Mr. REID (Grenville).

I would ask the Minister of Railways, if there is not a law on the Railway Act that covers this 'very thing.

Mr. GRAHAM.

The Railway Act makes the railway company liable for damage to baggage to any amount they carry. My hon. friend speaks of handling baggage in the old land. As a matter of fact, most of that is carried in the railway compartment, because when they send it as baggage, they have to pay for it, while in Canada, a certain amount is carried free. Some of us have noticed that when Englishmen are travelling in. Canada, they have a habit of carrying nearly all their baggage in the trains with them. I am afraid if we were to follow their example, instead of having fewer valises in the aisles of the cars, we would have more. However, I have no objection to the first reading of the Bill. As the members of the House are now not allowed any more trunks, those of us who travel hereafter, will probably carry handbags.

Mr. LEWIS.

Mr. GRAHAM.

I move that on Tuesday next the House do go into Committee of the Whole, for consideration of the following resolution, which stands in my name. I may add that His Excellency has been apprised of the subject matter of this resolution, and has given his assent thereto:

Resolved, that, whereas by legislation enacted at the session thereof held in the year A.D. 1910, the legislature of the province of New Brunswick authorized and empowered the Lieutenant Governor in Council for the said province to guarantee the principal and interest of the bonds of any railway company which would build a line of railway from a point on the line of the National Transcontinental railway at Grand Falls in the county of Victoria, to the city of St. John, in the said province of New Brunswick, a distance of about two hundred and twenty miles, to the extent of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) per mile, upon certain conditions therein set forth, one of such conditions being that no such agreement should be entered into with any company or corporation for the construction of the said line of railway or for the guaranteeing of the said bonds unless and until the parliament of Canada should enact legislation authorizing the entering by the government of Canada into an agreement with such company or with the government of the province of New Brunswick, for the leasing of the said line of railway when completed, with its appurtenances and rolling stock, and for the operation, maintenance, upkeep and repair by the said government of Canada, as a part of the government railway system of Canada for a period of ninety-nine years and for the payment by the government of Canada to the said province of New Brunswick, or the government thereof, each year during the said term of ninety-nine years of forty per centum per annum of the gross earnings of the said railway, as or in the nature of rental therefor ; the amount of such rental to be applied in payment of the interest of the bonds so to he guaranteed and the surplus, if any, to he paid to the said company;

Now, therefore, it is expedient that His Excellency the Governor in Council he authorized to enter into a contract with any such railroad company and the government of the province of New Brunswick as aforesaid, for the leasing of the said line of railway with its appurtenances and rolling stock, when completed and equipped with rolling stock, and for the operation, maintenance, upkeep and repair by the said government of Canada, as a part of the government railway system of Canada, for a period of ninety-nine years, and for the payment by the government of Canada to the said province of New Brunswick, or the said company, each jear during the said term of ninety-nine years, of the forty per centum per annum of the gross earnings of the said railway, as or in the nature of rental therefor;

Provided, however, that the said contract shall he entered into only upon the condition that the said railway he constructed upon plans and specifications to he approved of

by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and shall be up to the general standard of the said National Transcontinental railway through the said province;

Provided, further, that His Excellency the Governor in Council shall be authorized to enter into a contract as aforesaid, for the operation of the said road in sections, when completed, and equipped as follows:

1 From Fredericton to Woodstock.

2. From Fredericton south a distance of fifty miles. .

3 Each twenty-five miles thereafter, until the line be completed and equipped from Grand Falls to St. John.

Mr. BRODEUR.

I move that on Tuesday next the House do go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution. His Excellency has been apprised of the subject matter of this resolution, and has given his assent to it.

Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Fisheries Act, chapter 45 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, be amended by enacting that in the province of British Columbia no one shall engage in the manufacture of oil or other commercial products from sea lions, hair seals, sharks or dogfish, nor operate a salmon cannery or sallmon curing establishment, except under license from the minister; that the site of reduction works must be approved by the minister; that operations must proceed within one year from issue of the license for which annual fees shall be required; that the annual fee for a lobster fishing license be increased and based on the total number of pounds of canned lobsters; that the annual returns to the minister by the owner or manager of a lobster factory, through the inspector of fisheries of the district, shall furnish more details and be submitted not later than the 31st day of May, each year, and penalties for failure to make such returns shall be imposed; and that licenses must be obtained for maintaining lobster pounds, with an annual fee for the same.

Mr. J. A. C. ETHIER (Two Mountains).

(Translation). Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I rise to a question of privilege which is of concern to myself as a member of this House, but which is also, I believe, of concern to the House as a whole.

For over eight years I have had the honour of being chairman of the Committee on Private Bills. On the 23rd February instant, my action as chairman of that committee was made the occasion of some unfair, misleading and uncalled for criticisms. Reference was made to the stand taken by me at a meeting of the said committee,

on April 22, 1909, and remarks purporting

to have been made by me were quoted and put in print. I wish to contradict these statements, and am anxious to apprise the House of their utter lack of foundation.

The statements to which I take exception were made in a manner which I might term incongruous and unworthy of the position occupied by the person who uttered them. I i-efer to Senator Kirehhoffer, chairman of the Divorce Committee of the Senate, who has thought fit to make the following public statement:

The Divorce Committee of the Senate has been often accused by a member of the House of Commons, named Ethier, who is, or used to be the chairman of the Private Bills Committee in that House, of granting divorces on evidence

If I wished to give him a Roland for his Oliver, I might refer to the honourable senator as ' the man named Kirehhoffer,' but I prefer acting in a more courteous and proper way. Then he continues:

-on evidence you would not hang a cat upon. I think that is the favourite expression used ... Of course, the reporter is anxious to announce that Mr. Ethier, in the Commons, and the Hon. Mr. Cloran, in the Senate, make the above remarks-I mean those original remarks about the hanging of a cat on the evidence; but you are entirely mistaken, because you will find thousands of people believe anything they see in the paper, no matter how thick the head or slimy the tongue that gives utterance to it.

There can be no mistake as to whom he is aiming at, for a little further on, he says:

I shall allude to him as the member for Two Mountains.

And again;

Mr. Ethier made use of the very remark which he quoted. I have no doubt he originated it. I think he is deserving of a great deal of censure.

I humbly submit, Mr. Speaker, that this statement, as I have already stated, is false, uncalled for and without foundation. I never uttered such words neither in 1909 or any other time, and I may quote, for the information of the honourable senator, who may judge for himself, the report which the organ of his own party, the Ottawa ' Citizen,' published of what I said in reference to those relief Bills which are sent down to the Committee on Private Bills after going through the Senate. That paper published the following on April 23rd, 1909:

The matter in which the Senate has been granting divorces this session caused some very pointed remarks by Chairman Ethier in the Private Bills Committee of Commons yesterday morning. The Bill called was that divorcing Mildred G. Wendolyn Patterson, now of Toronto, from Charles Colebrooke Patterson, of Ottawa. ' We have 21 of these

relief Bills from tlie Senate this session, said Mr. Ethier ; * I think the situation is

most serious, most unusual. For six years I have presided over this committee and for thirteen years been a member of it, and while we are accustomed to have half a dozen each session, the limit is reached this time. I think it amounts to an abuse. I do not want to criticise the action of the Senate, but I cannot escape from the idea that this is going too far. In the different provinces we have laws regarding, separation and even in them the judges are very careful. In these cases we have asked to authorize absolute divorce. Those of us who are fathers of families, should think of the great social evil that is involved and not do in this country as they do in the States. The committee should assert its right to see if the proof given in the Senate is proper. I have looked over the evidence in several cases and do not hesitate to say that it does not justify the report save as to separation. The Senate is granting divorces in cases where a court would not give separation. If you prove a man is a drunkard or a gambler, it is not sufficient to justify divorce. I am not speaking as a Catholic, but on the general principles involved in these cases.'

As will be observed, that was far from asserting that the Senate granted relief on evidence insufficient to hang a cat upon.

Let the hon. senator read the article and he will be satisfied, through the testimony of his own organ, that the charge he made against me with the object of inducing the Senate to censure me, is false and that his statements regarding me on that occasion were without foundation; that he showed undue haste and spoke before securing the requisite information. The ' Citizen's ' report, which I have just quoted, is a truthful account of what I said on April 22nd, 1909.

In vesterday's number of that same paper, I notice an account of what that hon. gentleman stated in his report to the House; it is as follows:

On moving the adoption of the committee report in the Eobertson divorce case, Senator Kirchhofier sketched the history of divorce in Canada. He said the committee has been criticised by Senator Cloran and Mr. Ethier, M.P., and it has been declared that divorces were granted on evidence insufficient to ' bang a cat.'

That is another erroneous statement emanating from the hon. senator. Instead of attempting to induce the Senate to censure a member of the House of Commons, who is unable to vindicate himself on the floor of the Senate, why does he not, if he thinks I should be censured, read the words uttered by the hon. leader hf the opposition when a Bill was introduced for the relief of John Denison Smith, on May 10th, 1909, page 6070, volume 4, of ' Hansard? '

Mr. E. L. BOEDEN.

The Chairman of the Committee on Private Bills, I believe, called attention in connection with one of these Mr. ETHIER.

Bills, to a tendency towards acting on evidence of a more or less loose character in considering these Bills for divorce. I have already taken occasion of informing him privately that I entirely concur with the view he expressed.

So the hon. senator should in all fairness

censure the leader of the opposition who held views similar to those given expression by me before the Committee on Private Bills. The hon. leader of the opposition goes on:

Every one who is familiar with the proceedings in courts with regard to such matters is aware that there are some precautions observed in court which do not seem to have received very much attention in the proceedings of the Senate.

At the same sitting of the House, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) stated in answer to the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean):

I have had some experience in connection with divorce courts in the province of New Brunswick and have read the reports of the Divorce Committee in the Senate. In the latter it seems to me divorces have been granted on evidence which would he laughed at in any ordinary court.

*******

I have read the reports and have seen oases in which the question was never even asked as to whether there was any collusion between the parties, and divorces have been granted in eases which were the absolute result of collusion. That would he impossible in proceedings before an ordinary court such as we have in our province.

Here is another hon. member which that hon. senator should get the Senate to censure. I may mention another one.

The hon. member when rising to a question of privilege may refer only to what concerns himself and not to any matter in connection with other hon. members.

Mr. ETHIEK (Translation).

I was about to close, Mr. Speaker, but before resuming my seat I was anxious to quote the opinion of the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller). However, I shall abide by your decision.

In conclusion, I submit to the House that no senator should be allowed to cast aspersions, in the way Senator Kirchhofier has done, on a member of the House of Commons whose work is carried on in conjunction with that of the Senate, and I think the language he used should be condemned. I repudiate all he said. I repudiate the uncalled for statements which he made to the effect that I had censured the Senate; never have I done so, as he stated at the sitting of February 23rd instant.