On section 110.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-This is worded rather ambiguously. I propose to alter that by making it read thus :

"Every one, not thereto required by his lawful trade or calling, who is found in any town or city carrying about his person any sheath knife, and so on."

On section 111.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-I propose to insert after the word "soldier" in the first line the words "Public Officer or Peace Officer." I want penitentiary officers to be authorized to carry arms in the discharge of their duty.

On section 122. (1)

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-This is the one about which we had a discussion as to sedition. I think the amendment I propose will meet all views about that, I propose to strike out all the words of the section down to line 22, including the words, "Provided that " in clause 2 of sub-section (d); so that we shall make no definition of seditious intention, but will simply go on to say what shall not be seditious, leaving the definition of sedition to common law. The section will begin with: "No one shall be " on the twenty-second line.

On section 265.

Mr. MULOCK.-My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Featherston) has received a letter from a member of the Ontario bar who gives his opinion that this section makes the punishment of a party guilty of an indictable offence, on summary conviction, liable to both a fine and imprisonment.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-Where a clause says that a convicted person is subject to two kinds of punishment, either kind may be inflicted, in the discretion of the Court; as for instance, when we say that a man shall be liable to be imprisoned and to be whipped, it does not follow that he is to suffer both.

On sections 191, 192 and 193.

Mr. MILLS (Bothwell).-These were the sections that were left to be dealt with as matters of civil right.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-I think it is all right to pass them.

Mr. MULOCK.-Supposing there is a by-law requiring people to clean away the snow in front of their premises. By allowing the snow and ice to accumulate a person runs the risk of falling, and the owner is liable to be indicted.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-If it affects public safety.

Mr. MULOCK.-Any person who is a defaulter in regard to snow cleaning is subject to certain penalties under the municipal by-laws

(1) See Arts. 123 and 124, and comments at pp. 66-72, ante.

but we are now making the individual liable to imprisonment. I think this is going too far. The matter should be left to be enforced by municipal authorities.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-The mere enforcement of the by-law would not be sufficient. Any one is now indictable who leaves the sidewalk in a condition that is dangerous to the public safety. We are doing nothing more than affirming that principle. But after the word "imprisonment " we should add the words, "or a fine."

Mr. MILLS (Bothwell).-Long ago this question ceased to be dealt with by the criminal law and became a part of the police regulations. It is a question whether we should deal with it, or whether we leave it to be dealt with by the Local Legislature.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-The only change in recent times has been in the procedure; although they are offences against the criminal law, the procedure is that of a civil case. We should retain control of all matters connected with the life, safety and health of the people.

On section 205.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-I move to strike out the first two lines and substitute the following: "Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable on summary conviction to two years' imprisonment and to a fine of $2,000 who." I also move the following sub-section "Every one is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty of $20, who buys or receives any such lot ticket or other devise as aforesaid."

On section 504.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-This is the section which was discussed by the hon. member for Queen's when he spoke of the mortgagor removing a house from the property.

Mr. McLEOD.-Suppose the mortgagor being in possession, proposes to effect some changes in the premises without asking the permission of the mortgagee, as is frequently done, he might come under this clause.

Mr. MULOCK.-I understand that the changes must be to the prejudice of the mortgagee.

Mr. McLEOD.-Suppose the mortgagor makes some changes in the premises, the mortgagee may say they are to his prejudice and the mortgagor will be liable to criminal prosecution.

Mr. MULOCK.-He has the protection of the Jury.

Mr. McLEOD.-He should not be liable to prosecution.

Mr. MILLS (Bothwell).-There are cases of this sort. The mortgagee cannot take possession unless the mortgagor is in default. Take the case where the mortgagor is the owner of the adjoining

property; and the principal value of the property for which he has given the mortgage is the building on it, and he removes them to property owned by himself. I have in my mind a case of that sort and it is ncessary to protect against such fraud.

Mr. McLEOD.-The mortgagee is the legal owner and has the right to take possession in our law. As a matter of fact the mortgagor is left in possession and he goes on making improvements with which the mortgagee does not interfere, so long as his interest is paid.

Mr. MULOCK.-Suppose they are made for the purpose of wilfully prejudicing the interests of the owner.

Mr. McLEOD.--The difficulty is to tell whether they are or not. Take the case of a mortgagor who of his own motion and without any authority from the mortgagee did make changes. The mortgagee might say they did prejudice him. That brings him withim this section, and the section should not be so drawn as to have that effect.

Mr. MILLS (Bothwell).-How is the mortgagee protected?

Mr. McLEOD.-He can take possession of the property.

Mr. MILLS (Bothwell).—I have in my mind cases where buildings were moved off the property weeks before the mortgagee knew anything about it. The mortgagee was living in another part of the country and found his property damaged to one half its value.

Mr. FLINT.-The amendment suggested is not to prevent any changes or alterations that would be deemed reasonable or prudent. They must be to the prejudice of the mortgagee.

Mr. McLEOD. The prejudice is that it makes the property less valuable.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-On page 128 those five sections were allowed to stand in order that we might have a debate on trade combinations. I propose that they now pass so as to leave the law as it is.

Sections agreed to.

nearly

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-For the purpose of providing as ne as possible for the separate trial of children, I propose a clause which will come in conveniently as 550. It is as follows:

"The trials of all persons apparently under the age of 16 years shall, so far as it appears expedient and practicable, take place without publicity and separately and apart from that of other accused persons, and at suitable times to be designated and appointed for that purpose." (1)

(1) See Article 550, at p. 517, ante.

On section 558.

Sir JOHN THOMPSON.-I propose that this section be left as it was originally printed. The joint committee altered it, but I think they made it a little out of shape as regards the technical language.

On section 765.

Mr. OUIMET.-I suggest that the option allowed to the accused of taking a speedy trial before a Judge instead of waiting to go before a Jury, should be allowed him even during the sitting of the Court. In the City of Montreal we have four terms every year; a term always lasts more than a month, and sometimes it lasts nearly two months, so that the court is practically sitting all the time. I do not see why this option of having a speedy trial, which also amounts to having a trial before a Judge instead of before a Jury, should not be left to the accused. I propose he shall have the power to elect at any time whether the court is sitting or not, as to the tribunal before which he shall be tried.

Mr. MILLS (Bothwell).-I think there will be a great objection to introduce a system of leaving it optional to the prisoner to decide whether he shall be tried before a Jury. The only reason of the Act introduced by Mr. Sandfield Macdonald, shortly after Confederation, was to get rid of the expense of maintaining a prisoner for a long term in gaol, or keeping an innocent party who may have been accused, for a long period before his trial began; and so the trial was allowed to take place before a Judge.

Bill reported, and read the third time, and passed.

1

THE EXTRADITION ACT.

[R.S.C., chap. 142.]

An Act respecting the Extradition of Fugitive Criminals.

H

ER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1. Short title.-This Act may be cited as "The Extradition Act." 40 V., c. 25, s. 24.

2. Interpretation. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

(a.) The expression "extradition arrangement," or "arrangement," means a treaty, convention or arrangement made by Her Majesty with a foreign state for the surrender of fugitive criminals, and which extends to Canada;

(b.) The expression "extradition crime" may mean any crime which, if committed in Canada, or within Canadian jurisdiction, would be one of the crimes described in the first schedule to this Act, -and, in the application of this Act to the case of any extradition arrangement, means any crime described in such arrangment whether comprised in the said schedule or not;

(c.) The expressions "conviction" and "convicted" do not include the case of a condemnation under foreign law by reason of contumacy; but the expression "accused person" includes a person so condemned;

(d.) The expressions "fugitive" and "fugitive criminal" mean a person being or suspected of being in Canada, who is accused or convicted of an extradition crime committed within the jurisdiction of any foreign state;

(e.) The expression "foreign state" includes every colony, dependency and constituent part of the foreign state; and every vessel of any such state shall be deemed to be within the jurisdiction of and to be part of the state;

(f.) The expression "warrant," in the case of a foreign state, includes any judicial document authorizing the arrest of a person accused or convicted of crime;