1 tended that whilst a dependency of Great Britain and an integral part of the Empire it was our duty to have due regard to all that might be termed Imperial interests, but he denied that it was the duty of the Canadian Parliament or of the British Parliament to subordinate the interests of Canada to the interests of individuals in Great Britain. He thought we had had within the last few years—almost within the last few months -several instances showing the need for taking a firm stand on this question. We find even THE SEAMEN'S ACT. On motion of the Hon. Mr. SMITH (Westmoreland) the House went into Committee to consider the expediency of extending provisions similar, as circumstances permit, to those of "The Seamen's Act, 1873," to vessels employed in navigating the Inland Waters of Canada—Mr. MILLS in the chair. now we were called passed. who should to say upon or who should not invade Our territory in the interest of a telegraph monopoly. We found on a recent occasion, when proposing to make some alterations in our fiscal araangements, that a number of British manufacturers had rushed to the Colonial office and desired that the tariff of Canada should be adapted to their interests. The question before them was another of the class of occurrences which suggested the necessity for protest. While he wished our connection with Great Britain should be perpetual, he did not believe that the way to make that connection permanent, and to bind us together as one nation was to allow any part of our people to feel that they were subjected to a wrong or an injustice. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said that the Bill was admitted to be a compromise between British publishers and authors and our Whatever own publishers. might be thought by the House on the question of the desirability of our having entire control over copyrights-and he did not differ much in opinion from the hon. member for North York in that respect-still the fact remained, that we did not possess such control, and it had become a matter of urgent necessity to have some settlement rather than allow the recriminations which had been going on during the last two years to continue. The Bill, admittedly, was a considerable improvement on present legislation, and the Government had to deal with circumstances as they existed, and to endeavor to obtain the best possible results from the materials they possessed. The Government had devoted considerable attention to the measure before the House met, and the Bill was the result of deliberations held with Canadian publishers, EngMr. Dymond. Hon. Mr. SMITH (Westmoreland) said. it had come to the knowledge of the department that a good deal of inconvenience was caused shippers and shipowners in the inland lakes lakes-particularly in the case of vessels going to American ports when the men could desert-and it was proposed to adopt and extend such provisions of the Seaman's Act of 1873 and 1874 as would be applicable. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL asked if it were intended to apply to all the provisions of the Act of 1874 to the inland waters. Hon. Mr. SMITH said there were many of the provisions of the Act of 1873 that would not apply. The principal part was that which required the men to sign shipping articles of agreement. Mr. KIRKPATRICK said he thought the main principle of the measure which had been introduced would be acceptable to ship-owners and seamen on our inland waters. No doubt a great practical inconvenience had been felt by reason of the want of these shipping articles. Captains of vessels had often been placed in an unfortunate position on going into an American port, and having no written contract were liable to be hauled up by any seaman who gave in his own oath a statement of his agreement, often contrary to the real agreement; and therefore this agreement should be in writing. There were many provisions in the Act which he was sure the hon. minister did not mean to have applied. The resolution Under the existing law no patent could be was very vague—it said to " apply the provisions of the Act as far as practicable," but there were many provisions applicable that were not required. The resolutions ought to be amended so as to state what provisions were to be applied. Hon. Mr. SMITH (Westmoreland) said if he had brought down all the provisions of the Act it would take a day to get through them. When the Bill founded on the resolutions come up objections could be taken to it. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL trusted his hon. friend (Mr. KIRKPATRICK) would accept the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Marine. Mr、 NORRIS said that any Act of this nature should be made so as to give as to give as little trouble as possible to vessel-owners and masters, as the Act stated that the crew would have to be engaged before a shipping master or Custom House officer, which could not be complied with on our inland waters without a great deal of delay as the vessels passed night and day through our canals when these officers would not be on duty, consequently vessels would be delayed too long to remain until these officials come on duty the next day. He thought the engage ments with the crew should be made by the master without waiting for Custom House officer or Shipping Master. He saw that a clause required any erasures, interlineations or alterations in the agreement must be made before a Consular officer or a Customs officers of HER MAJESTY'S Dominion. It would be almost impossible to do that at all times; and he thought the measure should be amended so that such alterations or interlineations could be made before two respectable witnesses. any The resolutions were reported, and a Bill based thereon introduced by hon. Mr. SMITH. On motion of Hon. Mr. LAIRD the Bill to amend the "Patent Act of 1872 " and to extend the same as amended to Prince Edward Island was read the second time, and referred to Committee of the Whole.-Mr. STIRTON in the chair. issued except for a whole machine, and he proposed that one should be obtained for an important improvement in a part of a machine. The Bill also provided that a patentee, who had permitted the two years to elapse within which the statute provided he must act upon his patent, otherwise it would expire, must give three months' notice of his desire to have that time extended. The existing law provided that patented articles must have stamped upon them the year in which the patent was issued. To some articles such a stamp was a flaw, and he proposed to make it simply necessary to affix a printed label instead. The remaining clauses of the Bill related to the extension of the amended Act of Prince Edward Island. Mr. FLESHER inquired whether the possession of a patent upon a part of a machine would enable a man to manufacture the whole machine without reference to the original patentee. Hon. Mr. LAIRD said it did not. Hon. Mr. POPE said when he intro duced the existing Act, his hon. friend from Stanstead and Hon. Mr. CHAUVEAU proposed that the time within which a patent must be acted upon should be extended to five years, and he (Mr. POPE) was inclined to accede to the propositions; but it was very strongly objected to by the gentlemen who now occcupied the TreaMinister sury Benches, as the Prime could well remember. He was therefore surprised that a proposition to extend the time should have come from them now. Hon. Mr. LAIRD said there was no intention to give more time than was allowed by the previous Act. The object was to fix the time within which an application should be made for an extension. That time was three months preceding the expiration of the two years. · Mr. CURRIER-Why limit the time at all? Why not extend it to five years? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE For the very best reason-we want to limit it. Mr. CURRIER asked whether, in case an application were made, it followed that the applicant obtained the extension Hon. Mr. LAIRD explained that the first amendment proposed to amend the provisions of the present Act in regard to Patents for a portion of a machine.asked for. Mr. Kirkpatrick. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE Not neces- power the Government in dismissing such sarily. persons to give them some slight allow Hon. Mr. POPE thought the time was too short. A longer time ought to be given than this Bill allowed. Hon. Mr. LAIRD said if an applicant made application showing by affidavit that there was good reason to ask for an extension, it would be granted. If the two years were allowed to expire without an application being made, the matter was of course open to all. At six o'clock the SPEAKER left the chair. AFTER RECESS, ance. Mr. KIRKPATRICK said a certain amount was deducted every year from the salaries of Civil Servants to be paid back in the shape of an allowance to them when they were superannuated. This clause gave the Government power to say that they would not give a Civil Servant the full allowance to which he was entitled under the Act. His opinion was that if any Civil Servant did not give satisfaction his services should be dispensed with at the time, or otherwise he should be warned that he would not get the full benefit of the Act, in order that he might not pay the full amount of his contribu The Bill was reported; third reading tions to the fund every year. He should to-morrow. THE INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY. The Bill respecting the Intercolonial Railway was read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole,-Mr. CHARLTON in the chair. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE explained that this was simply a Bill to apply the law under which the Intercolonial Railway proper was constructed, to the other branches of the Government Railways in the Lower Provinces. The Bill was reported, read a third time and passed. THE CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT. The Bill to further amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, was read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole-Mr. THIBAUDEAU in the chair. Mr. KIRKPATRICK asked for explanations of the first and second clauses. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said under the present law gentlemen who were upwards of forty years of age could not be admitted into the service. It was now proposed to limit the age to thirty, because as a matter of fact the men the Government most desired in the services were those between the ages of thirty and forty. The object of the second section was this :-As the law now stands, the Government might dismiss absolutely any one who was found inefficient, but it was found that after men had served ten years or more there was a very great objection to taking such an extreme step as to turn them off. This clause would em Hon. Mr. Mackenzie. SS not be placed at the mercy of the head of a department, and any Civil Servant who paid his contribution regularly from year to year to the fund should get the amount he was entitled to by law when superannuated. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the hon. member failed to see that this was an amendment entirely in favor of a certain class. It was quite competent for the Government to discharge à Civil Servant at any time, without giving him an allowance. This clause gave the Government power in removing an employee in the interests of the service to give him some allowance. Mr. KIRKPATRICK-It should be confined to that class. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-So it is. It is to give superannuation to those who are not entitled to it under the law. There are some now who would have to be dismissed without any allowance at all if we had not this amendment. Mr. KIRKPATRICK said this second clause gave the Government power to grant an allowance which would be less than what an employee would, otherwise, have been entitled to. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE explained that 65 years was the age at which superannuation might take place. Under the existing law employees were only to be superannuated from natural causes, that was, when something for which they were not themselves to be blamed prevented them from discharging their duties. This clause provided for removal from causes other than that of ill-health. To be very plain, he might say that the Government were obliged sometimes, and would probably be obliged now to get rid of some people whose conduct had been so dissipated that it was impossible to keep them in the department on full pay, and yet some regard for their long services and for their families made it desirable that they should receive some allowance on being removed from the service. At present the law did not allow the Government to do so, and they would be obliged to dismiss such persons without any allowance at all. It was purely from a charitable and kindly consideration for their positions that this amendment was introduced. The leader of the opposition the other night entirely understood the object of this measure and expressed his approval of it. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL approved of the Bill and thought the Government should possess the power which it conferred. Hon. J. H. CAMERON thought that a similar provision should be made with respect to the officers of this House. He would also suggest that some means should be taken of recognizing the long and satisfactory services of those in the employ of the House who were not strictly classed under the provision of the Civil Service Act. Such persons if promoted, as their services would otherwise have entitled them to be, would have received an increase of pay. He merely called attention to this matter now, because it seemed to him that there was, in some way, an omission in not making provision for those who did not come under the Civil Service Act, but who were employed by the Legislature. Mr. PALMER said if he understood the Bill right it gave the Government no dower over those who were entitled to superannuation but merely enabled them, under the power which they already possessed, to dismiss officials who did not give satisfaction, and to grant them some allowance on their removal. Mr. KIRKPATRICK said he had no objection to the object of the Bill, on the contrary rather approved of it. He merely called the attention of the Government to the fact that the wording of the clause was unfortunate since it would have the effect of going beyond what they desired. A person over 65 years of age Hon. Mr. Mackenzie. and entitled to superannuation might under this clause be met with a statement from the head of the department that his services had not been satisfactory, and he would therefore get a smaller amount from the fund to which he had contributed, then he was entitled to under the law. This clause should certainly be amended. Mr. McDOUGALL (W. Elgin) did not think the section would bear the construction his hon. friend was putting upon it. A close analysis would show that it intended to express the opinion intimated by the Premier and the hon Minister of Finance, and that the phraseology was clear. There must be some discretion assigned the head of the department, and that discretion was expressed in the section; and without that discretion the person about to be superannuated would not be entitled to any allowance. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said on a suggestion from his hon. friend from Kingston he would would add the words or age," and the clause would then read "when any person is about to be superannuated from any other cause than ill health or age. These were the only two causes for which a man could be superannuated when the service was perfectly satisfactory. Of course the Government had no other object than to make the clause clear, and would have no objection to insert any words that would make it so. Mr. FLESHER inquired if it were the intention of the department to superannuate persons who by intemperance had rendered themselves unable to perform their duties. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said it was not. The Bill and amendments were read the second and third times and passed. INSURANCE BILL. On motion of the Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT the House went into Committee of the Whole on the Bill to consolidate and amend the several Acts relating to Insurance in so far as regards Fire and Inland Marine business (as amended by Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce. Mr. ARCHIBALD in the chair. The Bill was reported and read a second time. On the motion for the third reading,— Mr. OLIVER moved in amendment that the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions so to amend it as to provide that the same amount of security be deposited with the Receiver General for the protection of the public against Canadian Companies as is required to be deposited by foreign Companies, viz., $100,000. He said it appeared the deposits were for the protection of the Canadian public against foreign companies, and not, as was once 'supposed, to put money into the treasury of this country, and he thought if it were necessary to ask foreign companies for $100,000 deposit, it was also necessary to ask the same amount from Canadian companies to protect the Canadian public from them. It was wiser and better to put them both on the same footing. Hon. Mr. CAMERON (Cardwell) said he would oppose the amendment. It had been proposed to make the deposits $150,000 for foreign (including English) companies, and $100,000 for Canadian companies, and so long as that proportion was maintained he supposed there would be no objection. But the amount had been fixed at $100,000 on foreign and $50,000 for Canadian companies. In the Committee, the Government had stated they were prepared to agree to the determination of the committee as to the amount of deposit, and it had been moved and carried that the deposit should be precisely the same as it was now, which was made according to the report of the Committee on Banking and Commerce. Personally he had not the slightest objection that the amount for Canadian companies should be made $100,000, but in that event $150,000 should be required from foreign companies. The hon. gentleman who moved the amendment had given no reason why there should be a change; why the Canadian and foreign companies should not remain exactly as they were. There was an additional reason why no change should be made. In the law as it was now proposed by the Finance Minister there was by the 8th clause an entirely new provision introduced altogether independent of the general provision of the law which had been so wisely and properly introduced by the Government, of having an inspector of Insurance Companies. This provided not only for a deposit of $50,000, but that there should be assets Mr. Oliver. of the company equal to the liabilities reported upon by the superintendent, so that, in point of fact the superintendent had the right, wholly irrespective of the deposit of $50,000, to cause a report to be made to the Finance Minister under which companies might be suspended provided they did not comply with the provisions of this eighth clause. He thought the House would act most wisely in abiding by the decision of the Banking and Commerce Committee. In view of the fact that the Bill required a deposit of $50,000 from each Canadian company and of $100,000 from each foreign company, and also that it gave the right of inspection which would be sufficient security if there were no deposit at all, he could see no reason why the House should be called upon to increase the amount of deposits of Canadian companies when there was no occasion whatever for it. Hon. Mr. HOLTON said he had agreed with the hon. member for North Oxford in committee and voted with the minority for the amendment. Under the circumstances, however, he felt bound to stand by the report of the committee. He would consider it unfortunate, after the careful consideration of this Bill by that numerous committee, if any decision arrived at on the leading features of the Bill were to be disturbed now. He therefore hoped the House would stand by the report of the committee and that the hon. member for North Oxford would be satisfied with placing his views on the journals. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said he was bound to admit that the hon. member for North Oxford had given due notice of his intentions. Hon. Mr. MITCHELL said he did not contend that the amendment should carry; he merely rose to take exception to the doctrine enunciated by the hon. members for Cardwell and Chateauguay that whatever the committee might do ought to be endorsed by the House. Mr. OLIVER said he had always supposed that the Government was a free trade administration. He warned the Government that if they granted this concession and acknowledged the principle of protection in this insurance Bill, it was nothing but fair they should recognize the same principle in all other measures coming before the House. If the House protected home companies to the extent of one hundred |