It seems to me that the minister is not drawing a proper distinction between the mode of enforcing the claims and the giving rise to the claim itself. I do not understand that my hon. friend
[iMr. J. D. Reid. ]
from Kings wants to have any different law applied to the right of action; what he wants is that the remedy which is afforded by this Bill shall apply to causes of action which may have arisen before this legislation comes into force as well as to those which may arise afterwards. Take the case of a man who has a perfectly just claim against the railway. Before this legislation comes into force, an animal has been killed on the railway. Because the owner happens to live in Prince Edward Island, why should he be compelled to bring his suit in the Exchequer Court of Canada where the costs would amount to ten times the value of the animal? Why should he not be permitted to avail himself of this cheap remedy and use the provisions which have been made for the enforcement of the collection of small claims? Surely the minister might go that far, not in any way to alter the cause of action, nor the circumstances which would give rise to a claim, but only as to the mode of enforcing a claim. I understand that is all the member for Kings wants. The minister should not refuse to accept the amendment just on account of any pique or resentment against the hon. member for Kings because he did not let him know before that he was going to move the amendment. The amendment is so simple in its character that the hon. member assumed that the minister would at once grasp the justice and the reasonableness of it and would allow it to be passed.