitions, papers, directions, letters and other correspondence relating to the change in the situation of the Pearl street subpost office in Hamilton, or to the age and reputation of the late postmaster, Mr. Hull, or to the situation of the new post office and the appointment of Mr. McDonell; also for copies of all communications and papers which led the inspector to make inquiry with regard to any of these matters.-Mr. Barker.
Copies of all correspondence, telegrams and reports of engineers, or other persons, referring to the improvements to be made at Grand Bend, on the east shore of Lake Huron, in the electoral district of North Middlesex.-Mr. Sherrltt.
Copies of all specifications, tenders, &e., in connection with the contract for the Montreal harbour works, which was awarded to Messrs. Malone and Company, of Three Rivers, indicating what changes have been made in the contract as compared with the original specifications.-Hon. Mr. Haggart.

Mr. GEO.: TAYLOR (South Leeds) moved for :
Copies of all correspondence, telegrams and reports that have passed between the Dominion government and the Imperial government respecting the Island of Anticosti.
He said : In presenting this motion, I wish to draw to the attention of the House some correspondence that was placed in my hands with reference to the subject of the motion. A letter has been placed in my hands which appeared in the Montreal Witness of 10th January last, which gives a history of the Island of Anticosti which, I presume, very few have read before. The letter reads as follows :
Sir,-The establishment by Lloyd's of a signal service at Belle Isle to supersede the present signal station at the east end of Anticosti Island, 462 miles below Quebec, at this juncture, renders the question of the ownership of the Island of Anticosti a subject for the home as well as the colonial government, for two reasons. In the first place, the transference of this island, which has over 300 miles of sea-coast, is about 140 miles long and about thirty-five miles broad in the widest part, with an average breadth of twenty-seven and a half miles, and comprising a territorial area of 2,460,000 acres, to private French ownership, thereby divesting British subjects of their rightful property, and, in the second, depriving the River St. Lawrence and its gulf of the most valuable natural harbours for naval defence existing at the front door of the great water highways of the Dominion of Canada, for the island possesses three harbours, one at Ellis Bay, a second at Fox Bay, and the other at South-west P dnt. The harbour at Ellis Bay at the upper end and that at Fox Bay at the lower end of the Island, are capable of accommodating a large fleet of the largest sized sea-going ships and steamers with safety in all kinds of winds, having an excellent holding bottom of gravel and mud, and the other, South-west Point, could easily be made safe by the construction of breakwaters. These harbours offer peculiar advantages for purposes of naval defence, because all vessels bound up or down the St. Lawrence must pass close to the island. When it is mentioned that upwards of 2,000 vessels arrive from Europe in the season, embracing several of the finest lines of steamers afloat, besides a large fleet of coasting and fishing craft, all of which must necessarily pass within view of the island, the national importance attachable to the position and capabilities of these harbours for commercial and naval stations becomes apparent; and they are in the most convenient and central spot for

commanding with a few steam vessels or gunboats the two entrances of the river, and for the despatch of cruisers either up the stream or down to any of the gulf ports.
The whole Island of Anticosti was first granted by the Crown of France in 1680 to Louis Joliet, a Frenchman, in consideration of his discovery of Illinois, now the state of Illinois, and for other services rendered to the government. After the conquest of Canada by Great Britain it passed into the hands of wealthy English families, and for upwards of a hundred years the English heirs of Langan, Dunn and Stewart owned the island-the Langans one-half share and the others a quarter each-and in 1873 Captain Forsyth, late of the 7th Hussars, one of the heirs of Langan, made an organized attempt to settle the island, and during the next two years over 1,000 immigrants made their home there, a hardy race of Newfoundland fishermen settling at Fox Bay under the seigneur-ship of Captain Forsyth, whose policy was that all who applied for particular lots of land were told that they could occupy the land, and as soon as a survey had been made they would be granted the land at a reasonable rate. In addition to the settlers^ there was likewise a floating population which visited the island during the fishing season, of some three or four thousand people. These people or their forefathers had visited the island for over a hundred years. During the season they occupied themselves in fishing and drying the fish they had caught. They were given the privilege of cutting what timber they required for their own use, and of shooting what game they needed. Stores and supplies of all kinds were established on the island, and the settlers and floating population were allowed the highest market price for fish, furs or anything they had to sell. Unfortunately for Captain Forsyth and the welfare of the settlers, his enterprise was ahead of the times, and having to bear all the expense, and the island being undivided, it was decided to bring it to licitation sale.
Four years ago Mr. Henri Menier, of French chocolate fame, purchased this island of Anticosti, which, as any one who will take the trouble to look at the map will see, commands the entrance to the River St. Lawrence. His object, as stated then, and many times since, was to provide for himself and his friends a game and fishing preserve where they might spend their summers with profit after the exacting operations of chocolate making in France. Mr. Menier acquired the island from an English company which had purchased it from a Mr. F. W._ Stockwell, who in turn had bought it at the licitation sale, and Captain Forsyth claims that the licitation sale was illegal on the ground of conspiracy between the purchaser and the party who instituted the proceedings in licitation, and that judicial proceedings are not barred by the ordinary ten years' proscription, but come under the thirty years' statutory proscription.
However, Mr. Menier has got possession of this island, which, in the event of war between Great Britain and France, would be a valuable point for an enemy of Britain and Canada. While Anticosti was in the hands of good British subjects it was one thing; now it is in foreign hands, it is high time that the home government stepped in and demanded that the colonial daughter shall not forget her duty to the mother country by the alienation of any of her territory from British relationship. And this has been painfully emphasized by Mr. Menier's actions. His first act, what was it? To warn the English-speaking people on the island that they


Mr. TAYLOR.: must move; that they no longer had any rights there; that all their years of labour in making a home for themselves and their families must go for nothing; and so he appointed Mr. Com-mettant governor, who cruelly evicted from their peaceful homes the English-speaking settlers of Fox Bay. It was nothing to him that these poor people had made their homes out of the wilderness of this once barren island, that their children had been born and their parents sepul-tured there. It is true the courts decided in Mr. Menier's favour as* against the settlers, and so the provincial police were requisitioned to expel these people from the island and to tear down their houses, not because they were pirates or invaders, but because they could not be subject to Mr. Menier as absolute sovereign of the island and its waters. He demanded not only seigneur's fee of right of occupation, but they were forbidden to trap or shoot, or take any fish excepting codfish. He forbade my one to leave the island or to land upon its shores without his permission. He forbade them to trade with the outside world, or the outside world to trade with them. They must sell all to him and buy all from him, or forfeit their residence on the island. Aftqr twenty-seven years' freedom on Canada's free soil, they refused to sacrifice their manhood to be made serfs to a foreigner coming in and claiming what no citizen of Canada ever claimed in any part of this Dominion- an extensive right of ownership, as if he were the irresponsible king or the autocratic sovereign of that possession.
The Imperial government has already recognized that there is something of national importance to this Dominion, this celebrated Frenchman getting possession of the entrance to the St. Lawrence. The whole case is one of hardship and of interference with the rights of Canadian citizens and British subjects settled upon British soil, as was amply proved by the testimony of Edward Osborne and Hoyles Whiting, of Fox Bay, who were delegated by their brother-settlers to appear for them in the court at Murray Bay to show cause against eviction, and corroborated by the Rev. A. B. Argue, a resident missionary. Whether ultimately the Menier right of ownership be confirmed or upset by the courts, the question paramount today is, ' Shall the open door to the great River St. Lawrence be closed at the mere caprice and whim of an alien to Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada?' It is absurd to urge that merely because Mr. Menier has paid a mere bagatelle for and taken possession of the Island of Anticosti, he cannot be disturbed. Ucder the Militia Act of Canada the island can be expropriated by the Dominion government for military purposes, apd with modern guns mounted on suitable sites no vessel could enter the St. Lawrence, for they could knock out anything attempting to go up or down this waterway.
This is a burning question to-day in Canada. No one here desires to dispossess Mr. Menier without compensation ; the provincial government is impotent to move in the matter ; the Federal government would like to do so if certain of national approval; therefore, the home government should lose no time in bidding the Dominion parliament to expropriate the island, place it in a condition of strong and ample defence, both from a naval and military standpoint, and so restore British soil to British possessors, who will see that its colonists live in peace and contentment. Canada, uninvited, went to the succour of the mother country; now the mother country can well afford to reciprocate in the direction indicated in this article.
1410'
In an interview with the writer, Captain Forsyth said: 'I am personally very fond of the French, and admire them as a great military nation, consequently I do not think it right to throw temptation in their way by permitting Mr. Menier to control such an important strate-getical point as the Island of Anticosti. I am not acquainted with Mr. Menier, but judging from his treatment of the Fox Bay settlers, which from a rational view of the case was quite as had, if not worse, than any Irish eviction, and the arbitrary policy he has adopted towards the fishing population in general, I see trouble and danger ahead. Indeed, bad the evicted settlers not been a law-abiding and Godfearing class, instead of the pirates and wreckers he and his abettors tried to make the public believe they were, Mr. Menier and his agents would assuredly have been shot or thrown into the sea.'
That letter is signed by W. H. C. The Montreal Witness of the 5th of January, published this letter, and the following editorial concerning it :
We cannot add a word to the singularly clear and extremely interesting statement of the position and the history of the Island of Anticosti, which appears in another column of this paper under the signature of ' W. H. C.' We do not think the writer has attached any false seriousness to the national and Imperial aspects of the case, which he has so ably set forth. Assuming Mr. Menier's title to the island in fee simple to be perfect, though that is disputed by Captain Forsyth, and assuming that the limitations which he has placed upon residents by arbitrarily dispossessing English-speaking settlers, upon fishing off the shores and upon traffic with the island to be all within the law, it must still be admitted that there are national interests connected with so vast a domain in 30 prominent and strategetic a position, that are in no wise wiped out by the mere fact of private ownership. Nor is the fact that the ownership is foreign, and, under possible circumstance, antiBritish, entirely without significance. It seems to us, therefore, the part f)f statesmanship, both Canadian and British, to give careful consideration to the facts presented, and if the proposal made by our correspondent fails to meet with approval, to inquire how otherwise the public interests of Canada and the empire may be safeguarded from possible damage.
That is an editorial of the Montreal Witness dated the 5th of January, stating that it is the duty of this government and of the British government immediately to expropriate the Island of Anticosti, and to take it into the hands of British people, so that it may not be a menace in future. I could read editorials from the Yarmouth Times, which are pretty strong, but I will not do so. However, I will refer to an interview which was copied in the Montreal Star of the 23rd of February, taken from a Paris correspondent under the same date. Mr. Menier, being interviewed, made use of this language :
Henri Menier was interviewed yesterday regarding the statement that a petition had been addressed to Mr. Chamberlain asking that Mr. Menier should be expropriated from Anticosti, and that the Colonial Secretary had referred the matter to the Canadian government to take 45
such action as the interests of the empire demanded. Mr. Menier declared' that the first information that he had in regard to this was in a telegram to the Daily Mail.
He is, he declared, on the best terms with the Canadian government and British authorities and is convinced that the incident is a very common place one, and that Mr. Chamberlain has nothing to do with it. * He has,'' said Mr. Menier, * probably received, as has happened before, a petition from one or two of squatters of Fox Bay, who cannot console themselves for having been expelled from Anticosti, and has confined himself, according to his custom, to sending it to the proper quarter to be examined. It is just as if I had received from one of my workmen, which I would send to the manager of my factory to see what could be done with it. But the people of Anticosti since expulsion by the government

That is the way that Mr. Menier puts it. He says that the people of Anticosti were expelled by the Canadian government, which, under cover, in my mind, was the fact because the lion. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), after making his visit there, came back and said that the government should confirm Mr. Menier in his title to Anticosti. Mr. Menier continues :
But the people of Anticosti since expulsion by the government, of the squatters who wished, in spite of my rights, to take up their residence there, are quite reassured as to their position, on which the courts have pronounced several judgments, judgments which affirm my rights. Neither Mr. Chamberlain nor the Canadian government with which, I repeat, I am on the best terms, has, I am sure, any arriSre pen see in the matter, and the incident is without importance.
That is what Mr. Menier says. He says that he is on the best of terms with the Canadian government. I fancied so when the question was put the other day as to how many licenses for catching lobsters were issued for the Island of Anticosti, and the answer was given that one had been issued at a fee of .'(100 to Mr. Dagget who is, I presume, one of Mr. Menier's men on the Island of Anticosti. This is a question of importance both to the British Empire and to Canada, as is stated by the writer of this letter who signs himself W. H. C. That island, if owned by a foreign power, or by a party whose interests are opposed to those of Canada, as no doubt Mr. Menier's are, could, with very little expense, be so fortified that no boat could pass up or down the River St. Lawrence. I am anxious to see what the correspondence is that has passed between the British and Canadian governments in reference to the matter of expropriating that island and taking possession of it. When once taken possession of I think these Fox Bay settlers who have been ejected from that island by this government should be restored to the lands that they have occupied for over 100 years. I think it is a case of hardship, and I will always think so. The people of Fox Bay were treated unfairly from first to last. I have



another motion on the paper upon which 1 will deal with that question more fully. At present I confine myself simply to getting the correspondence in order to see what has passed between the British and Canadian government in reference to the island.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no objection to bringing down the correspondence that has passed upon this question between the British government and the Canadian government. So far as my memory goes at present, I do not think there has been any correspondence exchanged as to the expropriation of the Island of Anticosti from Mr. Menier. There have been some representations made which will be brought down. The Imperial authorities, however, have never thought of calling our attention to the fact that Mr. Menier's property should be expropriated on the ground that there is danger in his possession of it to the British Empire or to Canada. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) may say. that, if batteries were placed on the Island of Anticosti no vessel could enter the St. Lawrence, I must say that the wildest stretch of imagination could not support such a statement. I am not very familiar with the Island of Anticosti, but I believe there is, on each side of the island, an open channel at least sixty miles in width and certainly no batteries could command sixty miles of water. It is preposterous to think that the Island of Anticosti could be so fortified as to command the channels on both sides of the St. Lawrence. That it is of strategic importance is without doubt, and if, unfortunately, we were to have hostilities, it might be a point to consider whether or not we should take possession of it, but to say that this action ought to be taken to-day is out of the question altogether. At all events, as I said a moment ago, I do not remember at this moment that the Imperial authorities have ever made any representations of that character. That would be enough for the motion of the hon. gentleman, but, let me say, in passing, that he makes in regard to Mr. Menier, some observations which it is just as well for me to notice and to answer, not because we are on the best of terms with Mr. Menier, but simply because the remarks of the hon. gentleman may prejudice the public mind against Mr. Menier. Mr. Menier is a French citizen, and he says he is on the best of terms with the government. I do not say that there is anything wrong in that at all, either on the part of Mr. Menier, or the government. We cannot but be on the best of terms with all citizens of this country and with all those who have interests with us. I do not know that the terms upon which we are with Mr. Menier are better than the terms upon which we are with any other citizens. I do not think Mr. TAYLOR-
that I ever exchanged a single line with him and I am not aware that he has had any communincation other than the official communications he has had to exchange with the government as being a citizen of another country having interests in Canada. In regard to the statements made by the hon. member for Leeds that Mr. Menier has arbitrarily dispossessed British citizens and that they have been expelled by the government, let me say that Mr. Menier, and I want the hon. gentleman to take particular notice of what I say, has treated all the squatters on the island whether they were English or French, in the same way. He has asserted his rights to the property against them all, against the Fox Bay settlers, who happened to be of British origin and against those who settled at L'Anse aux Fraises, who happened to be of French origin. He took legal proceedings against them all. The Fox Bay settlers were the only ones to resist the process of law. All the others came to terms and the terms to which they agreed were that ill-. Menier required from all the squatters that, they should acknowledge his authority, that they should take a lease from him and he paid every one of them for the improvements they had made upon the property. The Fox Bay settlers would not accept these terms. They went to law and lost their case. They were expelled, not by this government, but under the authority of the courts and this government came to their rescue so far as they could. We gave them transportation from Anticosti to the city of Quebec, and from Quebec the Canadian Pacific Railway gave them transportation to the North-west Territories, where they are now settled. That is all there is about the Fox Bay settlers. My hon. friend stated a moment ago that the Fo'x Bay settlers had been in possession of their land for more than 100 years. The Fox Bay settlers, if they had been in possession of their land, not for 100 years, but only for thirty years, would still have remained in possession, because, under the law of the province of Quebec, thirty years' possession is equivalent to a title. They had been in possession only twenty-five years, and they were expelled by the courts. It was a very hard case, I admit, but a case of -expulsion is always a hard one. However, there was nothing else in that case than must take place in every civilized country where a citizen clioses to assert the rights which he is possessed of under the laws of the country in which he lives.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. B. M. BRITTON (Kingston) moved :: That the House is of opinion that the present practice of applying to parliament for a divorce is in many ways objectionable, and virtually gives in certain cases redress to the wealthy which is denied to the poor.
That jurisdiction should be given to some one court of each of the provinces of the Dominion, or a court should be established in each of the said provinces for the trial of cases for divorce, and that such court should have exclusive jurisdiction to decree a dissolution of marriage.
He said : There is no need of any apology or excuse for again bringing this most important subject, namely, ' Divorce in Canada,' to the attention of parliament. It affects the well-being of society ; the personal happiness of many in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It touches home-life. It Involves the services of obedience to, or violation of law. Connected with it are parental duties, and the rights of women and innocent children ; their rights to property, and their rights to social position and recognition.
I do not intend to treat this subject exhaustively, nor do I intend to speak so long as to weary the House if I can help it. This question has been dealt with in a book which is to be found in the library, written by Mr. Gemmill, barrister, of Ottawa, and after reading that book with a good deal of care I can commend it to any one who is interested in the subject. There is in that work a collection of cases that have been before parliament, as well as a digest of the laws of the various provinces, and a little treatise on the origin of divorce counts in England ; the whole giving information well worthy of perusal. There is a prefatory note to that work by Sir John Bourinot, and of course it goes without saying that what Sir John says on matters of -this kind will be read with interest, and a good deal of importance will be attached to it. Now, what is the law of Canada at present in reference to divorce. The whole subject of marriage and divorce is given to this Dominion parliament by the British North America Act, and we have exclusive legislation, or rather the authority to legislate on that subject. Of course, as every one knows, some of the provinces on coming into confederation had divorce courts established, and these are continued. Section 129 of the British North America Act deals with that matter as to provinces entering the union at confederation, and section 146 extends to other provinces which may afterwards be brought in. I shall not discuss the constitution of these divorce courts existing in certain provinces at confederation, nor as to how they have exercised their jurisdiction. There was a divorce court in Nova Scotia at confederation, and from the date of confederation up to 1888, I am informed that 52 divorces were granted by that court. There was then and there is a divorce court in New Brunswick, and from the date of confederation to 1888, it granted 40 divorces. There is a divorce court in the province of Prince Edward Island, and that court is singularly constituted. It is a court of the Governor in Council, as I understand it, and 45i
a legal question arises as to whether its jurisdiction is to be exercised by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or by His Excellency the Governor General in Council. Whether because of this difficulty as to its jurisdiction or not, I am unable to discover the number of cases, if any, that have come before it from the date Prince Edward Island entered confederation down to 1888. There is also a divorce court in British Columbia and there is a divided opinion amongst the judges as to the jurisdiction of that court. There are strongly expressed opinions against the validity of the decisions of that court. I express no opinion myself. I only say that there is an important question as to the validity of the divorces which this court has assumed to grant, and 15 cases have been dealt with by the court in British Columbia. The province of Ontario, the province of Manitoba, and the North-west Territories have no divorce courts. It so happened that the laws introduced in the province of Ontario were the laws as they existed in England in 1792, and at that time the courts in England had no jurisdiction in divorce cases. Prior to confederation the province of Ontario never assumed to deal with the question ; since confederation it has no authority to deal with it, and hence no court in Ontario has authority to dissolve the marriage tie. The courts in Ontario have assumed jurisdiction in cases where the allegation was that the marriage itself, was a nullity, where fraud was practiced on one of the parties, or in cases of lunacy and such where the marriage was void ab initio. In Ontario, Manitoba, the North-west Territories, and, of course, in the province of Quebec there is no court with power to dissolve the marriage tie, although the courts in Quebec deal with the question as to whether or not the marriage was validly solemnized, and that question is now under discussion in the Del-pit case which is watched with a great deal of interest throughout the Dominion. In these provinces I have mentioned, there is no divorce court at present except the court of parliament which is a legislative divorce. Every one who has studied the question knows that prior to 1888 the proceedings in order to get a divorce from parliament were of a most cumbrous and expensive character. They are so yet, in my opinion, but they are less so since the new rules adopted by the Senate in 1888. But even yet the dealing with the subject by parliament is difficult and expensive. Sometimes cases are disposed of by caprice, if I may use such a word with regard to so august a body-not disposed of, as the senators say, on their merits ; and some new plan ought to be adopted.


Robert Laird Borden: Can the hon. gentleman give us any information as to the ordinary cost of procuring divorce through the Senate ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: I will speak of the cost before I get through. When I had this matter in mind, I noticed that there was something on the subject by ' Bystander ' in the Weekly Sun of the 20th of February. It is not necessary to say who ' Bystander ' is ; his opinion on any such subject always commands attention. He says :
It is surely time that the marriage and divorce law of Canada should be placed on a rational footing and administered by regular courts. Marriage is a civil status. By the state its rights and privileges are guarded and its duties and liabilities are enforced. For the civil power, not for the churches or the clergy, it is to determine by whom and how _matrimony may be lawfully contracted ; in what cases, when contracted, it may be lawfully dissolved. At the same time the union has a spiritual aspect, in virtue of which cognizance may rightfully be taken of it by a church. A civil marriage, constituting and regulating the connection in the eye of the civil law, ought in the first instance to be universally required. A religious ceremony might follow, such as the parties desired and their church required ; and the church would be at liberty to withhold its benediction in case the union were at variance with its spiritual law. Divorce, in the same way, ought to be in the jurisdiction of the state so far as its legal validity and consequences, including the (liberty of legal remarriage, are concerned. The church would still be at liberty to withhold her sanction from the divorce and to refuse to recognize remarriage as a title to continuance in her membership and participation in her rites.
Divorce by the Senate is preposterous and belongs to a bygone age. It is the ghost of the old law, or rather of the old mockery of the law, in England, where in former days you could be divorced only by an Act of parliament originating in the House of Lords. Judge Maule, the laughing philosopher of the Bench, had to try a poor man for bigamy. The man was proved guilty, but pleaded the unfaithfulness of his wife. ' Prisoner,' said Maule, * you are to understand that in this country there is not one law for the rich and another for the poor. If your wife was unfaithful, your proper course was to bring a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for divorce " a mensa et thoro." Having gained this suit, you should have a bill brought into the House of Lords for a divorce " a vinculo." This proceeding would have cost you at least a thousand pounds, and you probably in the whole course of your life never possessed a thousand pence. You see then how in this country there is not one law for the rich and another for the poor. The sentence of the court upon you is, &c.' It was thought that this joke had not a little to do with the establishment of the present divorce court. If we are to have no divorce court in Canada, the result may be increased resort to the wild-cat divorce courts of some of the American states.
After I put the notice of motion on the paper, I found that a good many persons had been thinking of this subject, and I have received many communications with regard to it. I do not propose to trouble the House with all or one tithe of what has been said to me ; but there is one letter from which I propose to read some extracts,


Robert Laird Borden: 142Q
fact of this parliament passing a vote on a serious case of this kind, where the matrimonial bond is to be dissolved, without, as the leader of the government states, anybody reading the evidence in regard to it. . . .
The hon. gentleman suggested that one hon. gentleman who had read the evidence had done something which was improper, and he took credit to himself for voting without reading the evidence. If the leader of the government has done that, what may be expected from the rank and file ? I was led to the conclusion, which i have expressed, very largely by the discussion in the other Chamber on the case which we have just voted upon. I read the speech of the leader of the government in the Senate, and I found that he argued that the Senate was not to he bound by any of the rules adopted by the House of Lords before the divorce court was established in England; that there was no legal rule guiding their decisions to which any ordinary member could look, or under which he could act, pro or cou; that every man could use his own judgment and do what was right in his own eyes; that the decision was to he an arbitrary decision in every case; in fact, that the man or the woman who canvassed the hardest in the lobby was the one who would win. After reading that, 1 judged that there was no rule guiding tlie Senate, and I came to the conclusion that a rule should be adopted aud tbat a tribunal should be established which would be guided by fixed principles, in the hands of judges, so that in this very important matter we might know what we are doing. I know, that there is a large section, a religious section of our people, who are opposed to the granting of divorces altogether, but it must be evident to them that at present divorces are granted year after year, not because facts show in the greater number of cases that these should be granted, but because" the parties on oue side or the other have evoked a certain amount of sympathy: that they are granted, not because of the evidence taken, but simply because those who are promoting the Bill are more or less active. I think It would be far better that we should leave these questions to trained judges and trained lawyers. Draw the line as closely as you like, hut leave it to these trained men to carry it out. If that system were adopted we would not see the absurdities which I have seen during the short time I have been in this House, and which we witness year after year. I venture the assertion that there are not a dozen gentlemen here who have read the evidence in this case from end to end ; I doubt if there are half a dozen ; and yet we are voting pro and con on the question of whether this divorce Bill shall be passed or not.
This discussion in the Commons and the Senate led, apparently, to the making of the new rules which I referred to as having been adopted in 1888. I suppose it was that discussion, though, I may he guilty of anachronism in that. It happens to be the same year, and I have drawn that inference, but I may be wrong. In 1891 Senator McDonald introduced a Bill, which, however, did not get beyond its first reading. The object of this Bill was to give jurisdiction to the different courts of the provinces I have mentioned-leaving out the province of Quebec-the High Court of Justice in Ontario, the High Court in Manitoba and the High Court in the North-west Territories, to deal


Byron Moffatt Britton: with matters of this kind. There was a very little debate on the Bill apparently, and tlie matter dropped. Now, we have arrived, It seems to me, at a stage when something should be done. Parliament considers it to be its duty to grant the relief in certain cases. It as not a question of religious sentiment as to whether divorces should be granted or not-we do grant divorces ; and I assume that it is right to grant them. It is, then, only a question where the jurisdiction for the trial of these cases and their proper disposal should rest. I am not asking any extension of the rule, any opening of the doors or loosening in any way of the marriage tie. I am not asking that we should bring about the condition of ' divorce made easy,' such as is said to exist in some states of the union. 1 am only asking that in those eases, in which parliament grants divorces, the jurisdiction should rest with the courts, and that these matters should be disposed of by tbe courts instead of by a Bill introduced in the Senate and disposed of in the first instance by a committee of the Senate. I think the time has come when a person who is not able to bring witnesses, say, from tbe North-west Territories to Ottawa, but who has a just cause to claim a dissolution of the marriage tie, whether that person be man or woman, should be given relief- when relief should not be confined to those who are able to meet the requirements now demanded of such people. We ought to try to stop a state of affairs under which people from Canada go, as they do from all our provinces, to the United States, become domiciled and live there long enough-or say they do-to get a divorce. Their divorces are not recognized by our courts under such circumstances, but they recognize them and they come back to this country and marry. That state of things exists to a greater or less extent in the country, and it is to remedy this that I introduce this resolution, in the hope that the government will see their way to dealing with it in a different manner from that in which it has been dealt with hitherto. The divorces granted by parliament up to 1888 were 23 for the one statutory cause and two for other causes. Parliament also granted the relief of separation in one case without granting a divorce. The applications rejected number 10. Since 1888, 35 divorces have been granted by parliament. Thus, while 25 divorces were granted in tbe 21 years after confederation, tbat is from 186T to 1888, there were 35 divorces granted in the next 12 years. Aud the applications are on the increase. Why is that ? The inference I draw-perhaps I am wrong-is that the same cause exists, but, in the increasing population and increasing number of people who are financially able to seek the redress provided, more applications are made to parliament. I am not putting forward the argument tbat this shows a greater demand

for the remedy that I am asking, though 1 think it would show that to some extent. The argument that I use is that there is no reason why this particular subject-admitting the right to have the divorce-as distinguished from all others, should be dealt with by parliament instead of by the courts. There seems to be no logic in it and no reason in it. In the absence of reason to the contrary, this, like all other matters of contract, should be dealt with as I suggest. We cannot draw much of an argument from what is done in the United States. Every state of the union has its own divorce law, and the laws are administered differently in the different states. Divorce is comparatively easy to obtain in some of the western states, while it is not so easy in New York and some of the eastern states. The fact that there has been an abuse in the administration of the law in some states ought not to prejudice the case I am trying to make for the administration of the law by our courts in the different provinces. It will be borne in mind that I am not touching the question as to marriage, but simply dealing with the question of divorce and how divorce ought to be granted. If the remedy should be allowed at all, it should be allowed without the burden of expense and the great delays that result from coming to parliament under the rules of the House and under the law as we have it. I commend this matter to the favourable consideration of the House.


William Findlay Maclean: This is just one of that class of cases I referred to an hour ago when the proposition of the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine (Dr. Roddick), was up in regard to the practice of medicine. There must be a remedy found for the grievance mentioned by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton). It is a grievance that is felt all over this country, and we must take up not only the question of divorce, but also the question of marriage. I believe that both these questions, so far as we have jurisdiction in this House, ought to be put on a satisfactory basis before the whole country. If we do not deal with the question as it ought to be dealt with, we will ere long find ourselves in the same condition of confusion that prevails in the United States to-day. The greatest social discord that exists in the United States to-day arises from the laxity and the diversity of laws in the various states in regard to marriage. I have been reading recently the deliverances of some of their leading men upon this subject, and they all point out the absolute necessity of a federal law dealing with marriage and dealing with divorce, defining the rights of the husband and of the wife, of the parent and of the child, so that one law shall apply all over that country. It is a fact that more social disorder lies ahead of the people of the United States by reason of
the laxity of their divorce laws than from any other source, and the trouble will extend to this country. Of course we will not have the same variety of laws that they have, because the provinces cannot deal with this subject; but we have trouble coming, and unless we deal with it in a large and broad way, in a manner such as this parliament has power to deal with it, social disorder will come. Now is the time to deal with it, and I hope the resolution before the House will receive due consideration, and that later on we will have a law dealing with the whole question. I am not saying on what ground divorce ought to be granted, that is a question to be considered ; but, as the member for Kingston has pointed out, the law as it stands today is very unsatisfactory, and worst of all, it is not fair to the poor man or to the poor woman.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The House, I am sure, will feel obliged to the hon. member for Kingston for again calling attention to a subject which, from time to time, has engaged the deliberations of parliament ever since confederation. My hon. friend has related the different attempts which have been made since 1867 to have a divorce law in this country, but those attempts have never been prosecuted with very much vigour. Evidently public opinion is not much in sympathy with attempts to have a divorce law introduced into Canada. It may be that the facility with which divorces are granted in the United States has produced in this country a sentiment rather hostile than favourable to divorce. If I remember the figures given by my hon. friend, he says there have been thirty-five divorces granted since the beginning of confederation. Confederation has now lasted thirty-three years, that means one divorce a year, or thereabouts. These figures show that the population of Canada is not much in sympathy with divorce. I do not know if there have been any divorces granted in the divorce courts of the other provinces, but I know that in New Brunswick, where they still have a divorce court, divorces are very few, less than one a year, according to the information I have.
Under such circumstances, the question arises, Would it be advisable for us to depart from the policy which we have hitherto followed ? Would it be advisable for us to change the system we have, cumbrous though it is, difficult though it is, but which has the advantage of discouraging divorce ? The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), who is a stalwart in everything, is perhaps a stalwart in this also- though I do not know he would particularly favour a divorce court; but he will agree with me at all events that divorces are not to be desired. For my part I would rather belong to this country of Canada

where divorces are few, than to belong to the neighbouring republic where divorces are many. I think it argues a good moral condition of a country where you have few divorces, even though they are made difficult-a better moral condition than prevails in a country where divorces are numerous and made easy by law. These are, at all events, the views which I hold, and I think I am simply echoing the public opinion of Canada. Divorces are not looked upon with favour as a rule in the province of Quebec from which I come, and in the church to which I belong. In other religious denominations of Canada where divorces are allowed, I am glad to say that as a rule they are not favoured, that they are discouraged, and that fact speaks well for the moral condition of our people.
Of course divorces are difficult and expensive. I do not know that they are much more expensive in the Senate than they would be in any other court in Canada. The chief item of expense which perhaps is greater in the Senate than it would be in other courts, is the necessity of bringing witnesses to the seat of government from long distances. My hon. friend has suggested that that difficulty might be got over by authorizing the judges to take evidence in the different localities and report this evidence to the Senate, and then the Senate might take action upon it. That is a view which can be taken, and it might be adopted by altering the rules that now prevail in the Senate. I must, however, say frankly to the House that for my part I am not disposed to favour much any alteration from the present practice that we have had since confederation. My hon. friend from East York will excuse me if I do not adopt the views with which he has favoured the House. For my part, so far as the work of confederation is concerned, I am a Conservative of the Conservatives, though a Liberal ; I do not want to touch our constitution except in cases where the defects have become absolutely glaring and must be remedied at all costs. I think it will be better to suffer some little inconvenience than to commence to alter the constitution. My hon. friend from Kingston, I think, will agree with me in this respect, and for this reason, though the government would be willing to consider all the views which he has presented, I would advise him not to press this motion, but rather to withdraw it for the present.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I suppose I have got to bow to the First Minister in matters of this kind, because I cannot carry the motion without his consent. Let me say, however, in asking leave to withdraw the motion, that the number of divorces granted in Canada since confederation is sixty.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is only two a year.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 


William Findlay Maclean: How many Canadians have gone over to the States to get divorces because they could not get them in their own country ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: A great number. And what trouble it is causing in this country because our people have to go over there to get divorces.


William Findlay Maclean: The Prime Minister did not touch that point.
Motion withdrawn.


FIRST READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 66) to amend the Canada Evidence Act.-Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. EDWARD HACKETT (West Prince, P.E.I.) moved for :
Copies of all letters, papers and other correspondence between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and J. Albert Brennan, of Tignish, Prince county, P.E.I., regarding the payment of a fishing bounty cheque, made in favour of one Joseph Reilly, and for which the said J. Albert Brennan held the order of the payee.
He said :	Mr. Speaker, in making this
motion I desire to say that it is a very important one, as it refers to the distribution of the fishing bounties in the maritime provinces. In the year 1882, the Dominion government set aside the sum of $150,000 to be distributed annually amongst the fishermen of the maritime provinces. This sum was supposed to represent the interest on the amount received from the United States in consequence of the fishery award. You will remember that under the Washington treaty, the subject of Her Majesty, including Canadian fishermen, were allowed certain privileges along the coast of the United States, while American fishermen were allowed to pursue their calling in the inshore waters of Canada. This lasted for twelve years. At the same time the treaty provided, that, inasmuch as the privilege granted to American fishermen to fish in the inshore waters of Canada was greater than that accorded Canadians fishing in American waters, the commission should decide the amount of the difference to be paid. The commission sat at Halifax, and $4,500,000 was awarded to Canada for the use of these inshore fisheries. During that period of twelve years, commencing with 1870, the purse seine was largely used in the inshore fisheries by the American fishermen. The use of this engine of destruction resulted in driving from the coastal waters one of the most valuable fish that resorted to these waters, the mackerel, and the fishermen found that while, in 1870, and up to 1874, an abundance of this fish inhabited the coastal waters, by the use of the purse seine for so many years they were driven away and the fishermen were obliged to
resort to other fisheries to make a livelihood for themselves and their families. They were deprived, to a certain extent, of the means that they had previous to the year 1870, of earning a livelihood, and as a consequence of this $4,500,000 coming from the fisheries of the maritime provinces, it was considered only right by the government of the day that the money should he returned to the fishermen whose waters had been depleted and who had been deprived, to a large extent, of the means of earning a livelihood for themselves and their families. The money was granted and an amount was to be distributed annually under regulations to be made by the government from tjine to time, these regulations to be by order in council. We know that at the time this money was granted, when,
I had the honour of being a member of this House, it was opposed by the bon. gentlemen who now occupy the treasury benches. It was opposed in the country by their supporters and opposed because they said it would be of no advantage to the fishermen.
I remember, while contesting my county, in 1882, my opponent declared that the money to be distributed to the fishermen would not buy each of them a fig of tobacco. The regulations were to be enforced and the money distributed, and now we find after an experience of eighteen years that the supporters of those people who were so much opposed to the distribution of this money, those gentlemen who vote the Liberal ticket, tumble over each other to share in the amount to be distributed. They come in a grand rush to get this money. While *they are acting in this way a great many of them have no claim to it. While they cannot pretend to have any right to it they file fraudulent claims to share in the bounty thus preventing honest fishermen from getting fair-play. They are using it, as I will show the House for advancing the political interests of their own party. In regard to the question under consideration at this moment, I want to read part of a correspondence that has taken place between Mr. J. Albert Brennan, of Tignisli, P.E.I., and the Department of Marine and Fisheries, in *connection with a claim for payment of a fishing bounty on the order of the payee. Mr. Brennan is a merchant in Tignish, and when a young man was leaving the village, being short of money, Mr. Brennan bought his bounty cheque and advanced him a certain amount taking his order for the cheque. The young man went away, became sick and died, and Mr. Brennan supposed that he was the legal representative of this man who had given him an order for his bounty cheque. But, he found that when the fishery officer came to Tignish the organizer of the Liberal party, W. W. Wickham, had seen the fishery officer before Mr. Brennan saw him and had received from him the cheque without the order or authority of Mr. Brennan who held the order of the
payee. Mr. Brennan very naturally complained of his conduct and he wrote to the Department of Marine and Fisheries in this way :
Tignish, P.E.I., April 10, 1900.
F. Gordeau,
Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-I desire to bring to your notice the manner in which I have been used by John Davidson, the fishing bounty officer, and Dr. Wickham, of this place, with regard to cheques for bounty which I claimed. The facts are as follows :-Joseph Reilly, a fisherman, who had filed his claim for bounty in last season, was obliged to go away, and before leaving gave me an order for his cheque. This man since then died in the hospital. When Mr. Davidson came here to distribute the cheques a few days ago, I presented my order and was told by him that the cheque was given to Dr. Wickham, who had no authority to receive the same. I have, therefore, through the collusion of those parties, been deprived of this cheque to which I am honestly entitled. I want to complain generally against John Davidson and Dr. W. W. Wickham in connection with the distribution of bounty cheques this season. I have been caused great trouble in obtaining my rights in the matter of bounty cheques, and consider in justice the matter should be fully investigated. With regard to Reilly's cheque, I still hold the department for it, and trust that you will see that I obtain my just rights. As Dr. W. W. Wickham seems to have charge of the bounty distribution and gives or withholds cheques at his own pleasure without any authority whatever, the people here are naturally very indignant.
I may say that Mr. Davidson seems to be only a figurehead in the matter. I make those charges fully conscious of their gravity to officers of your department, and demand the fullest investigation. My legal rights in this bounty claim question are beyond dispute.
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
The department replied that the instructions of the fishery officer were to the effect that he could not pay the cheque on an order. Mr. Brennan replied in another letter, and l ant not going to weary the House by reading all the correspondence; I will hand it into the reporter because I want to have it placed on record.
John Graham Haggart: You cannot do that unless you read it.


Edward Hackett: Well, then I shall have to go through all the correspondence. The following letter was sent to Mr. Brennan in reply ;
Ottawa, April 24, 1900.
Sir,-In reply to your letter of the 10th instant, complaining that Mr. John Davidson, the fishery officer for Prince county, refused to deliver to you the fishing bounty cheque of John Reilly, for which you say you hold an order from the payee, I may state that in withholding the cheque the officer was acting in accordance with his instructions, which prevent him from recognizing orders or assignments of any kind in the matter of the distribution of the bounty.
As an order conveys no authority to the person to whom it is given to endorse a cheque.

the department cannot recognize your claim to Mr. Reilly's bounty.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,


JOHN HARDIE,
[Stage Direction]
Acting Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
J. Albert Brennan, Esq.,
Tignish, P.E.l.
Mr. Brennan wrote in reply :
Tignish, May 3, 1900.
John Ilardie, Esq.,
Acting Deputy Minister Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa.
Sir,-I am in receipt of your letter of the 24th ultimo, No. 2370 F.B., having reference to my fishing bounty cheque not paid me in accordance with the regulation governing the delivery of similar cheques at this place. I am surprised to learn that the officer's instructions from your department are not to deliver such cheques on an order from the payee, as he has grossly violated the same in the delivery of cheques here. I may say that I have received large numbers of cheques on orders both this season and last, and so much has this been the rule that every business man here received them under the same conditions. J do not complain at all at this manner of their disposition, as under the prevailing conditions here, I believe this to be the most feasible way of delivering cheques. What I do strongly object to is the fact that the cheques for which I had an order for money advanced to a sick man on his way to the hospital, and who died there, was delivered to Dr. W. W. Wickham, who had no order or other authority to receive the same. Another complaint I wish to make in this connection is that I held an order for the cheques of Mr. Lawrence Gallant, of Tignish, and this cheque was also delivered to the aforesaid Dr. Wickham, who had no order, and Mr. Gallant had great trouble in finding Dr. Wickham and obtaining the cheque for me. This conduct of the official is evidently a flagrant violation of his instructions, as well as a great injustice to me. In view of the fact that the man Joseph Reilly is deceased, and I am the only legally authorized person to receive the cheque in question, I must ask the department to forward me the amount. If you do not deem the above sufficient, I request an investigation by a responsible official of the department, when I will substantiate all the statements herein made. In this connection, I would suggest that Mr. A. Lord, agent of the department at Charlottetown, be appointed to investigate the matter.
I am, yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
To that letter he received the following :
Ottawa, May 14, 1900.
Sir,-I am to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant, in which you ask to be paid the amount of James Reilly's fishing bounty for 1899, for which you hold an order from the payee.
In reply, I have to state that as the order has no legal validity, the department cannot comply with your request.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,

[Stage Direction]
Acting Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
J. Albert Brennan, Esq.,
Tignish, P.E.l.
Edward Hackett: To this Mr. Brennan replied :
Tignish, P.E.L, May 26, 1900. John Hardie, Esq.,
Acting Deputy Minister Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa.
Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 14th inst., No. 2370 F.B., and am surprised at itq_ contents. In reply to my letter of the 3rd inst., you say that the order received by me from Mr. Joseph Rielly, since deceased, is not valid, and the department will not deliver me his fishing bounty cheque. If my order is not valid, how can the department justify the handing over of this cheque to Dr. W. W. Wickham who had no order or authority of any kind to receive it. As the legal representative of Joseph ltielly, I claim that I am entitled to his Ashing bounty cheque for season of 1899, and before relinquishing my rights I intend having the matter thoroughly investigated. In my last letter to you, I charged Mr. John Davidson, the bounty officer, with having paid this same W. W. Wickham several cheques without authority, and that the parties entitled to said cheques had gieat difficulty in obtaining the same. It appears to me to be outrageous that the department should attempt to shield one of its officers in conduct of this kind. If, as you say, my order is not valid, how do you justify your officer in delivering cheques on similar orders, and as I have shown above, even delivering the cheques to Dr. W. W. Wickham without an order or authority of any kind. I have again to ask that you order an impartial investigation into this matter, and see that justice is done. As a citizen of Canada, doing business here, 1 claim this as a right, and trust the department will see that my claim is paid.
I remain, yours truly,


J. ALBERT BRENNAN.
[Stage Direction]
The House will see that Mr. Brennan, simply because he was a Conservative, was deprived of his bounty check. Dr. Wickham, who was the organizer of the Liberal party in the village of Tignish, went to the fishery officer immediately on liis arrival in the village to distribute the cheques, and got from him this cheque without authority, without an order, having no claim whatever to it, and Mr. Brennan, who was the legal representative of Joseph Rielly, the man who died away in the hospital, could not get his bounty cheque. It was done for the purpose of placing in the hands of this organizer of the Liberal party certain funds to use as he might think best. This went on and other parties were treated in the same manner. Men who had orders for the bounty cheques were told that Dr. Wickham had the cheques and that they should go to him and receive them. Mr. Brennan asked in his letter that there should be an investigation held by an impartial disinterested and responsible man, and that he would substantiate on oath every statement made by him in connection with this cheque and others. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, previous to the 7th November a very bard fight was put up in the maritime provinces and especially in the province of Prince Edward Island. There were all kinds of attempts made by the government to deprive me of the vote
of the people. The Rail-way Department, the Fisheries Department, the Public Works Department, had their agents all through the riding previous to the 7th November endeavouring to influence people to vote against me. I was elected by a majority of only nine votes after my opponents, who had asked a recount, had stolen a ballot box in which I had a majority of 33, and tried to deprive me of my seat. But I had a just judge ; Judge MacLeod, of the county court, and he said : X am going to count the vote of that polling district. I will take the statement turned out by the returning officer on the evening of the election, and although it is only secondary evidence as the ballot box has disappeared and the ballots are not before me, I will declare Hackett elected. I was declared elected then for the second time. I was petitioned against. I say, Sir, that it is a disreputable thing to use this money that belongs to the people of Canada, which belongs to the honest fisherman, to the man who toils and is entitled to it ; it is a disreputable thing that this money should be used by the government of Canada to debauch the electors. My opponent McLellan, against whom I have nothing to say, petitioned against me and after I had been petitioned against an honest fisherman came to me and said : You have been petitioned against, you had a hard fight, you beat them notwithstanding they stole your ballot box and if you desire to petition against your opponent I can give you such evidence as will disqualify Mr. McLellan. I replied to him : Mr. McLellan and myself have gone through this election campaign as men ; we came out of it as friends and I have no desire to pursue Mr. McLellan further, but you can tell me your story. He said : I will, and this is the story he told : A month previous to the election of the 7th of November I was passing in front of Mr. McLellan's premises and he came out and accosted me. He knew I was a Conservative and he asked me to vote for him. I told him that he knew I was a Conservative, that my friends were Conservatives and had always voted that ticket, and X saw nothing that had been done by the present government to induce me to change ; and moreover, I am a Conservative fisherman, I have earned the fishery bounty and your party have deprived me of my just claims to the bounty during the last few years, and I cannot think of voting for the candidate of a party that would not do me justice. Mr. McLellan said : I am sorry to hear you have lost your fishery bounty, but I will try to have it rectified, and if I do you will vote for me. The fisherman replied : I will see about voting, but this is only the same talk as we have heard before, and the same promises not fulfilled and I will not take your word. Mr. McLellan said : I will arrange it for you. Now, Mr. McLellan's house is not far from the church, he being a good church-goer, and on the Sunday before the election this fisherman was at church and he was called aside by Mr. McLellan who asked him to come to his house. Mr. McLellan took him into his house and
took out of his pocket-book a bounty cheque for $3.50 that was sent to him by the Fisheries Department at Ottawa. Mr. McLellan said: Here is one cheque for the year 1898 and you will receive a cheque for the year 1899 in a short time when the fishery officer comes to St. Louis station on the line of the Prince Edward Island Railway. In about a week Mr. Davidson came with a bounty cheque and this fisherman received the two cheques, the one paid by Mr. McLellan of which he was deprived for two years, and the other paid by Mr. Davidson, both of which be had been deprived of because he was a Conservative and which were only given to him when they tried to bribe him. If you give this investigation demanded by Mr. Brennan, I am prepared to produce evidence to substantiate every word I have said in this House to-day. But, notwithstanding that the government played with loaded dice in the last election and expected to win the game, I am proud to say that the intelligent electors of West Prince saw through the schemes and tactics of the present government and returned me here to represent them. I am in parliament in the interest of these fishermen ; these men who toil from early morn until late at night going with their small boats ou<t to sea endeavouring to make a living for themselves and their families. The fishing bounty paid by the government is only the interest on the award that was given to the government in consequence of the depletion of our fisheries by the American people, and whether he be a Liberal or a Conservative the man who proves his claim before the official should receive that bounty. It is a nefarious act on the part of any government to deprive the honest fisherman of his just claims in this regard. I demand, in the interests of justice and fair-play, that a disinterested and responsible man be appointed to go down to Prince Edward Island and investigate these transactions. I am prepared, as I said, with the best of evidence to substantiate every statement I have made.
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 24) respecting the South Ontario Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 31) respecting the Orford Mountain Railway Company.-Mr. Parmelee.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 8) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Geoffrion.
On section 5,
Mr. GEOFFRION.: It has been asked by the company that the words ' interfere with or ' be struck out, as they are completely useless, and may interfere with the effect of clause ti ; so that the clause will read : ' This Act shall not lessen the borrowing powers of the Grand Trunk Railway Company,' &c.
Amendment agreed to ; Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 48) respecting the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 49) respecting the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company. -Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 50) respecting the Canadian Mutual Aid Society.-Mr. Sutherland, (Essex).
Bill (No. 51) to Incorporate the Clergue Iron and Nickel-Steel Company of Canada. -Mr. Dyment.
Bill (No. 52) respecting the Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway Company.-Mr. Maxwell.
Bill (No. 53) respecting the Manitoba and North-west Loan Company (Limited).-Mr. Britton.
Bill (No. 54) to incorporate the Fort Qu'Appelle Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill (No. 55) to incorporate the Arnprior and Pontiac Railway Company.-Mr. Lemieux.
Bill (No. 50) respecting the Columbia and Kootenay Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 57) to incorporate the Crow's Nest Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 58) to incorporate the Kootenay and Arrowhead Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 59) to incorporte the Similkameen and Iveremeos. Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 61) respecting W. C. Edwards & Co. (Limited).-Mr. Rosamond.

William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, would the right hon. leader of the House tell us whether the budget is to be down to-morrow or not ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Yes.


Mr. WILSON.: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman when I may expect the return in reference to the Halifax and St. John elevators, that I moved for on the 13th of February ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I will make a note of it.


MONEY-LENDERS.
[Stage Direction]
On the order :
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 3) respecting Money-Lenders.-Mr. Madore.
Victor Geoffrion: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Madore), I beg to move :
That the Order of this House that it go into Committee of the Whole to consider Bill (No. 3) entitled an Act respecting money lenders, be revoked, and that the same be referred to the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.
I understand that at the last consideration of this Bill it was understood that the hon. member for Hochelaga would either move that the Bill be referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce, or that it be referred to a special committee. He chose to have it referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce, so I beg to move this motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order :
House in Committee on Bill (No. 10) to amend ' The Weights and Measures Act.'-Mr. Smith (Wentworth).
Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: As there are a number of hon. gentlemen who would like to discuss this Bill, I would ask that it be allowed to stand.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: This is a very important measure, and perhaps the House will understand, if convenient to my hon. friend (Mr. Smith, Wentworth), that the Bill may be taken up this day week, next Wedhesday evening.
Order allowed to stand.


VICTORIA DAY.
Mr.  E. H.@: HORSEY (North Grey) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 33) respecting Victoria Day.
He said :	Mr. Speaker, I beg to move
the second reading of the Bill entitled ' An Act respecting Victoria Day.' As I explained when asking the permission of the House to introduce it, this Bill provides for the setting apart of the 24th of May-the birthday of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, as a permanent public holiday throughout Canada.


Edward Hackett: 1 desire to trespass upon the patience of the House for a short time only, in order that I may state some of the reasons which, it has appeared to me, would amply justify this parliament in making permanent the holiday which heretofore-to as remote a day at least as the memory of any one present can well revert-has been considered the holiday ' par excellence ' of Canada.
So far as the present generation is concerned, we who have been the personal subjects of Her late Majesty, who have been witnesses of the exercise of Her many good qualities of mind and heart, and who have felt the better for having lived contemporary with her. I take it, Sir, that we need no argument in order to agree that nothing we can reasonably do to honour her memory, should be left undone.
At the same time, it is right that we should realize that in passing this Bill we are legislating not only for ourselves, but for posterity as well, and therefore, in thus seeking to honour the memory of our late sovereign, we should, I think, satisfy ourselves of two things ; that the process by which we propose to honour her memory, and the memory of the era in which she reigned, should be such as will, with reasonable certainty, be commendable to the good sense and convenience of future generations, as well as of our own, and we should also,
I think, satisfy ourselves to the same degree of certainty, that the personality of the monarch, and the achievements of Her era will in the light of historic perspective stand out in sufficiently bold relief, and with a sufficiently unique grandeur that posterity will agree with us in saying that great was Victoria and glorious was her era. With regard to my first point-the fitness of the manner proposed in the Bill for the commemoration, I have only this to say, that in passing this Bill we are not attempting to force upon the people of this country any innovation the expediency of which may be doubtful. Not at all-for more than sixty years the people of Canada have enjoyed this holiday, and I think I am within the mark in saying that with each succeeding year it has grown in favour with them, until to-day the great masses of Canada could better afford to have any other holiday struck from off the calander than the 24th of May.
I do not think I am saying anything disrespectful to His Majesty the King, in stating, as I do, that from the very nature of things, the 9th of November can never take the place of the 24th of May in the hearts of the people of Canada. The season is not one so favourable for all the outdoor pass-times with which tradition in this country has associated the Queen's birthday.
And just here. Sir, I might pause to ask how hon. gentlemen who may oppose this Bill, propose to square themselves with the rising generation of both sexes, and with
the picnickers, the excursionists, the devotees to our national and other games, and with the amateur fishermen as well. It will be no laughing matter, Sir, if hon. gentlemen antagonize these classes who constitute the overwhelming majority of our people. But to be serious, Sir. In passing this Bill we are not laying down any cast iron law by which the whole mass of the people will be obliged to celebrate, whether they will or no. The law will only apply strictly to public institutions and public offices, the will of the people will still decide with what measure of unanimity the day will be observed. All we ask is that by making it a legal holiday, the will of the people may have the opportunity of asserting itself. As to its probable fitness for future generations, I have only to say that every advance in science heretofore which has made locomotion and travel cheaper, easier and quicker, has added to the sum of human happiness derived from the day, and we may reasonably hope that the still greater progress yet to come along these lines, will make the day more necessary and more enjoyable even than it has been heretofore. The objection may be raised that we have enough holidays already in Canada. I answer that in two ways. In the first place I am not so sure that we have enough, for the whole tendency of the age is to keep humanity at high pressure-necessitating more breathing spells, and if that do not suffice, I answer it is unnecessary to make it an extra holiday, as no more suitable day than the King's Birthday, November 9th, could be had for our annual thanksgiving.
1 have heard it suggested that we should not legislate in this matter until we learn what the home government proposes to do regarding it.
If, Sir, it were purely a matter of sentiment I could understand the force of the suggestion that the initiative should come from the heart of the empire. But combined with the question of sentiment there is also the question of expediency, and therefore, because in this country the day has always been kept as a holiday by the whole people in a way entirely unknown in England where it was simply a formal holiday observed by public institutions only. I do not see why we should await the initiative of the home authorities. The unanimity with which it has always been observed in this country demonstrates its usefulness and its suitability to the people and conditions of Canada. And, now as to my second point-the fitness of the personality and the era for so important a commemoration. It is not my purpose to attempt to add one word to the splendid panegyrics which have been uttered in this House and elsewhere throughout the world upon the life-work and character of Her late Majesty. I think that on this point Lord Roseberry exhibited even more than his usual propinquity, when
1435	. COMMONS	1436
he said the other day in Edinboro that 'TV.il that can be said on this subject has been said and what yet remains to be spoken is apt either to be fulsome or to partake of platitude.' But, I submit this proposition to the judgment of this House, that what has been already said-and truly said-is ample to justify us in deciding-with reasonable certainty-not only that in all history heretofore, her personality and her life-work have been superbly unique among all earthly monarch s, but also that for long years to come hers will be the standard by which others in high places will be judged, and those approaching nearest to which will be deemed to have done themselves most honour and their country most good.
Nor do I intend to say anything in reference to the greatness of the achievements of the Victorian era as compared with those of any other former time, I do confess the theme a most inviting one, one which, I am bound to admit, I have had difficulty in restraining myself from entering upon ; but I have thought, that, after all, even though I succeeded in further convincing some hon. gentlemen of the supremacy of the Victorian age over all former periods in the world's history, I would probably have accomplished little that would be germane to my argument. Such a review would come with more reason from one who might be advocating the convocation of a national festival for the purpose of celebrating once and for all the great achievements of the Victorian age. My object, I confess, is more far-reaching, and therefore it is better that I should invite your attention, rather to those features in the achievements of Victoria's reign, which may make it worthy of special honour in future years, when all the recent progress in the sciences and in the arts will be as nothing in comparison to the inevitable marvels which will yet be revealed by man to men. I propose to refer to only three events in this connection, one more particularly confined to Canada, one to the empire and one to mankind at large. This portion of my task I confess to be the difficult one. In order that we should feel the necessity for the exercise of care in attempting to forecast what will in future years be considered the really great events of the Victorian age, we have only to recall one of the most elementary facts of historical teaching-that very often names and achievements which in their own day were considered truly great and imperishable have, by the sifting process of time, gradually lost their importance and their lustre, and have, in many cases, been consigned to innocuous and, in some, to dishonourable oblivion. I would, therefore, hesitate to suggest any particular achievement as having the necessary historic vitality for my purpose, but that I think a rule may be laid down by which, with reasonable precision, those achievements


Mr. HORSEY.: which will surely live in history may be separated from those which may not survive. It will, I think, be found that in almost every case those achievements which, in their own day, were judged really great, and whose reputation failed to successfully withstand the impact of time have been such as have appealed more especially to the tastes and opinions of their own day ; while, on the other hand, no achievement in history, I think, which has tended to the uplifting, to the ennobling or to the emancipation of mankind, which in its own day was considered really great, has ever in any history been entirely lost sight of, however its relative prominence may have been modified by historic perspective.
There are, I think, no more enduring landmarks in British history than those which mark the slow and painful progress of the British people from their condition of serfdom, prior to the days of John, down to the constitutional freedom we enjoy to-day. Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus are historically imperishable, and therefore it is that I suggest, with considerable confidence, to this House, an event in Canadian history, which, I believe posterity will agree with us in saying was a great event-great because of its splendid effect upon the feelings and aspirations of the people and great still more because it marks the finish of the great struggle which, commencing with Magna Charta that guaranteed some few limited rights to the people at home terminated in so signal a triumph for freedom, as to secure, not only for the people of the parent state, but for their colonists as well the utmost limit of self-control. I refer to the establishment of responsible government in Canada.
In the wider sphere of British affairs the Victorian age will perhaps be deemed by posterity as worthy of very special recognition not only because it marked the end of the struggle for constitutional government, but also, and it may be still more, because it was in this age that the first germs of an Imperialism took root, which, I think, we may reasonably hope will be all powerful for good throughout the world based as it is upon the broad principle of democracy and backed up as it is by the united force of every British commonwealth. An Imperialism sufficiently strong to unite all parts of the empire in matters of common interests and questions of common good, and at the same time sufficiently elastic to permit of absolute freedom of action on the part of each portion of the empire in the local concerns of each.
And in the still wider field of universal human effort it may be stated that in days to come the era just closed will be recalled as that In which the philosophy propounded by Bacon was first practically applied to science and art, which, after all, is perhaps responsible not only for the marvellous ad-
vance in the sciences and arts in recent years, but which must, In the nature of things, be deemed the ultimate exciting cause of all future progress as well even to the time when everything will have been laid bare even to the uttermost limits of the finite. On this account it may be, though in this I hazard a guess only, that the nineteenth century will for all time, irrespective of what marvels the future may have in store, be looked upon as the greatest era in human affairs. The era in which human effort was first guided by a trained and progressive intelligence.
These are the only matters which I intend bringing to the attention of the House tonight. I recognize fully, none more than I, how inadequate my argument has been to the purpose, but for this I am sure you will not have far to seek the cause. I am very grateful for your kind indulgence to me a novice to these environments, and before I sit down let me recapitulate my reasons for asking the favourable consideration of the House to this Bill. The Bill should, I think, pass because the events of the Victorian era, in Canada, in the empire, and in the world at large are in many ways worthy of special commemoration, because the person of Her late Majesty, whose name it is proposed the day shall bear, is held in affectionate remembrance by us all and will for many years to come be the model for future mon-arclis, and is worthy of special commemoration, and because the way suggested of commemorating is one which suits the tastes and convenience of the Canadian people, and lastly, but by no means of the least importance, because the people of this country, I believe, want it so. I beg to move the second reading of this Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: I am altogether in sympathy with this Bill, if for no other reason than that it recalls to me boyhood recollections when we used to say at school :
The 24th ol May is the Queen's birthday,
If you don't give us a holiday, we'll all run away.
And the hon. gentleman who proposed the Bill said that is one reason why we ought to have it. The children of this country think more of the Queen's birthday than of any other in the history of Canada. The 24th of May ;is really the May-Day of Canada. They have their May-Day in England, and the Queen's birthday in this country has been our May-Day, and I would not like to see that disappear. But I have heard another reason within the last two or three days why the number of holidays ought to be increased in this country, and that is because it would add another day of grace to those who have notes coming due. But there is one thing that we ought to bear in mind and which I hope the government will take into consideration, and that is that the King's birthday will now come in November. Thanksgiving Day comes about tlie same
time, and there will he something of a clash between those two holidays. There will be a good deal of inconvenience to the business community if they have to celebrate the 9th of November and Thanksgiving Day about the same time. I hope the government will keep that in mind when they make their proclamation for Thanksgiving Day, and make it at least a month before or after the 9th of November. The feeling of the country is that Thanksgiving Day has been too late in the season, and ought to come earlier, probably early in October.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have nothing to add to the eloquent remarks with which the House has just been favoured by my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Horsey). The sense of the House seems to be in favour altogether of such a Bill being enacted, and that we should continue henceforth as in the past to celebrate the 24th of May. There is a good deal of force in what my hon. friend said a moment ago that we have been accustomed to look upon that day as almost sacred-not only by children but by men and women also. I will allow the second reading to take place to-day, but I would suggest to my bon. friend not to press his Bill to the committee stage until another sitting because its phraseology may require to be looked into.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
On motion of Prime Minister, the House adjourned at 8.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 14, 1901.