Mr. D. C. FRASER (Guysborough) moved :

That the petition of the Alexander Gibson Ra.lway and Manufacturing Company presented this day, for leave to present a petition for an Act, be read and received, and referred to the Committee on Standing Orders.

He said: I might explain to the House

the reason for this motion. This company, which does business in the province of New Brunswick, are operating a railway, which they got power from this parliament in 1898 to take over. Being a provincial corporation, they believed that the legislature of New Brunswick had power to authorize the separation of the railway from the manufacturing business, and that they could obtain an Act from that legislature for -such a purpose; but they have recently been advised that it will be necessary or advisable to obtain an Act of the parliament of Canada for that purpose. They find now that they cannot work the two very well together, and by the time they learned that it would be necessary to come to this House, the time for presenting petitions had expired. All they want now, with the full consent of the shareholders, is to have provision made simply for running the railway under a separate company from the other business. Under these exceptional circumstances, I trust that the House will grant them the privilege of introducing this petition and having it go to the committee.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

What is the name of the railway ?

Mr. FRASER.

The Canada Eastern.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

All the parties interested have given their consent ?

Mr. FRASER.

All have signed this petition, and they are all -agreed.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

It is merely dividing the enterprise, I understand ?

Mr. FRASER.

Yes, a purely domestic matter.

GUTHRIE (South Wellington) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 110) respecting the incorporation of railway companies.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Will the hon. gentleman kindly give a brief explanation V

Mr. GUTHRIE.

The object of the Bill which I have just asked leave to introduce is to place certain restrictions upon the present system of granting railway charters; a system which I believe has prevailed in this House for a great many years. It is not intended in any way to limit the number of charters nor to impose any unreasonable or unnecessary conditions upon railway promoters. The Bill is aimed chiefly at what are known as speculative charters, or charters which are obtained by parties for the purpose of embarrassing companies which are in possession of constructed works. The Bill, in brief, provides that parties who apply for railroad charters shall accompany their applications with a sum equivalent to $200 per mile of the proposed road, which'sum shall be deposited with the government, and on the completion of the proposed work shall be returned to the company with all accumulated interest; but if the work be not proceeded with, then the $200 per mile shall be forfeited to the government of Canada. The Bill is not perhaps as complete in form as it might be, and I am well aware that at this late hour of the session such a Bill introduced by a private member can hardly be pressed to a successful conclusion. However, my idea in presenting it at this time is to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Railways,-the members of the House and the public in general, in order that the difficulties which now exist may be dealt with by some kind of legislative enactment, if not by such a Bill as this, then by some other Bill or by a general provision to be inserted in the general Act which the Minister of Railways is now pressing. When one considers that the total railway mileage constructed in Canada to-day is approximately about 18,500 miles and that session after session charters are granted for anywhere from

10,000 to 15,000 miles of new railway-I believe this session for about 12,000 miles; and when one also considers that about a third of the time of this House as well as a great deal of hard committee work is taken up in considering these measures, and that from 75 to 80 per cent of them never materialize, one must come to the conclusion that a great many of the charters now granted are taken out by the promoters for speculative purposes, to be hawked around and sold when occasion offers, or else for the purpose of embarrassing others. It may be that the true way out of the difficulty would be what is known as free trade in railroad charters, a system which I be-Mr. FRASER.

lieve prevails in some of the United States, where one is merely required to have ithe plans and proflies prepared and filed and the work proceeded with. I think, myself, there is a good deal to be said in favour of that system, provided proper financial guarantees are taken that the railway shall be proceeded with and constructed.

In discussing the matter with an hon. member yesterday, he argued that such a Bill would be in the interests of large corporations and strike a blow at men of moderate financial standing. I think, however, that my hon. friend will find upon reflection that there is nothing in that argument. Men of moderate financial standing should not ask for charters for 500 or 1,000 or 1,500 miles of railway, as in all probability they will not be able to carry out their undertaking. But if they ask for moderate charters, there Is no reason why they should not be able to put up the $200 a mile, knowing well that if their application be in good faith, the money will come back to them. I think that this is an opportune time to bring the matter before the House, in order that it may be dealt with if possible in a general Act. No doubt the Bill is not perfect in all its details, but any such imperfections can be remedied. I believe that where any substantial performance of the undertaking has taken place no forfeiture should be insisted on, or where the failure is due to some difficulty of an unforeseen character, such as a crisis in the money market or a temporary shortage of railway material, or where there has been a part performance, there should be a pro rata adjustment. But where there has been absolutely no performance or an attempt at performance, there should be an absolute forfeiture of the. deposit.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).

I am afraid that my hon. friend will find that his Bill will not accomplish what he desires, if the history of the past may be taken as an index of what will happen in the future. We know how easily deposits made to guarantee contracts are returned to the parties who have failed in their obligations. Take for instance the elevator matter at Montreal, in which a deposit was made with the government, but after keeping it a length of time the government returned the money. We have other instances of the same nature. Some two or three years ago, when a Bill was before the Railway Committee asking incorporation for a company to build a railway in the Yukon district, the company offered to put up a deposit, but the members of the Railway Committee who were supporters of the government,-I do not know; if the hon. gentleman took part or not in that committee-absolutely refused to require a deposit on the ground that it was establishing a bad principle and voted down the motion made to require a deposit as a guarantee of the building of the road. Remembering these things and knowing how

easy it is for companies to put up excuses for not accomplishing what they have bound themselves to do, and how easy it will be for them to take advantage of that provision in the hon. gentleman's Bill which provides for a non-exaction of the forfeit condition in certain cases, or for a pro rata return of the deposit made, in my opinion the Bill will practically he of no effect whatever.

MCCARTHY (North Simcoe) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. Ill) to amend the General Inspection Act. He said : This Bill is intended to amend the General Inspection Act regarding hides, skins and leather. It is intended to apply only to the cities mentioned, namely : Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto, Hamilton and London. I have no objection to extending it further, but I have limited it to these places because they are the centres of the hide business of this country. The object is to have hides inspected wherever practicable, green and uncured, because I am informed that a perfect inspection cannot be had after the hides are salted or cured. It is intended also to have the green or uncured hides inspected in order to compel a proper flaying of the animals by the butchers. I am instructed that at present, owing to the careless way in which the animals are killed and their hides taken off, a great deal of waste material remains in the hide, and if the inspector were obliged to lower the standard of the hides because of improper or unskilful flaying, that would improve the hides in their value. The Bill also aims at preventing any frauds in the inspection such as have hitherto existed, such as resalting or watering the hides and thus increasing the weight, the hides being purchased or sold by the weight. The effect of the Bill will also be to create a uniform inspection in the districts in which it is put into operation. The experience in other places will I think warrant this House in passing a measure of this kind. I am advised that by reason of a more careful inspection in Liverpool, the quality and price of hides has greatly increased, and no doubt a similar result will follow a perfect system of inspection in this country. This Bill, like that of my hon. friend's from Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), is introduced somewhat late in the session, and if hon. members desire to have time to circulate it among their constituents in order to ascertain the views of those engaged in the business, it would not become me to press it to a final reading this session. I have not consulted the Minister of Inland Revenue and therefore the same remark applies to him, but I have endeavoured in this Bill to carry out the ideas I have expressed, 90

and which I think will have the effect of improving the quality and price of the hides bought and sold in this country.

Moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 112) to amend the Immigration Act. He said : My object is to enable the government to deport immigrants from foreign countries, who may be suffering from any dangerous or infectious disease. While there is no ground for the somewhat alarming statements made with respect to the number of diseased persons entering this country, still it has been found that the officers of the immigration branch of the department are not sufficiently armed with authority to deal with such cases. I cannot explain the provisions of the Bill better than simply reading the operative section.

The Governor General may, by a proclamation or order whichever he considers most expedient, and whenever he deems it necessary, prohibit the 'landing in Canada of any immigrant or any other passenger who is suffering from any dangerous or infectious disease or malady, whether such immigrant intends to settle in Canada, or oily intends to pass through Canada to settle In some other country.

In addition to the necessities of the case as observed by the officers of the department, transportation companies and others engaged in the business of transporting immigrants, particularly at Montreal, Quebec and Halifax, have urgently requested that this legislation should be introduced.