1903-06-15

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 87) to incorporate the Vancouver and Coast-Kootenay Railway Company.- Mr. Macpherson.
Bill (No. 169) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of James Sinclair McDougall.-Mr. Gallery.
Bill (No. 185) respecting the Canadian Steel Company.-Mr. German.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called :
House in committee on Bill (No. 147) to incorporate the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Mr. SPEAKER.: This Order stands.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I suppose it is at the request of the government that this Bill stands. Is it the purpose to refer it back to the committee for reconsideration ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: We have had a request from the mayor of Toronto and the mayor of Hamilton and some other gentlemen representing municipalities, and in the absence of the hon. member who has charge of the Bill, we feel it only proper and courteous to allow it to stand until he is aware that the request has been made.


Mr. CLARKE.: Under the rules, when will this Bill come up again ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: At the hour for Private Bills on Wednesday evening after eight o'clock.
Order allowed to stand.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	What are the regulations concerning the demurrage on cars loading and unloading at Intercolonial Railway stations ?
2.	What amount of demurrage has been collected at each station during six months of the present fiscal year, from July 1, 1902, to January
1.	1903 ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The answers to these questions will be very voluminous, so that I shall have to ask the hon. member to move for a return.
INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-BUILDINGS, &e., AT SUSSEX, N.B.
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Is it the intention of the Railway Department to erect in Sussex a roundhouse in place of the old wooden shed now doing duty in that respect ?
4674

2.	Is it the intention of the Railway Department to place gates at the railway crossing in Main street, in the town of Sussex, N.B., in order to protect the travelling public from the accidents which are of frequent occurrence there ?
3.	Have plans been prepared for a new railway station at Sussex, N.B. ? If not, why not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: 1.	No, it is not the intention to erect a roundhouse at Sussex. There is only one engine that stands there over night, and a suitable building to house this engine will be built during this summer.
2.	No, it is not the intention to place gates at the railway crossing, Main street, Sussex. An electric alarm bell has been placed at this crossing and kept in good order, and has, it is believed, served its purpose very well. It does not impede the street traffic as gates would, and it gives good warning to the public. The department is not aware of accidents being of frequent occurrence at this crossing.
3.	No, plans have not been prepared for a new railway station at Sussex, it not being considered that a new station is a necessity at present.


EMPLOYMENT OP ALBERT S. WHITE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-(by Mr. Lancaster)-asked:
1.	Was Albert S. White, barrister, of Sussex, N.B., employed, at any time during the year 1901, or 1902, by the Railway Department ? If so, for what purpose or purposes ?
2.	What duties. If so employed, did the said Albert S. White perform ; and why was it necessary to engage his services ?
3.	How many days was he employed ; and at what rate per day ?
4.	What were the several amounts paid to the
said Albert S. White for services and expenses respectively 1	'
5.	Between what dates was the said Albert S. White so employed as aforesaid ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: 1. Yes, Hon. A. S. White, ex-Attorney General of New Brunswick, was engaged during a portion of the yeasr 1901 and 1902 drafting the Bill to consolidate the Railway Act and establish a railway commission.
3.	Ninety-five days at $25 per diem.
4.	Services, $2,375. Expenses, $441.19.
5.	September 26th, 1901 to December 19th, 1901, and between January 24th and February 18th. 1902.


GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS AT OTTAWA.
Mr. HOLMES asked :: 1. Is the government aware of the condition of affairs indicated by the following extract from the report of ,the commission appointed to inquire into thfe Martineau defalcation :-
' Although not strictly within the terms of the commission, the commissioners cannot refrain from bringing to the notice of the government the danger from fire to the records in the upper 147
part of the Eastern Block, owing to the proximity of the steam-pipes to the woodwork in the corridor leading to the Indian Department. They think this calls for Immediate attention. The charred condition of the floor touching the pipes shows that a conflagration is imminent, and measures should be taken to avert it. The lack of provision against fire also applies to the attic of the Langevin Block, where the records of the surveys under the control of the Department of the Interior are stored. These records are exceedingly valuable, as they represent the results of very large outlays of public money, and cannot be duplicated.'
2.	Is it the intention to guard against such a contingency ?
3.	Are the Are appliances in the various public buildings ever tested to see if they are in working order ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. Jas. Sutherland).: 1.	The steam heating pipes in attic of eastern block run in brick trenches covered by wooden traps which are lined with tin. At the place referred to the tin was stripped off the hoards which were discoloured, but there is no danger as there is no authentic instance known of a steam-pipe setting fire to wood. In the attic of the Langevin block the floors are fireproof and the roof of iron-and in the attic and roof there are four hydrants connected with the electric fire pump and two connected with the city pressure.
2.	The matter will receive the attention of the department.. The government contemplate the erection of a special building for the storage of records.
3.	Yes. The electric pumps are examined and tested every three or four days and the hydrants and, chemical fire extinguishers throughout the buildings are in charge of the Dominion police and are kept in order and tested regularly by the force.


THIRD READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 174) to amend the Customs' Act- The Minister of Customs.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 181) to amend the Patent Act.-The Minister of Agriculture.
On section 7, subsection a,
Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria).: I do not know whether the point which I brought up in the absence of the minister has been considered. The case is something like this. A gentleman invented a certain apparatus. One of his workmen who had assisted in its manufacture left his employ and made some of the machines, and they were in use while the inventor's application for his patent was before the department. I understand that under the law at present there is nothing to prevent the use of these machines, and the patentee cannot interfere.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This Bill makes no change in that respect,



and I do not quite see how it would be possible for us to take the matter up. After the application is put in and until the patent issues, the patent is not valid and there is nothing to prevent the use of the article. If at the time of the application the machine was in use, the application would have to be rejected; but I do not know how we could protect a patentee in a case in which the article was manufactured and used while the application was pending.


James Joseph Hughes: I would like the minister to look into the case. I think it was before the department a month or six -weeks ago.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The only cases that come before the department is where a workman who has also made a machine applies for the patent as well as the inventor. There is then a conflict between the two which has to be decided by reference to arbitration.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: But how will the department proceed to stop the other man from using the machine ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That would be a question for the law courts.
On section 9,
The validity of any extension heretofore granted or assumed to be granted under section 37 of the said Act, of the period of two years limited by that section, or by that section as heretofore amended, for the commencement of the construction or manufacture of a patented invention, or of the period of twelve months thereby limited for the importation of the patented invention, shall not be open to impeachment, because-
(a.) such extension was so granted or assumed to be granted by the deputy commissioner of patents, or, as acting deputy commissioner of patents, by a person performing the duties of deputy Minister of Agriculture under the provisions of the Civil Service Act in that behalf, instead of by the commissioner of patents ; or because
(b.) in the case of the invention to which such extension relates, there had been granted or assumed to be granted a previous extension or previous extensions of the period of two years or the period of twelve months, as the case may he, so limited.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I move that after the word 'impeachment,' in the thirtieth line, the following he added: * Nor shall the patent of any invention in respect of which such extension has been granted be deemed to have elapsed or expired.'


Edward Frederick Clarke: Several of these artificial light patents have expired, will any of them be re-established by this Bill ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This Bill will not reinstate any patent whose term has expired. The only patents to he affected by this are those which had complied with the law, as interpreted by the Hon. Mr. FISHER.
department, but which interpretation was set aside by the Supreme Court in December last in the case of Power vs. Griffin. That court decided three main points ; first, that being ready to manufacture was not sufficient, as it had been held to be by the department, to fulfil the requirements of the manufacturing clause ; second, that the extension of time by the deputy or acting deputy was not valid and that only the minister could make that extension ; third, that not more than one extension could he given. Under this reading of the law, there is a considerable number of patents which have not fulfilled those requirements, although they had fulfilled the requirements as formerly held by that department. This Bill would reinstate the patents which had thus expired and lapsed. Besides the Bill goes into the point of the existence in Canada being dependent on the existence of the same patent in a foreign country, and relieves the patentees in this country from-the necessity of renewing their patents in foreign countries. In consequence of the change in section 9, it will be necessary to make corresponding amendments in sections 10 and 14. I would therefore move that after the words ' be impeached ' in section 10, the following words be added :	' Nor shall such patent
be deemed to have lapsed or expired.' I also move that in the subsection 2 of section 10, after the word ' section ' the following be inserted :	' Or which by reason of the
provisions of this subsection is to he deemed not to have lapsed or expired.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. BUkDEN (Halifax). These amendments I suppose are simply in line with what has been done in section 9 ? It is a little difficult to follow the effect of amendments made in this way.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, the insertion of these words is simply to carry out what has been done in section 9. Section 14 should also he amended by the addition of the following words after the word 'Act' :	'Or which, by reason of any
such provision is to be deemed not to have lapsed or expired.' Then, there is an omission in tlm printing which makes it necessary to add, after the word ' sell ' the words ' the same.' Then, I wish to add to section 14 :
And in case any person has contracted with the owner of the patent for the right to manufacture, use, or sell such patent in Canada, such contract, which shall be deemed to have remained in full force and effect, notwithstanding that the patent may have become void as aforesaid.
This will have the effect of validating the contracts. As we are reinstating the patents, it seems only fair that we should validate the contracts also.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The object ef this section is entirely different from this amendment.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think not The object of the section is to protect acquired rights, and the idea of this is that contracts in connection with the patent rights are rights and should remain in force.


Robert Laird Borden: But the scope of section 14 is to provide that persons who have begun to manufacture while the patents were actually void may continue to manufacture notwithstanding the enactment of the Bill. The proposed amendment deals with rather the converse of that, namely that the revival of the patent shall he accompanied by the continuance of any contract between the owner of the patent and any third person. I understand the purpose, but it seems a little remote from the purpose of section 14. I would suggest that it would be a little more in conformity with the scope of the Act to amend some previous section or add a subsection.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I see the point made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) and think there is a good deal of force in what he says. In this matter I took the advice of the Department of Justice and they seemed to think that this clause would be sufficient. I would not object to inserting it before clause 14. or we could contrive a clause. Perhaps it would be better to leave it as it is here drawn by the law officers. I would move that this clause be added to section 14.


Robert Laird Borden: Do the concluding words of section 14 as it stands at present, cover everything the minister intends :
Any person who has, between the time whvn such' patent became void or when the ground for such impeachment arose, and the time of the passing of this Act, commenced to manufacture, use or sell in Canada the invention covered by such patent, may continue to manufacture, use or sell in as full and ample a measure as if this Act had not been passed.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The expression ' inveution ' in the interpretation clause of the Patent Act is defined to mean ' any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement in any art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.' So the word ' invention ' is intended to cover anything that is patentable.


Robert Laird Borden: Have you a provision in this Act that it should be construed as one with the Patent Act ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is an amendment to the Patent Act, it is not a new Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not remember whether there is any provision in the Interpretation Act that amendments shall he always regarded and construed ns one with the general Act. We want to make that definition apply to this Act.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The Minister of Justice says that amendments to any Act come under the interpretation clauses of the Act.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like the Bill to stand a day or two for the third reading. Some suggestions have been made to me with regard to amendments which I hardly think are necessary, because I think they are already covered by the terms of the Bill. But I would like to communicate with the gentlemen who have made these suggestions and indicate to them what my own opinion is with regard to it. and ascertain whether they have anything further to suggest.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: It might he well to have it reprinted now before reading it the third time.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think I can arrange that.


DRY DOCKS CONSTRUCTION-GOVERNMENT AID.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 17S) respecting the encouragement of the construction of dry-docks, read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1.
-The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding). The general features of this Bill were discussed at an earlier stage. There are a couple of new provisions necessary to carry out the arrangement which is contemplated. We have provided in the general clauses which we discussed in committee, for the increase of the amount of subsidy, and I stated that provision would be made for a tariff of fees in these, dry docks, to be submitted to the government. If hon. gentlemen will give their attention to section 2 they will find we have Inserted a clause providing that no tolls or rates should be levied except those which have the approval of the government. There is a further clause that the company should be obliged to submit a statement of its affairs, showing the exact amount of money which it has realized from the issue of the various classes of stocks, and all the aids it has received from public bodies. The object is that if we are to be called upon to judge as to the fairness of the rates, we must know what amount of actual cash has been invested in the enterprise, so that we may fix such tolls as may yield a fair return on the cash actually invested in the project. These are the only clauses which have been added to the Bill since the matter was discussed in committee.
[Stage Direction]
On section 1,
Mr. BENNETT.: Has the government any policy on the question as to the establishment of dry-docks ? I see that there are, in this section, these words :
If any company or body corporate approved by the Governor in Council as having the ability to perform the work.
Is it understood to be the policy of the government, that, if a body of gentlemen come forward and show that they have the financial ability after another body of gentlemen have been assisted, they shall be equally helped, or is it going to be laid down as the policy of the government that no second dock shall be instituted or helped by the government, because, upon tlio help it receives will depend the commencement and completion of the work in its entirety, without some fixed rule being laid down as to the number of miles that must intervene between the dock already assisted and the one proposed to be built 7


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no fixed rule as respects that point. 1 take it for granted that if a dock had been constructed in any locality and it was shown that it was not able to meet the demands of business, and another dock was proposed to be built, that would be a matter for consideration. As to the number of miles that should intervene, that point has never come before us and I think, as I suggested, that the matter will settle itself pretty well commercially. It is not likely that another body of men will desire to build another dock unless there is room for another dock in a commercial way.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then are we to understand that no second dock will be assisted unless it has been shown that the dock that has been assisted has been inadequate for the requirements of business ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have already told my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) that there is no fixed rule or policy of the government at all. Each case will have to be dealt with on its merits as it arises.


William Humphrey Bennett: I understand the hon. minister to state that it is a condition precedent that it must first be shown that the government-assisted dock has been entirely unable to cope with the requirements of the trade.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The conditions precedent are the conditions laid down in the statute. I cannot by any words of mine lay down conditions.


William Humphrey Bennett: But you can lay down the line of policy which the government intend to pursue ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think, this is a matter which calls for a more definite decision of policy than has Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
already been laid down. I think the matter will settle itself commercially. 1 do not think there is any danger of a company establishing another dock where there is one in a locality which is able to do the business.


William Humphrey Bennett: I understand the hon. minister to say-of course ' Hansard ' will show whether he made the statement or not-that the government will not entertain any proposals for the assistance of a new dry-dock until it has been shown that the established dry-dock, in a certain locality and assisted by the government, has been unable to cope with the business. After that it would be quite in order on the eve of a general election to appeal to Midland, Owen Sound and other towns with the promise that a government supporter's return will result in the establishment of a dry-dock, and I am quite confident that I will be able to show that the hon. Minister of Finance made the statement that this would be one of the conditions under which such a proposition would be entertained.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If my hon. friend can get so much comfort out of my remarks as that, I would be sorry to deny them, but I think he will find that they will not bear the interpretation that he puts upon them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance whether the government will have any say as to the charges which shall be made for the use of this dry-dock ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, it is proposed that the owners of the dock must charge according to a tariff which has been submitted to the government, because, when they are receiving this large amount of public aid we think they shall establish fair and reasonable rates.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the government any report as to the probable cost of this werk ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not heard anything on the subject since the last discussion took place. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) is not in his place and I do not know whether he has anything on the subject or not. However, we will be able to ascertain later.


John Graham Haggart: What is the meaning of the words ' on the cost of the work ? ' Surely it does not refer to repairs. The old dock is entering into the construction of this dock at Collingwood. The section says :
The Governor in Council may authorize the payment .... of a subsidy not exceeding three per cent per annum on the cost of the work.
Then, there is a qualifying clause at the end which says :
4:631

The cost on which it shall be calculated shall not be greater than the value of the work as estimated by the said minister.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: These are not new words. These are words which have been in the Act for twenty years. The purpose I have no doubt is that while we may pay interest on the cost, we shall not pay a subsidy on an extravagant cost. They must submit an estimate and they must satisfy the minister that the cost is the bona fide cost, so that we shall only pay a subsidy in return for a bona fide expenditure.


Robert Laird Borden: While these words might have a certain interpretation if an absolutely new dock was being constructed the hon. Minister of Finance will, of course, recollect that in the resolution as passed and in this Bill as proposed the words include the completion of a dry-dock now in course of construction. In this dock at Collingwood, for example, a portion of a former dock constitutes an important part of the new dock. If you were building a completely new dock you could say what is to be the actual cost of the work. But, suppose you introduce into the question a portion of an old dock partly completed, such as there is at Collingwood, and which has not been built under the supervision of the Department of Public Works, a difficulty would be introduced, which you would have to consider.


Mr. LANCASTER.: A work having been completed might be useless for want of. repairs, and it might be said that the work is worth more because of the impairs. It is a question whether you would pay on the total value as it was then or merely on the cost of putting it into shape.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: I do not quite follow the hon. gentleman's argument, but I hardly think the word ' new ' would properly express it because this paragraph is apparently contemplating new work and it would be a redundancy to put in the word ' new.' I think it would be safer to say that this -would only be calculated on the alluding to what you think might be the expenditure on an existing work.


Robert Laird Borden: Suppose you have a dry-dock that might be valued" by the owners at $50,000 and you want to build a dock that will cost when completed $300.-000-a new company pays $50,000 for the old dock although they might not get value for more than $15,000. If you insert the word ' new ' it would prevent them getting any return on the money they had to pay for the old dock, and which would be an expenditure on their part just as much as if it were for a new work. I think we should pause before inserting that word.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is also the danger that the cost of the land which might be a very considerable item could not be taken into account if you inserted that word. I can assure my hon. friends that there is no intention of subsidizing any old broken down enterprise.


John Graham Haggart: The dry-dock at Collingwood was assisted by the town to the extent of $50,000 and the town got possession of it and made an absolute present of it to this company. In such a case assistance should be given only to the new work.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the corporation of a town gave them some aid, that would certainly enter into the valuation for which they would receive a subsidy, but they could not earn a tariff of tolls on it. We have provided that they must make returns on all aids received from corporations and they cannot earn any money on that.


John Graham Haggart: This company at Collingwood should have no claim on the government for the site or for any assistance that the town gave. *


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would not like to answer that off-hand.


John Graham Haggart: But they should not.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman need not be concerned about Col-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that to say that the dock at Collingwood is an old dock repaired, is hardly to make a fair statement. The information we have is that the dock at Collingwood is practically an entirely new dock. The only excuse for saying anything about the old dock is that there was an old dock in former years. It was a small affair, and I understand all that remains of the old dock is a hole in the ground and that that hole is not big enough for the purposes of the new dock. I understand that there is nothing of the old dock there to-day so that properly speaking it is a new dock that is to be built at Collingwood.
'Mr. LANCASTER. Might I suggest that in the 27th line of the section you insert the word ' new ' before the word ' work ? ' If the hon. Minister of Finance means to pay this subsidy only on a new work instead of on a work partly old and partly new this will make it clearer.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is certainly the intention, and for the present I see no objection to the proposed amendment. We might reserve the third reading of the Bill lest we find that this amendment contains something that we do not intend, but I see no reason why the hon. gentleman's amendment should not be ac. cepted.
4G83

lingwood, because I made a statement at an. earlier stage of this debate and I received a letter since from the president of tiie company, Mr. John Long, in which he says that my reference to conditions at Coiiingwood were correct. I may repeat what I then said. I stated that it was true that they began with the hope that they would utilize some of the walls of the existing dock, but they found it impossible to make any use whatever of them, and instead of getting any benefit they had to go the extra expense of removing the walls so that all that was left was the hole in the ground. So far as Coiiingwood is concerned, there was practically no value to the company in the dock which they attempted to enlarge, and ultimately had to abandon.


John Graham Haggart: That is not inconsistent with my statement that the company had to pay nothing for it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know anything as to how they acquired it.


John Graham Haggart: They are in possession of the work which the town gave them for the benefit of the town and the country in the hope of getting government assistance. This company has expended nothing except to remove the old works as the Postmaster General states.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL Expended nothing on what ?


John Graham Haggart: On the dock; excepting the removal of a portion of it which could not be utilized.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They are expending a much larger amount of money than the subsidy.


John Graham Haggart: I know, but what I wish to guard against is the value of property being calculated before these new works are commenced.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether this three per cent bonus applies as well to a floating dock as to a dry-dock.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The wording of the Act deals with dry-docks, and I think we have never had application for the construction of a floating dock. A case of that kind might have to be dealt with by special legislation. If there is a place where a floating dock is more suitable than a dry-dock, that might have to be considered.


Robert George Macpherson: There is a large company in the city of Vancouver who contemplate the building of a floating dock, and I doubt if they would be likely to go into the enterprise unless they were assured of the three per cent bonus from the Dominion government. As a matter of fact a floating dock is much preferable to a dry-dock.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am inclined to think that a floating dock is a dry-dock, so that it would come under the operation of this dock. A dry-dock means a dock that is made dry so that you can repair a vessel, and I suppose a floating dock would answer the purpose of repairing vessels the same as a dry-dock. There would therefore be no difference in reality between a floating dock and a dock on land. The essence of the thing is that you should have a dock where you may repair ships, and whether afloat or ashore I think it would come under the spirit of the Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is not a dry-dock when you fill it with water so that vessels may be floated into it.


Robert Laird Borden: The Bermuda dry-dock was taken out from England.


John Graham Haggart: I understand there is an engineer from the Public Works Department superintending the construction of the dock at Coiiingwood.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It has been built under the general direction of the Department of Public Works, but whether they have a resident engineer there or not I would not like to answer.


John Graham Haggart: I think the Postmaster General said on a previous occasion that the work was being done under the superintendence of an officer of the department.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The plans have to be approved by the department.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is not necessary to have a resident engineer, but for their own satisfaction the department may have sent an engineer.


John Graham Haggart: As the minister has assented to the insertion of the word ' new,' I think it covers all objections.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid that the insertion of that word would make it too restrictive. For instance, you could not pay for the land in the case of the St. .Tohn dry-dock, and my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) does not mean that. I think the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) can safely accept the assurance of the Postmaster General, who is familiar with Coiiingwood, that it is a new dock, and that there is no question of repairing an old one.


John Graham Haggart: The insertion of the word ' new ' would certainly cover the cost of the land.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am not sure that it would.


John Graham Haggart: You might as well take our assurance as to ask us to take the assurance of the Postmaster General.

46S6


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The one is a matter of law and the other is a matter of fact. We are able to form an opinion on a matter of fact, but when it comes to a matter of law we have to refer it to our legal adviser.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We are all agreed that there slfculd be some improvement in the clause in the direction intended, and if the insertion of the word ' new,' may not suit, we may perhaps get something else.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Act in that respect is exactly as it has been for "twenty years, and, as none of these difficulties have ever arisen, I think hon. gentlemen rather magnify them, especially after all the conversations we have had with' reference to the Collingwood dock ; and I am afraid that if we amend the Bill to meet that case, we might put an obstruction in the way of the erection of docks elsewhere.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I had not in mind the Collingwood dock ; but it struck me that as the object of the Act is no doubt to encourage the construction of works which will be useful for the purpose, we are not to pay upon anything except what has been brought into existence by the people who are looking for a subsidy. As the clause reads now, if there was some work of value done before the new work, it could be strongly argued that the whole work, after its completion, would be entitled to a subsidy, although perhaps only 25 per cent of the work might be required to make it a complete work. In such a case, I do not think over 25 per cent of the work ought to get the subsidy. I think there should be a qualifying word of some kind inserted in the section.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The object which my friend has in view is commendable, but I am afraid that the word inserted there might possibly defeat itself. Let us dispose of the Bill in committee, and we will look into it and see if any change is needed later on.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did I understand the hon. Postmaster General to say that he had received a communication from the president of the Collingwood Dry-dock Company in which that gentleman said that the old work had no value, or that there was nothing of it there to-day except the hole ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I said I had received a letter from Mr. John Long, the president of the Collingwood company, stating that he had read the debate in ' Hansard ' and had read my statements in that debate, and that they were correct.
' Mr. CLARKE. I think the minister added something else.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, nothing more than what I have said just now. When the matter was before the House on
a former occasion, I stated that I had visited Collingwood and had seen the condition of the work, and I described the extent of the new work, which practically made the whole thing a new work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then there was nothing left of the old outfit ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There was nothing left but the hole of the smaller dock.


John Graham Haggart: Were the walls wood or concrete ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: When I was there, there was only one wall partially built-the east wall of the new structure, and it was of stone. There was excavation going on in other directions.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The only part of the old dock to be taken into account is the hole ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is my information.


William Humphrey Bennett: The dry-dock which formerly existed at Collingwood was not by any means an unimportant work. It -was capable of accommodating the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers, which are over 300 feet in length. I myself have seen them in that dock. It was also stated in the debate the other day by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Thomson) that it was a very fine dock. It must be quite clear that when this company took the old dock as a present from the town of Collingwood, it was a dock of considerable value, and if the walls were of stone, this new company have a very valuable asset. I assume that the government do not propose to pay on the material taken from the old dock which enters into the construction of the new dock, and of which this company have been made a present 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Even if they did, it might not be such a monstrous thing as the hon. gentleman seems to suppose, if the dock as originally constructed received no subsidy. However, I do not think that is likely to arise in this case. Tliese.docks are sometimes given assistance from various quarters.


William Humphrey Bennett: The town gave $50,000 of cash bonus to the company which failed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I know that in the case of the Halifax dock the city gave a large sum, and yet the subsidy could be collected on the whole cost of the dock. I do not see anything wrong in that. It is by a combination of these various aids that people get the resources to build the docks. If the land for the Collingwood dock was a free gift from the town, it still formed a fair part of the cost of the dock. I do not think we should object to that.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Department of Public Works should be able to supply all

the information required by the committee. Although Mr. Coste has been supervising this work, and has visited Collingwood time and again in connection with it, we are without a single bit of information in regard to what has been done.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That shows that the Department of Public Works are carefully looking after the work, and I do not think we should apologize for that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But they are keeping the information religiously to themselves.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No ; if the hon. gentleman will specify the information he desires, I will bring it down on the third reading of the Bill.


James Joseph Hughes: Was the government consulted before that work was undertaken ?	-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


James Joseph Hughes: And has the government had anything to say in regard to the way in which it should be constructed ? If so, it should be constructed of cement rather than stone. Cement is used all over the United States, and is very much more economical.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is an engineering question, on which I cannot give an opinion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Before the Bill finally passes, we should have the size of the dock, the material to be used, and the reports of the engineers made from time to time with respect to the progress being made.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I shall bring down information on all the points mentioned by my hon. friend from Toronto, (Mr. Clarke) and if any other point is specified, shall be happy to bring down all the information possible.
-Mr. WILMOT. Is the site for St. John decided on yet ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am under the impression that there is an arrangement between the city of St. John and the promoters of the company.
ilr. BORDEN (Halifax). Have the plans submitted for the Collingwood dock been approved by the Governor General in Council ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The plans were originally prepared on a smaller scale than is now contemplated, but I am not sure whether plans on a large scale have been submitted or not.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman surely has the dimensions of the dock ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of the dock first proposed, but it will be made larger.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


William Humphrey Bennett: We should know whether the stone going into the construction of the dock is the same material as was used in the construction of the old dock.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Whatever information we may have will be brought down. Under the wording of the Act we make a provision f*r a financial statement before we pay the first instalment of the subsidy, but as the company may receive other aid, it is desirable to have that statement submitted annually so that we may know how much bona fide investment there is. I propose to add after*, the word ' Act ' on the second line of the new section six the following : and thereafter annually before the first of January.' The clause will then read as follows :
The company before receiving its first payment of subsidy under the authority of this Act and thereafter annually before the 1st of Janua- y shall file in the office of the Minister of Public Works a financial statement, verified to the satisfaction of the Minister of Public Works, setting forth in detail the receipts and expenditures of the company, and also all gifts, grants, or aids to the company from any municipal or public body, the amounts received or to he received by the company on account of stocks, bonds, or debentures cf the company, and particularly the amount of money derived from the issue of stock or loans to the company and actually expended in the construction of the dry-dock.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no provision as to the use of the docks by United States ships. In the case of Halifax, under the contract with the Imperial government, which gave also some aid. it was provided that Her Majesty's ships should have the first use.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They paid handsomely for it.


Robert Laird Borden: We are paying somewhat too.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Our new Canadian navy should have the preference.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no doubt that we will get the preference without putting it in.


Samuel Hughes: That is certainly worth considering. The navy have precedence in the Halifax graving dock and they do not pay the same rates as ordinary shipping.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot say positively hut my impression is that the only thing they get is priority. It would he hardly fair to give the company a subsidy with the one hand and take it away with the other. If we use the dock, we should pay for it.
Mr.-CLARICE. But should we not have priority ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They are not likely to he so rushed with business

that we need fear any difficulty on that score.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman should provide that the company shall not do as the old company did, utilize the dock for the purpose of constructing vessels in it. A dry-dock is intended for repairing ships but there was so little business done that they built one or more vessels in the dock. That was a detriment to the public, for the public could not get the use of the dock for repairs when it was being used for building ships.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no reason to believe that the Collingwood Dock Company would be influenced in this way. They will find it advantageous to themselves to have the dock ready for shipping. Tlieir own interest, I should think, would protect the government against what the hon. gentleman suggests.


Samuel Hughes: The clause would do no harm.


Robert George Macpherson: The graving dock at Esquimalt is practically in the hands of the Imperial government at all times, that is, it is occupied by His Majesty's ships; but when it is not, of course, the merchant vessels can be attended to. I understand that the tolls charged by the Canadian government are ridiculously small, very much smaller, than those of any other dry-dock or graving-dock on the Pacific coast. It would be advisable for the government to recognize fully local conditions in fixing the tolls of any other dock. I suppose the Esquimalt graving-dock is run at a loss. But if a private company went into the construction of a dock, say at Vancouver, it would be hardly fair that they should be put upon the same scale of rates as the Esquimalt dock, which is not available at all times for the merchant ships.


John Graham Haggart: The government should take power under this clause to take into consideration in the payment of subsidy as well as in the fixing of rates, any grants from municipal or other public bodies.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The subsidy is fixed by the Act itself.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In all seriousness, if there is anything in the statement made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prdfontaine) recently, that the government intend to establish the nucleus of a Canadian navy, there should be right reserved in the Bill for priority for repairs of government vessels whenever there is necessity.


Samuel Hughes: We already have some vessels for the protection of fisheries.


Edward Frederick Clarke: As the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) suggests, we
already have vessels engaged in the fishery protection service, and we are given to understand that we are to have cruisers on tile Atlantic and the Pacific, as well as training ships. This will be a pretty extensive outfit, and the vessels of that outfit should have precedence over merchant vessels when the government desire to have them overhauled or repaired. Moreover, we ought to have an explanation from the minister as to his policy on this particular phase of the government's policy.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I fancy that in time of war we should not need an Act of parliament to give us priority in these matters, and, in time of peace, my idea would be to give precedence to the ships of peace rather than to the ships of war.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But the time to stop a leak is when the leak occurs. This question of the priority of government vessels should be given consideration. And, in the absence of the Minister of Militia and Defence and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I think it would be better to allow tlio Bill to stand until we can get their opinion as to the merits of the situation.
Progress reported.


ACT RESPECTING INFECTIOUS OR CONTAGIOUS DISEASES AFFECTING ANIMALS.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 194) respecting infectious or contagious diseases affecting animals.-The Minister of Agriculture.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: This Bill was passed in committee except section 12, which was reserved for consideration of suggestions made by the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Gilmour). The suggestion was that the compensation, where an animal was Slaughtered not in accordance with the provisions of the Act should be the full value of the animal. Therefore, I have remodelled this clause, and I propose to substitute the following for subsection 2 of section 12 :
Whenever the animal slaughtered is affected with infectious or contagious disease, the compensation, if any. shall be one-third of the value of the animal before it became so infected, but shall not exceed, in case of a grade animal, twenty dollars, or, in the case of full bred animals, sixty dollars. Whenever the animal is not thus infected but has been in contact *with or in dangerous proximity to diseased animals, the compensation, if any, shall be three-quarters of the value of the animal, but shall not exceed, in the case of grade animals, fifty dollars, or in the case of pure bred animals one hundred and fifty dollars. Provided that when it is clearly shown that the animal has been slaughtered<on insufficient grounds and that the slaughter was not in accordance with or justifiable under this Act, the owner shall be entitled to compensation in the full value of the animal so slaughtered. In all cases, the

value of the animal shall be determined by the minister or by some person appointed by him.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 21) to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways.-The Minister of Railways and Canals.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I move to reconsider section 156. I find that it would be as well to indicate especially the superior court and the county court by a subsection having reference to matters of expropriation. I think on further study the effect of the change in the interpretation clause will be such that it will not be advisable to make the changes that we have made, naming the county court in the sub-clauses (f) and (m) of the interpretation section. I will ask in a moment the committee to restore the clauses. At present I move to add as sub-clause 2 of section 156 the following :
In this section and in the following sections of this Act. wherever the same occur down to section 175 inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression ' court ' shall mean a superior court of the province or district, or a county court of a county where the lands lie, and the expression ' judge ' shall mean a judge of such superior court or county court ; and any proceedings commenced in one court having proper jurisdiction shall be contained therein.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I suppose this will have the effect the minister intends, though I am not quite sure, unless I know how the interpretation clause is going to be changed. But instead of saying that ' any proceedings commenced in one court having proper jurisdiction shall be continued therein,' would it not be better to say ' continued to completion ? '


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They could not go to any other court. I move
That section 2 be reconsidered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved :: That subsections ' f ' and ' m ' of section 2 be restored to their original state by striking out the words in each ' or county court.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 160,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved :: To amend section 160 by striking out the words ' but each party shall be held sufficiently notified through the arbitrator appointed by him. or whose appointment he required and also to add the letters ' Am.' to the end of the section.


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not know why the hou. minister wants these words left out, because I think there ought to be some sort of provision for notice to be received in these matters.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This notice only refers to the meeting of the arbitrators for making up their award after they have heard the parties.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We have to rely on those particular words sometimes in order tq fix the time for appealing. There will be appeals under this Act. The parties must have notice of the award before the time begins to run during which an appeal can be made. A prudent attorney or solicitor will give notice himself.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What would you suggest to conserve your rights ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The section says :
That no such award shall be made, nor any official act be done, by such majority, except at a meeting held at a time and place of which the other arbitrator has bad at least two clear days notice, or to which some meeting at which the third arbitrator was present had been adjourned ; and no notice to either of the parties shall be necessary.
Sometimes one of the arbitrators, for some reason best known to himself, refuses to agree with the other two as to some detail in the case. The arbitrators might want to view the premises and one of the arbitrators might get stubborn and he will not agree to do anything. These very words that the hon. minister proposes to strike out have always saved the situation. If there is anything done behind the back of one of the parties he will set aside the whole award and the whole of the expense will have been wasted and the trouble gone to for nothing. These words that the hon. minister proposes to strike out have averted that calamity which might otherwise arise.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What about the words :
And no notice to either of the parties shall be necessary ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think they ought to be inserted.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Why ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No express notice is necessary, but if your arbitrator lias notiee it is sufficient; that is the way the lawyers have construed it. If you leave the words that you are striking out, the section will be construed as it has been heretofore done that the arbitrator is the only man who need know. If you leave these words out you will leave it baldly that no notice to either of the parties shall be necessary. I think there ought to be notice, but I agree

that the casual notice that the arbitrator receives ought to be sufficient.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I confess I do not see the difficulty that the hon. gentleman has pointed out. This clause has reference entirely to the action of the arbitrators in making up their award after they have beard the parties. If it does, and the meeting of the arbitrators was held, the section provides that the arbitrators must get notice, and when they get notice then no other notice will be required because each arbitrator will be taken to have notified his principal. There is no arbitrator to which this particular clause would be applicable. I do not see the applicability in any sense in the language which we are proposing to strike out.
Mr. LANCASTER, Does the minister argue that it is because each party receives notice from the arbitrator that it is not necessary ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no notice necessary.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But ought, there not be ? The arbitrators ought not to do anything that the parties to the arbitration do not know anything about.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The preliminary business and the taking of evidence has been finished, and the arbitrators are left to dispose of the matter. They may meet but they shall not make any award except at a meeting of which they have had notice. The parties have nothing to do with the making up of the award, and so they have passed the stage at which the parties ought to be present.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is I suppose an old principle of the common law that the parties being principals they are presumed to be invited to the proceedings of the arbitrators. I think that should be preserved.


Robert Laird Borden: Does this section mean that as a sole arbitrator he could proceed without giving the slightest notice to the parties.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Only to make up his award. I move that the following words be struck out: ' And no notice to either of the parties shall be necessary, but each party shall be held sufficiently notified through the ar-bitator appointed by him, or whose appointment he required.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 169, subsection 2-appeal from award.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAY'S AND CANALS. We left a blank for the amount
subject to appeal. In the old Act it stood at anything over $400. The hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) proposed that the blank,1 should be filled up by $1,000. I have considered that suggestion, and it seems to me that $1,000 would be a very large sum. I think it would be making a very material and radical departure from the existing law. The proportion of expropriations which exceed in value $500 is very inconsiderable. If we add fifty per cent to the present amount, and make it $600, I think we would be making a very careful and prudent departure from the existing law. In cases where the value exceeded that amount which would be very rare, the property-owner would be just as likely to complain of the award as the company.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I still think that $1,000 is not too high.	I should think
that the appeals should be restricted if possible to questions where some principle is at stake, as for instance whatever a party is entitled or not to a certain kind of damage. That question of principle would be! more likely to arise in cases where the amount was large. Where it is but a mere question of estimating the amount of actual damages, it seems to me 'that the arbitrators, who are on the spot and hear the evidence, are better able to come to a fail" decision than would be the one judge who has not examined the locality or heard the witnesses. But there are questions where it is not so much a calculation of the amount of damages suffered as a question whether the damages are of such a character that they should be entertained at all. It is for that reason that I would ask the amount to be fixed at $1,000. It is a principle which is at issue, and the question of principle is more likely to arise where the amount exceeds $1,000 than where it is less.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It seems to me that the question of principle may be raised where the damages are small ns where they are large. You are just as likely to have a question of principle at stake where the damages are $400 as where they are double that. I think that we would do well to make the amount $600, and I move that the blank be filled with the sum of $600.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Or. section 170, subsection <5,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move that this subsection be struck out and the following be substituted:
Upon compliance with this section all provisions except section 123 and 124 of this Act shall be applicable to the compensation for the lands to be taken for such branch line.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I suppose the hon. minister has considered the phraseology of this amendment and is satisfied that it will

cover all that is desired. I am a little nervous myself about its covering all the proceedings it is intended to cover.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It makes sections 123 and 324 inapplicable to branch lines.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is all right ; but, is the minister sure that the phraseology is sufficient ? Would it not be better to say from section so and so to section so and so inclusive ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What has the bon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) in mind ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not say that this does not cover the point, but I am not sure that it does.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The moment a branch line becomes a part of the railway it is subject to the provisions of the Act. We wish to provide for these branch lines, and also to provide for making compensation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would prefer to say ' and to all the proceedings applicable to, necessary for or arising out of compensation.' I do not say it is necessary, but I think it would be preferable.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved to strike out subsection 0 and to insert the following :
On compliance with this section, all the provisions excepting sections 123 and 124 of this Act, shall apply to the company and to the lands to be taken for such branch lines.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose to introduce a new section dealing with a new matter before wo take up section 177. I beg to move the following section be inserted :
Where the owner of any industry established, or intended to be established, within six miles of the railway, is desirous of obtaining railway facilities in connection therewith, but cannot agree with the company as to the construction | and operation of a spur or branch line from the railway thereto, the board may, on the applies-tion of such owner, and upon being satisfied of the necessity for such spur or branch line in the interests of trade, order the company to con -struct, maintain and operate such branch line or spur, and may direct suoh owner to deposit in some chartered bank such sum or sums as may by the board be deemed sufficient, or may by it be found to be _ necessary to defray all expenses of constructing and completing the spur or branch line in good working order, including the cost of the right of way, incidental expenses and damages, and the amount so de-Mr. LANCASTER.
posited shall, from time to time, be paid to the company upon the owner of the board, as the work progresses.
(2)	The aggregate amount so paid by the owner in the construction and completion of the said spur or branch line shall be repaid or refunded to the owner by the company by way of rebate, to be determined and fixed by the board, out of, or in proportion to the toils charged ly the company in respect of the carriage of traffic for the owner over the said spur or branch line, and until so repaid or refunded, the owner shall have a special lien thereof, upon such branch lire, to be reimbursed by rebate as aforesaid.
(3)	Upon repayment by the company to such cwner of all payments made by the owner upon such construction, the said spur or branch lino,, right of way, and equipment, shall be and become the absolute property of the company free from any such lien.
(4)	The operation and maintenance of the said spur or branch line, by the company, shall be subject to and in accordance with such order as the board may make with respect thereto, having due regard to the requirements of the traffic thereon, and to the safety of the public and of the employees of the company.
(5)	All the provisions of this Act respecting the construction of spur or branch lines shall apply to any spur or branch line constructed under this section.
I may say that while not constituting any part of the existing law this is at present the practice and usage amongst railways.


John Graham Haggart: Till; whole cost of the construction is placed upon the owner of the factory or the person who will benefit by the line ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, he has to put up a deposit.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I was not able to quite follow the last subsection, but, as I understand. it provides that the company after obtaining the use of the money shall return it to the owner.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If a person wants a spur line built in to his factory and the company are willing to build it they are only willing to build it upon having the owner put up a sufficient deposit to enable them to pay for such construction and to equip and furnish the line. That is the usage at present. Then, after they have built it. they are entitled, not to exact any direct payment of tolls for shunting over it or freights carried over it, but such amount ns they are entitled to charge in respect thereto will be repaid to the person or company putting up the deposit until a sufficient amount has been repaid to recoup the person or company for the original outlay. The railway company then will become the complete and absolute owners of the spur line and they continue to operate it as if it had been constructed by them without being subject to any such conditions. It is very necessary to have something of this kind in the Act and these clauses have been very carefully compared. We have dealt with conditions by which a company that have

a spur line to a particular factory are unwilling to build a spur line to another factory. We want to have power to compel them to treat all fairly.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What number will that he ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That will be No. 17G, because there are one or two other sections which will have to be struck out.


John Graham Haggart: It will come under the heading of the construction of branch lines ?
The MINISTER OH' RAILWAYS AND CANALS. Yes.
On section 177,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved :: That section 177, subsection 2, be amended by adding the following : And may determine the amount of damage or compensation, if any, to be paid for any property or land taken or injuriously affected by reason of the construction of such tracts.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is that not interfering with the general principle of the Bill as to how compensation is to be ascertained ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are dealing with the case of where one railway wants a portion of the property of another, or where one wants a crossing over another line. This is now determined by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council if the parties do not agree.
On section 184,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The amendments proposed in this clause will make it read : The railway may be carried along or across the existing highway upon leave having been first obtained from the board as hereinafter provided; then the remainder of the clause is the same as in the old law.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it proposed to allow a railway to be constructed along or across the public highway of a city or a town without the permission of the municipality ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They must now get the leave of the Railway Committee, and under this Act they will have to get the leave of the board.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But the municipality has no power ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The municipality will be notified. No order of the board would be valid against any municipality unless it had received notice.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It seems to me that some words should be inserted here providing for the consent of the municipality
being first obtained. I question very much whether people, relying on this Act, might not get into serious difficulty if a municipality denied the right of the board under all circumstances to allow a railway to run on a highway in a city or town or incorporated village, or in fact any organized municipality. There might be some circumstances in which that would be absolutely necessary. I know the argument that is used, that when you charter a railway to go from one point to another point, and it is necessary to the purposes of the charter that the railway should pass over highways, the Dominion parliament has a primn facie right over the highways to that extent. But that is so only where it is absolutely necessary. There might be a hundred other ways of getting from the one point to the other point. I think we should be passing | dangerous and unsafe legislation in providing that if the board saw fit, it could compel the municipality to let a railway be constructed on a highway. If the railway com- * pany could carry out the object of its charter by expropriating land beside the highway, no matter at what cost, even if it should be necessary to tear down buildings, to do so, I do not think this parliament can give it power over the public highways, and I do not think we ought to authorize any board of commissioners to do anything that it seems to me we have not the power to do ourselves. The prima facie power over the highways is vested in the local legislature, and through it is given to the municipalities, and under the British North America Act this parliament cannot use a highway wantonly. As we have power to charter a railway, we have power to authorize it to go through everything that is necessary for the purposes of the undertaking, but only when it is absolutely necessary. If it is not necessary, I doubt the power of this parliament to pass that section; I think it would be ultra vires. I do not think we ought to undertake to give this board the power to let a railway run upon or across a public highway without the consent of the municipality. If the board went on and undertook to compel the municipality to let the railw'ay run on its highway, and if the municipality fought against the order of the board, I am of opinion that the clause would be held to be ultra vires, and I do not think we should pass it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I presume that all the works which are declared to be for the general advantage of Canada will be works over which the commissioners to be appointed under this Bill will have jurisdiction ? Session after session we are declaring enterprises to be for the general advantage of Canada, which are practically one-horse tramways; and if this section remains as it is, these commissioners will have the power to compel municipalities to admit such lines, whether they desire to

do so or not. Surely our great municipalities, like Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton and others, have some rights that ought to he taken into consideration; and if they set their faces against lines coming in which they do not want, we should not give the : commissioners power to compel them to give entrance to such lines. In the case of undertakings connecting one province with another, I can understand that no municipality should have the right to prevent their going through ; but in the case of purely local enterprises, I think that the municipalities should have the right of compelling such enterprises to first obtain their consent.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am afraid that those gentlemen who express the decided opinion that this law is ultra vires the Parliament of Canada will find it somewhat difficult to establish their proposition. The law has been on the statute-book ever since the parliament of Canada was organized, and I think, a similar provision was contained in the Railway Act of the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada; and I have not yet heard-and I think it would be difficult to show-that in any single instance it was ever contended before any court that the parliament of Canada has not the power to legislate in these terms. The matter suggested by the hon. member for Toronto. (Mr. Clarke) is worthy of consideration, but he must bear in mind that there must be some kind of authority to determine whether or not any public highway may be used by a railway. You cannot leave it in the hands of a municipality, to definitely determine that principle. When the parliament of Canada gives a charter to a corporation, under which the corporation has the right to go through a town, you cannot leave it to the municipality to say whether the charter power shall be exercised or not. You must leave it to some independent tribunal. Otherwise the municipal authorities might refuse to allow this power to be exercised, greatly to the public disadvantage. They might hold up a corporation and impose unreasonable exactions, and you would have no authority to pronounce upon the fairness or justice of the municipal demands. It has always been admitted by the parliament of Canada down to the present moment that such a power should reside in the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. In all its decisions, the tendency of the Railway Committee has been to yield to the wishes of the municipal corporations. I know of no instance in which a different course has been pursued, and the result has been that, witli this power in the hands of an independent tribunal, the municipal authorities have always been reasonable and willing to allow a thing to be done where it was unavoidable and where it would be for the general
convenience. It is necessary often for the convenience of the public that railway stations be located in the centre of a city so as to be easily accessible for business and other purposes. There is not likely to be any serious controversy under this Bill any more than under the law as it exists, and therefore I cannot see that it w'ould be well to repeal the law or change it materially. Experience has shown that no danger has arisen and no public injury has been done, or inconvenience suffered, and we may infer that the experience of the last forty years is likely to continue.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There is a good deal of force in the argument of the hon. minister as regards the experience of municipalities, but a new condition of things has arisen during the past two or three years. Applications are made every session to this parliament for the incorporation of companies declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, but which are purely provincial. The introduction of electricity has made a marked difference in the situation. Enterprises are being promoted to connect city with city, and these enterprises, if sanctioned by the parliament of Canada, and declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, will come under the authority of this commission. They are not, in the strict sense of the term, works for the general advantage of Canada, but simply for the benefit of some small section of one of the provinces. Regulations have been passed by the legislatures of some of the provinces dealing with such matters, and I think that the direction and control of such purely provincial enterprises should be left With the provinces and not be taken by the Dominion. In the case of purely provincial lines, the right of a municipality to prevent any such line coming into it, without its consent, should be respected. The hon. minister has declared what is well known, that the municipalities have been reasonable in the past and have obtained justice from the Privy Council. There is no reason to assume that they will be otherwise in the future or demand unreasonable conditions from any enterprise within municipal bounds. But by the clause as amended


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not different from the present law.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Now, a different condition of things has arisen


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not due to this amendment.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No, it is due to the application of electricity to railways and the granting of charters by this parliament to enterprises which it declares to be for the general benefit of Canada, tout which are


Edward Frederick Clarke: JUjSTE 15, 1903
purely local in tlieir character. And this power to give a railway company the right to run along a highway should not be exercised unless the enterprise is inter-provincial in its character.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The argument which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) has addressed to the committee is inapplicable to the present Bill, but it would be applicable if the measure before the committee were to incorporate an electric tramway and declare it a work for the general benefit of Canada.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I asked the hon. minister if works and enterprises declared to be for the general advantage of Canada came under the purview of this commission, and he said they did. I am drawing his attention to the fact that we in this parliament are giving charters almost every day to railway companies that only intend to join one municipality with another, and declaring them to be works for the general advantage of Canada.- In view of this and of the new conditions created by the changes .in electric traction, I ask the hon. minister if he does not think that the municipalities ought to have their rights reserved to them ? The Railway Committee of the Privy Council, as I understand it, has hitherto dealt with steam railways only. But a new order of things is being created because of the legislation sought to be obtained from this parliament. If this clause is permitted to go as the hon. minister has amended it, whatever rights the municipalities enjoy to keep out lines of electric cars that they do not wish to have running along their highways, will be taken away. I think that is a serious matter that I am drawing the hon. minister's attention to, and the attention of the committee at large, to the subject, in the hope that something will be done to afford protection to the municipalities.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And I am drawing the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Clarke) attention to the fact that we are not discussing and cannot be supposed to discuss under this Bill, conditions which are special and exceptional such as the hon. gentleman refers to. It is open to the hon. gentleman if he desires, to annex a condition to the granting of every charter of an electric railway, whether it is declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada or not-or to ask parliament to annex it-that these rights shall not be exercised through any city or town without the consent of the municipality. They would then be under the necessity of going to the municipality for any such power. But how does the bon. gentleman propose to amend this section ? He says, that as I have amended it, it causes a difficulty. He is in error in that respect. If he were a lawyer, he would
know that the verbal changes made in this clause from the words of the existing law do not create a new condition such as he says-they do .not alter the tenor or spirit of the law at all. The old section says that so and so shall not be done unless so and so, and this says that 'it may be done if so and so. There is no difference, as a matter of fact, as any lawyer would say if he were to express his opinion on it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When this parliament declares a work to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, it gives to the company carrying out that work certain powers. This is the time to make an amendment to the law, because the changes in regard to electricity as a motive power create a new order of things for which the law should provide.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What amendment would the hon. gentleman propose ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: If I hacf the legal ability of the hon. minister-he has been good enough to remind me that I am not a lawyer-I could draft a clause. And if he will allow this section to stand I will see about >a clause being drafted.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman has started a legal question, which he does not understand, I am sorry to say, and if be cannot propose an amendment


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will he glad to submit an amendment if the hon. gentleman will allow the clause to stand.


Mr. WADE.: This is a provision of great Importance, and I think that any tampering with it might lead to great misfortune.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is tampered with now.


Fletcher Bath Wade: As has been stated by the hon. minister the clause as now proposed is exactly the same in effect as the old clause. It does seem to me that it should be our object to retain every section of the old Act unless some good reason is advanced for changing it. No good reason could be given for changing this clause. If the amendment were passed which is suggested by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke), I can see how small towns and municipalities' might be put in a position where they could tie up great railway enterprises. Suppose a railway runs for five hundred miles, then in the course of the construction it comes to a Village or small municipality which says. 'We will not permit you to cross our street.' And that street might be the only place where it could cross. Under the present law, before they can run along a street or cross a street they must get the sanction of the board. It seems to nie that this is a sufficient safeguard. We are putting large powers in the hands of that board, necessarily, and we must as-

sume that they will exercise those powers wisely as each case arises. I would therefore urge that there should be no change in this section.


Samuel Hughes: The proposition which my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) puts, as I understand it is this : Suppose a line runs from some town to the suburbs of a city and there connects with the city system of electric tramways, they would then have the right to run over the streets of the city. That, I take to be my hon. friend's contention. But as I understand the law, they could not do anything of the kind until they had received the sanction of the commission and of the civic authorities.


Fletcher Bath Wade: There is more than that in it. Under the general provisions of the law, an electric road must have the authority of the municipality to put up its poles.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Take the case of one of these roads spoken of by my hon. friend from AVest Toronto (Mr. Clarke), it receives a charter and' make a bargain with the municipality as to what streets it may run on. X am not talking now about crossing streets. This is even more dangerous; they can run along the street according to the Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Have they any different power from what they have had for forty years V


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The danger is greater because, as my hon. friend has stated, the conditions are changed. AVhen this law was passed there were no electric railways, and railways did not run on one street where they run on a hundred to-day. I have no great regard for a law merely because it has been for many years in force, if it is not a law that applies to the conditions that actually exist. Here, let us say, is a concern with a charter from the Dominion parliament, and with the power under certain conditions, not merely to run across the street but to run along it, to use the highway for its right of way. Now, let me point out to the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) that, even though It is arguable that this section as amended means the same thing as the old section, for some strange reason the phraseology is changed and changed in favour of the very view that my hon. friend from West Toronto and I are opposing. Now the sectioh under the old Act starts out :
The railway shall not he carried along an existing highway, but shall merely cross the same in the line of the railway.
Prima facie it shall not be carried along the highway but it shall cross it. Now how did they draw this section ? This section makes no distinction between crossing and going along. The draughtsmen of the old section, when they did not Mr. WADE.
have trouble with numerous electric roads wanting to cross highways, even then I saw a great distinction between a railway running across it. The legislature who passed that Act said :
Shall not be carried along an existing highway but shall merely cross the same in the line of the railway, unless leave therefor has been obtained from the Railway Committee, and no obstruction of such highway with the works shall he made without turning the highway so as to leave an open and good passage for carriages and on completion of the works, replacing the highway ; and every company which violates the provisions of this section shall incur a penalty of not less than $40.
I do not find that penalty carried out in the Bill which is now before us. Now, taking the section before us, the railway may be carried along or across an existing highway. As the minister drew this Bill which is before us, and which until a few minutes ago we supposed was to become law, it was not that way, it was that the railway shall not be carried along or upon. But for some reason, since this Act "was printed, we are surprised to-nlgbt to find that be is going to amend and puts the presumption the other way, the railway may be carried upon or along upon leave therefor obtained from the board.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The only difference is between tweedledum and tweedledee.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then why did the minister make it tweedledee when he had it tweedledum ? AVhy did he draw this section a second time and surprise the House with a new section, if it Is so unimportant? I think the section is different. If there are decisions and judicial rules that have operated before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under that old section, I can well understand where cases would arise where the same rule would not apply under this section. Prima facie, under the other section the railway could not be carried along or upon the highway. AVith all due deference to the minister's saying that there is no sense in contending this is ultra vires, I am still of the opinion that it is. The British North America Act has given the fullest power over highways for all general purposes to the municipalities through the provincial legislatures. As I have already said, I admit that in carrying out a work that the Dominion parliament has power to carry out, if it is necessary in order to carry a railway from one place to another to cross a highway, then parliament would have power to force its way through. But can there be a case where the Dominion parliament can say that it is absolutely necessary to run along a highway. There is land each side of a highway. True, it may lie expensive. I am satisfied that my suspicions are correct, and that it is because it is going to lie cheaper for a railway to go on tlie highway, if the board can be induced

to say that it may go there; the company, may pay a little money to the municipality, for paving or grading up the street a little, and then obstruct the highway for all time. Any large steam railway could run along! the highway here if the board gave permission. Now, suppose the city of Toronto or the city of St. Catharines gives a charter, and have passed a by-law giving power to; an electric railway to pass along a highway on certain terms only, and a steam railway wants to connect also on the highway. Suppose one of these lines is within the jurisdiction of this commission, this commission has power to force them to connect by this power it has of allowing a steam railway to run upon that same highway. The roads were not laid out for railway rights of way, they were laid out for highways In the ordinary sense of the word; and I still say that unless it is absolutely necessary to run along that highway this section would be ultra vires, if properly contested. This provision attempts to repeal the British North America Act in so far as it allows them to run along the highway, because I cannot conceive that it is absolutely necessary for any railway to run along the highway. There is land each side of the highway, otherwise there would not be a highway there, and that land can be used for the purposes of the railway and can be expropriated. Of course it will cost the railway some damages, and the object of this section is that when a company finds that it cannot build its road as cheaply as it thought it could be built without using the highway, the railway commission is to have power to allow them to use the streets of the city, town or village. . This is an authority that ought not to be delegated to them without the consent of the municipality, and we have not the right to delegate it to them under the British North America Act. That is for the provincial legislature.
The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND eANALS. I do not think there is the slightest foundation for the opinion which' the hon. gentleman has expressed. I am sure, from the conversations that took place in the Railway Committee of the Privy Council since I have had the honour of being a member of that board, that if it had been possible to raise a contention of that kind it would have been raised in several instances. The hon. gentleman says that he does not understand why the language of this clause was changed from the affirmative to the negative form. I will tell the hon. gentleman why. It was for the sake of harmonious and consistent legislation. We have passed in section 118 of the new Bill clause (k) 'make or construct in, upon, across, under or over any railway, tramway, river, stream, water-course, canal or highway.' and so on. Now that power is identical with the power we conferred upon the railway company in the existing Act, when it was passed many years ago. You will 148
find it in section 90 of the present railway law, which provides :
The company may, subject to the provisions of this Act. and of the special Act contained-
Do certain things and among, the rest:
Make, or construct in, upon, across, under, or near any .... highway.
And so on. What sense is there in giving to the railway company the power, of course, subject to the condition that the railway commission must approve, and then go on and say that the railway shall not be carried along the highway unless local approval has been obtained ? You have already said the company shall have that power. My hon. friend from East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) shakes his head.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I did not understand the hon. minister to read it in that way.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Section 90 of the present Railway Act says that the company may, subject to the provisions of this Act do the following things, among others :
Make, or construct in, upon, across, under cr near any railway, canal, river, stream or highway.	"


Mr. CLANCY.: May the road be placed along the highway without the consent of the municipality ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


James Clancy: I am sure the hon. gentleman will see that this is a very serious question. I listened a moment ago when he said that the question had never been raised in all his experience


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I said that the contention which was made here to-night that this power was ultra vires of this parliament had never been raised to my knowledge.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman will see that this is an extraordinary power which can be used for the purpose of securing a right of way. I know nothing more serious than a railway constructed along the highway. I was going to say hundreds of accidents, but I will be safe in saving that the number reaches well up towards the hundreds, that I have known to occur as the result of a railway running alongside of a highway. Women and children may be driving alone, the horse becomes uncontrollable and a serious accident occurs. I do not say that in all cases! there should be no departure from the rule that a railway should not go along the highway, but if it can possibly be avoided it should be avoided.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will accept the suggestion or proposition of the hon. minister, and I will undertake to try to have a clause



provided to be added which will meet the case that I am referring to. It is very difficult for a layman to express himself sometimes in order to convey to legal minds his exact idea. I asked the hon. minister if [DOT] enterprises and undertakings that were declared to be for the general advantage of Canada were to come under the purview of these railway commissioners and his answer was, yes. We are chartering tram car lines to run from one town to another in this province and they are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada. We have these tram carlines surrounding cities and connecting with trunk lines. The conditions that are being created by this Bill are entirely different from those which have existed during the past forty or fifty years or since the Railway Act has been in operation. There is a new condition of things in existence, and I say that it is an intolerable outrage that these tram car railways shall be given permission to go into the city of Hamilton, or Toronto, or Montreal without the consent of the municipality. It is entirely unfair to the municipalities. Take the case of the city of Toronto, for instance: We have as complete a tram car system as can be found in any city in America. That system is operated by one company. The right to operate that surface line belongs to the city. The city has given that franchise for a number of years to a company. If the citizens of Toronto desire a more extended tram car service they are the best judges as to where these tram cars should come in and under what conditions, and they can acquire for them running rights over existing lines running through the streets of Toronto. But why should power be taken away from the municipalities to keep' these roads out if they desire to do so ? They are the best judges. These tram car lines that are getting incorporation from this parliament are not gift enterprises. They are not being established by philanthropists to put money into people's pockets. Surely the municipalities have some rights in the matter. They ought to have some opportunity of saying when and where these roads should come in and under what conditions. This parliament is surely not in the helpless condition that the hon. minister described it to be in, that it cannot make such an amendment to section 184 as will give the municipalities the right to state conditions under which a tram car line may come in, and not leave the matter entirely under the control of this board of commissioners. I am sure the hon. minister must understand the objection I am trying to present to this permission being given, in view of the new order of things which has been created by the introduction of electricity during the last four or five years.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


Fletcher Bath Wade: If the hon. gentleman will turn his attention to sections 192 and 193 he will see that the very thing in regard to which he is now objecting is amply provided for. It provides that the company shall not place any lines, wires or p'oles on the streets until they have first obtained the consent of the board and then until they have obtained the consent of the municipality.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What board ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: Subsection ' f ' of section 193 says that the work of the company upon the highway shall be subject to the supervision of the municipality.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) is not wanting in apprehension, and yet I am surprised to hear him say that when a general law is passed for the management, control and regulation of railways, the proper exercise of these powers is impossible because there are some tramways which are brought within the control of this commission and which are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada. My hon. friend talks about taking power away from the municipalities. Who is taking power away from the municipalities, if it is a proper power for the municipalities to exercise ? My hon. friend is taking it away from the municipalities-


Edward Frederick Clarke: No.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, he is; he is taking it away from the municipalities in the Bills which are passed for the purpose of incorporating these railways, without any conditions saying that they shall not enter upon the streets of any municipality until they obtain the consent of the municipality for that purpost. Instead of destroying or mutilating this Bill, all he has to do is to put that clause in a special Act, and the special Act will govern, and until they have complied with the conditions that are to be found in that special Act they do not come within the general provisions of this Railway Act. That is a complete answer to the difficulty the hon. gentleman presents.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I say as a lawyer that is is.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: That is new doctrine.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: New doctrine ; is it ?


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Yes, the government are responsible.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Another Daniel come to judgment.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I may be lacking in legal knowledge, but 1 think that primarily the responsibility for legislation o'f this kind rests on the hon. gentleman who occupies the distinguished position of Minister of Railways and Canals. If any injustice is being done to municipalities, the responsibility for that injustice must be shared by the minister with other members of this House when he allows tram car outfits run by electricity to be declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada. The hon. gentleman sits in the Railway Committee and he cannot be blind to the attempts that are frequently made with the object of destroying municipal rights. I enter my protest as a member of this House against legislation of this class that is being enacted here from year to year. The minister will see that the end is not yet, and that this question is bound to come before the House sooner or later. I am sure that the minister has sufficient legal knowledge, if he desired to exercise it, to enable him to add a subclause to this section which would meet the cases that we are presenting to him and which would protect the municipalities in the rights which they have enjoyed up to the present time. If the minister will give me permission I will try to get a lawyer to prepare a subclause that will meet the case, if he allows this section to stand.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Let the section stand.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 185,


Edward Frederick Clarke: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to the words of this clause which say that the top of the rail may protrude an inch over the level of the surrounding street. Would not that be a serious impediment to traffic.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In all the by-laws that I have seen drawn, allowing these tramways or electric roads to run, they have always been compelled to put the top of the rail flush with the street, and the street is usually macadamized or paved up to the rail on both sides. Serious accidents will happen, runaways be caused and vehicles broken, if you allow the rail to obtrude in this way. It is admitted to be a most dangerous thing to allow the rail to rise above the level of the street. This difficulty arises because this House of Commons to-night is undertaking to do the work which should be done by the municipal councils throughout the country.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is the experience of gentlemen who live in cities, that there is very great danger to horses and vehicles from allowing the rails to protrude above the level of the street. I have seen the tram car tracks laid down in the leading cities of the old country, and they are so level that you cannot detect any move-1484
ment of the wheels of your vehicle when you are crossing them. Why should we not make provision here that they should be level with the pavement ? It will not cost any more, and it will save a great deal of trouble. I am not an engineer, but I would suggest to the minister that it would be no hardship if we provided that the rails should be flush with the contiguous surface of the street.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are simply retaining the latfr as it is now and always has been.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Why should that be an argument. That's a regular Tory doctrine and has been exploded long ago. If the law has allowed a dangerous thing in the past the law should be amended. That is ah there is to it. The minister knows as well as any farmer that it is very dangerous to allow these rails to protrude above the level of the roadway. If the rail is one inch above the roadway the wheels are likely to sink an inch below, and then you have two inches to get over, which is a serious obstacle. I do not care if the law has been so for generations, it should be rectified if it is not proper legislation. What might be right twenty years ago may be all wrong now.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You cannot always have the track just on the dead level with the highway. I am not talking about tramways, I am talking about railways, and we are legislating here for every railway in the Dominion. You make them liable to a penalty of I think $5,000, and if it is impossible to have the rail on a dead level, are you going to fine them, or are you goiug to wipe out the penalty altogether. That might be all right in reference to the streets of Toronto and some of the wealthy cities whose roadways are in fine condition, but you cannot make a law as stringent as that to apply to every railway crossing in Canada, because it is impossible to do it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Nearly all the by-laws of all the municipalities in Ontario compel the rail to be on the level, and they enforce those by-laws.	.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They cannot enforce that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The by-law says that if the rail is not placed in that way the work will be done at the expense of the town engineer and the town collects the cost from the railway. If we did not interfere with the rights of the municipalities here the thing could be worked out all right, and that very fact proves that we should not undertake such legislation without the consent of the municipality.


Mr. AVERY.: I think it is very important that the roadway should be level with the track, especially in winter time. Our

teams, loaded with lumber, have often got stuck on the rails owing to the track being higher than the roadway. That is something that has happened in my observation several times. It is more dangerous to have the rails above than below the level. I think it would be in the interest of the railway company as well as of the public to have the roadway as high as the rails, if not higher.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What locality does the hon. gentleman refer to ?


Melzar Avery: The township of Oso, in the county of Frontenac.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not think a stronger argument could be urged in favour of a modification of this clause than that presented by the hon. member for Addington (Mr. Avery). Why not provide that when the work is completed the top rail shall sink an inch below the highway ? Why allow the rail to obtrude an inch above the highway ? The damage is done by being above, not below.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the rail is below the level, the wheels of wagons will be liable to get twisted.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is not unreasonable to expect the company to keep their rails level with the ground on either side. It is not safe to give them two inches of margin, because if they have it, they will take it. I would respectfully suggest to the minister that that clause ought to be modified in some way to make it more acceptable to the municipalities than it is as it stands now.
Mr. JOHNSTON [DOT](Cardwell). I may add that I have time and again seen teams stuck at crossings on country roads, and neighbouring teams have had to be got to help to pull them off. I myself got stuck at a railway crossing with a load of saw-logs, and I had to get another team to help to pull it off. As the law allows the rails to be an inch above the level, if a man's sleigh got stuck on it. the company could come along and smash it and he would have no remedy against them. I think in all country places the railway company should be compelled to keep their rails as low as the planks. That would save a great deal of trouble to the farmers and their teams. Then you often see a crossing where the railway does not cross the highway at right angles, but diagonally. Where it crosses at right angles, there is not so much difficulty with wheels, but where it crosses diagonally, a heavily loaded wagon or a sharp-tired buggy is liable to break an axle, hy running along the rail. If the rails were below the level, that could not happen.


Melzar Avery: If the minister has no objection to making this change, it would be a great benefit to the country at large. Last winter I had a dozen teams get stuck Mr. AVERY.
on the railway simply because the rails were higher than the roadway. To keep the rails down to the level or below the level of the roadway would not hurt the running of the railway, and it would keep the sleighs off the rails. It is very dangerous at present to cross with a heavy load if you have not an extra team to pull you off. The objection is not so great in summer as in winter, because a wheel will go over where a sleigh will not. I think the change proposed would be for the benefit of the railway company as well as the public.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am willing to have the section stand for further consideration.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 188,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved that the section be so amended as to read as follows
The highway at any overhead railway crossing shall not at any time he narrowed by means of any abutment or structure to the extent of less than twenty feet, nor shall the clear headway from the surface of the highway to the centre be less than fourteen feet, unless otherwise directed or permitted by the board.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Twenty feet would not be wide enough for two lines of tram car track, but I suppose it will be in the discretion of that board to make the width greater ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You have to leave the power somewhere and cannot provide for every case.


Mr. LENNOX.: I perhaps did not correctly hear what the minister said. I venture to think that twenty feet is not wide enough. The minister says you cannot make provisions for every case, that subsequent arrangements can be made, and the power must be left somewhere. But I would submit what has been urged upon the minister before, that he should make the prima facie case in favour of the people. The general opening over highways should be wider than twenty feet. People driving have to pass others beneath these railways, and pretty wide loads must pass. Moreover, sometimes, ditches have to be constructed along the abutments to carry water along the highways, and I think the experience in the rural districts is that twenty feet is not sufficient. Then, as to the height, there is a necessity for providing not merely the height at a central point, but from side to side. I know the Minister of Railways, like the rest of us, is endeavouring to protect the public. This Bill is one that probably will not be amended for some time-I venture to say that it will not be amended in favour of the public at any rate. Therefore. I think that it should be made now as favourable to the public as is consistent with justice. A railway company can

easily carry a span of more than twenty feet. They can carry a span of thirty feet to-day more easily than they could one of fifteen feet a few years ago.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How would it do to make the clause read that the opening over a highway should not be less than, thirty or thirty-five feet except with the permission of the board of commissioners '!


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think that there is practically any difference. The Bill provides that before these structures can be put up plans and profiles must be submitted to the board. If the company proposed to run a double track they would be required to make a wider structure than for the purposes of a single track, and if running a single track twenty feet would be ample. I do not think we could very well change the section. I have had the opinion of our engineers and have gathered all the information that I could upon the subject, and have reached the conclusion that, so far as the width is concerned, the width that we have named here is all right. In the great majority of cases, a span of twenty feet would be covered by girders. But if you had thirty feet or over, you would compel them ordinarily, to arch, and you would be making a width which, I am assured by competent authorities, is quite unnecessary. This is a limitation upon the board; they are net in any case to allow a width of less than twenty feet; hut they have power to make the width as great as the circumstances of the ease call for. I do not think we can do better than leave the discretion there.


Haughton Lennox: I do not think I have succeeded in making clear to the minister what I have in view. If you make the normal width twenty-five feet, the railway company go on and construct the openings in that way, or else they will make an application to the board. It is a comparatively easy matter for the railway company to appear before the board and they can get an order, perhaps, for all highways along the whole line of a new piece of construction. But it is a serious matter for a municipality to be obliged to initiate these proceedings. Therefore, I think, the minister will see the importance and the justice of making this width ample in the first place, and leaving to the railways, if, in any case it is not necessary to make, the opening so wide, to apply for a modification of the rule. In this case it is a railway carrying a road across the public highway. The people, have prima facie, the first right. That right should be guarded, and then let the railway company show from time to time the necessity for modification. I know this view will commend itself to the minister. He has taken a great deal of trouble to perfect this Bill and it will stand as a monument to him.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have made inquiries into this matter. If the information I have gained had led me t* believe that a greater width tlfan twenty feet should be placed in this Bill, I should be very glad indeed to amend the Bill and make the width greater than I here propose. But I am advised that twenty feet is ample. How many turnpikes have you in the country with a width exceeding twenty feet ? Very few. I notice also that the bridges which the municipalities are building are not twenty feet wide as a rule. Most of them are sixteen to eighteen feet wide. Why then is it necessary to have a greater width for this class of structure than for the turnpikes or the bridges they carry ?


Haughton Lennox: The minister asks, why have the opening under a railway of a greater width than the floor of the bridge. It seems to me the answer is obvious. You must provide width not merely for the wheels which rest upon the roadway, but for the load which often extends far outside the wheels.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: There may be some difficulties by making it read ' the centre of the bridge.' I can cite one instance that occurred in my township where a railway crosses a public road where there is not room for a load of hay to go through owing to the way the sides of the crossing are constructed. I think we should require that the crossing should be at least twenty feet square from the bottom to the top and fourteen feet at the top. It should be twenty feet from the bottom and not from the centre.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are placing upon this independent tribunal the responsibility of requiring plans to be submitted to them and the obligation of seeing that those plans when carried out, should be such as will ensure the public safety. We cannot frame our sections so as to meet every case that may arise, we can only state the maximum and the minimum and leave the rest to the commissioners. We may depend upon them to see that the structures shall be of such a character as will conform with the conditions which we require, that is to say, will ensure safety and protection to the public.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have not heard yet why the minister changed these words from ' the lowest portion ' to ' the centre.' '


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not changed them, that is the old Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think the original Bill is better than the old Act. I have not seen any answer why the overhead structure should not be of the same height all the way along, because if it were right to


make it thirteen feet high in the middle, it is equally necessary to make it thirteen feet high all through.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman really see that he is fighting a mere shadow ? Is it to be supposed that this railway commission are going to sanction a structure which will be like the wigwam of an Indian ? The difficulty is this : The old Act used the expression of ' the centre,' the legislators perhaps not knowing the difficulties of the construction. Now it turns out from the experience of the engineers that that term is entirely inappropriate. No matter how wide they required the structure to be, no matter how large the circle was which constituted the arch, there would have to be that fourteen feet below where the arch commences to spring, and it would be difficult to define what the lowest portion was. I thought it was safer to go back to the original Act and let the board of commissioners determine each plan and say whether or not they approve it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is not much room for a team of horses and a load of hay to pass through a space twenty feet wide and to have much play, especially if the horses are nervous and are frightened by a passing train. If we are going to pass the section at all we should make it a little more favourable to the people.


Haughton Lennox: I thought the minister had concluded that he would alter the section so as to make it clear fourteen . feet over the highway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Twenty feet wide and fourteen feet high.


Haughton Lennox: In the majority of country roads they usually use a straight stringer, in some cases there are iron girders, and in some cases wooden. In only two or three instances have I seen stone arches. But what the minister has already said meets the whole difficulty. The board will have control, and except in isolated instances, the board need not require the railway company to carry out the full height of fourteen feet across a span of twenty feet. But the prima facie duty of the railway company and the prima facie right of the people should be a clear uninterrupted headway above the highway of a full width of twenty feet and of a height of fourteen feet. That is all important and I submit that that right should be guarded. It will occur in so few instances that the companies will be building stone or concrete arches that there will be very few occasions when the alteration will have to be made.
On section 101,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose to the committee that we shall re-enact the old section with some Mr. LANCASTER.
little change in it. The more I think about it the better I think the old section was. I beg to move :
That the words ' stretching across, or projecting over ' in the first line be struck out, and that the word ' at ' be substituted in lieu thereof and that on the third, fourth and fifth lines the words ' at such height as to leave sixteen feet from the highway to the lower edge of the sign board1 * be struck out.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is the section as substituted practically the same as the section in the old Act '!


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is there any legislation as to what height these boards shall be from the ground ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not object to that. Before we leave this section, I would like to say that there was a section in the old Act-section 189-which provided very stringent penalties for delaying works ordered by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. We have the board substituted for the railway committee but we have not the penalties re-enacted. Section 189 of the old Act provides that the company incurs a penalty of $50 for each day's delay.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: All these penalties are in the new Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I see that section 191 of the new Bill provides a penalty of $40 for neglect to comply with the requirements of this section, but we have not the penalty of $50 a day which is a good thing to hurry the company up.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Section 293 of the new Bill provides :
Every company which shall erect, operate or maintain any bridge, approach, tunnel, viaduct, trestle, or any building, erection or structure, in violation of this Act, or of any order or regulation of the board, shall for each offence incur a penalty of fifty dollars.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is another thing. That is where a company violates an order of the board, but that does not say if it does not maintain or construct a work when it is ordered to do so, it will incur this penalty. I 'knew of this section and that is why I have asked the question.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Look at section 294 of the Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Section 294 says :
Every company, director or officer doing, causing or permitting to be done, any matter, act or thing contrary to the provisions of this or the special Act, or to the orders or directions of the Governor in Council, or of the board or minister made hereunder, or omitting to do any
4717

matter, act or thing required to be done on the part of any such company, director or officer, is liable to any person injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained by such Act or omission ; and if no other penalty is, in this or the special Act, provided for any such act or omission, is liable, for each offence, to a penalty of not less than twenty dollars, and not more than five thousand dollars, in the discretion of the court before which the same is recoverable.
This is not the same as the old Act. This dees not provide a penalty for each day's delay and it is the delay that makes the trouble. The best way to make them hurry up is to flue them so much a day. The clause says that if there is anything they are required to do, and which they do not do they are liable to a penalty and to pay damages, but in common law they would be liable to pay damages if they did not do their duty even without this provision. If the railway neglects to carry out any order, they ought be under a stringent penalty of so much a day as in the old Act.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have a great many' more penalties and more provisions in this new Bill than are in the old Act and there is the advantage of having them altogether here.
On section 192.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This section says :
The company shall not erect, place or maintain any lines, wires or poles for telegraphs, telephones, or the conveyance of light, heat, power or electricity, upon or along any highway, square or other public place, except by leave of the board.
I propose to amend that section by adding at the end, the words :
And the consent of the local municipal authorities.
This is in principle the same question we were discussing in regard to highway crossings, although in practice it is of still greater importance. This is a new section which gives the company power to erect poles on any highway or square for a purpose not necessary for the undertaking of a railway company, and it enables the company to do that without the consent of the municipal authorities. The railway lias its own right of way and it can erect poles along its own tracks, and when it conies to a highway crossing they can, under ordinary circumstances, string their wires across without placing a pole on the highway. But in an extreme case where there may be a sharp angle or a high building, surely the municipal authorities would allow them to meet such a case and surely the municipal authorities should have power to do so. This provision allows the railway commission to permit these railway companies to interfere with municipal rights without consulting the municipal authorities at all. I cannot see the necessity for this unless it be that it is intended to hold up the municipalities. A railway company could threaten that unless the municipality gave them rights with reference to the station grounds and other such things, they would go to the railway commission and get permission to do what they liked on the streets of that municipality. This is nothing else than a usurpation of the rights of municipalities, it is a deliberate attempt to deprive the municipalities of the rights they have now.
I believe it is ultra vires of this parliament, but the minister does not agree with me, and whether it is ultra vires or not we should not do it. Even if we have the power we should not attempt to exercise it. Who can best look after the highways in a municipality and declare whether wires for the conveyance of light, heat and power should be erected or not ? Surely it is the municipalities who get their rights from the provincial legislatures. What in the world is this clause wanted here for, except it is to benefit the railways. What right has a railway to go into the light, heat, power business in a municipality without the consent of the municipality. What right has a railway to tear up the squares and public places of a municipality without obtaining the consent of the municipality. I wish the member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) were in his seat, because a while ago he was sure this section provided for the consent of the municipality, but as he now can see it does not, and I am sure we on this side of the House would have his support in defending the rights of the municipalities. The hon. gentleman referred to subsection (f) but if that subsection is meant to cause us to dream that this is giving the power to the municipality, I cannot help thinking that the wording of it is very imperfect if that is the meaning of it. Subsection (f) says :
(f) The opening up of any street, square, or other public place for the erection of poles, or for carrying wires under ground, shall be subject to the supervision of such person as the municipal council may appoint, and such street, square or other public place shall, without any unnecessary delay, be restored, as far as possible. to its former condition.
That means that if it is opened up by order of the board of commissioners who have sole power to do it by section 192, the work may be carried out under the supervision of an officer appointed by the municipality. But the municipal council has no power to say whether the work shall be done or not. That has been all ordered by the railway commission before the municipality is allowed to come on the scene and supervise the work. It is merely a direction to the municipality as to carrying out something which it cannot stop, and which the board are the only people who can say shall happen or not happen. I do not construe subsection (f) as giving control to the municipal council : and that being so. we are here deliberately, by section 192, taking away from the municipality control of its own highways, and handing that control

over to a railway commission. Therefore, the amendment I move is the only proper thing to make the section not only intra vires, as I think it is not as drawn, but to m'ake it what it should be, even if it were intra vires, so that this work should not be done without the consent of the local authorities.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. member will see that l propose an amendment to this section so that his amendment will not be applicable. I propose to substitute for section 192 the following :
No lines or wires for telegraphs, telephones, or the conveyance of light, heat, power or electricity, shall be erected, placed or maintained across the railway without leave of the board.
I do not say anything about highways there at all. This is a matter relating to railways, and the use of telephone and telegraph lines, and the conducting of electricity in connection with railway undertakings, which are the only things with which we are concerned. Then, I propose the following as subsection 2 of section 192 :
2. Upon any application for such leave, the applicant shall submit to the board a plan and profile of the part of the railway proposed to be affected, showing the proposed location of such lines and wires and the works contemplated in connection therewith ; and the board may grant such application, and may order by whom, hew. when, and on what terms and conditions and under what supervision such works shall be executed ; and upon such order being made such lines and works may be erected, placed and maintained across the railway, subject to and in accordance with such order.


Edward Frederick Clarke: As I understand, then, this actually prohibits the municipalities-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, it has nothing to do with municipalities at all. It applies only to a railway line.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Suppose a railway runs through a city, and the city proposes to erect a telephone system crossing that railway. The city could be prevented completing its system unless it got the approval of this board.	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Unless it got the board's permission to cross the railway.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand that the municipality is to be prevented from carrying out a telephone system or a system of electric lighting, according to its own scheme, unless it gets the approval of a body constituted by this parliament.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is not that a most extraordinary thing ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think it is a very proper thing. Mr. LANCASTER.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That would take away the right of the municipality altogether. If the railway is coming in, it ought to be subsidiary to the right of the municipality.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think so. I do not think any electric light or telephone or telegraph company should be allowed to carry its wires across a railway without being subject to the safe and proper running of the railway. There must be some control. That is all that this means, and it could not possibly be permitted to anybody, in the interest of a municipality, which had no concern as to the safe and proper running of trains, to carry a line of electric wires across the railway tracks without permission of the properly constituted authority.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it not the duty of this parliament to make the railway provide for public safety in that case ? Why compel the municipalities to do all this ? I would like to record my vote against that clause.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not understand it.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose this lias no retroactive effect and will only apply to railways to be built after this comes into force.
Mr. LANCASTER, I am afraid it will affect railways already in existence.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Of course it will. If a municipality wants to string wires across a railway track, it will have to do so according to the regulations and conditions imposed by the commission.


John Graham Haggart: In every town and village there are hundreds of wires for telephonic and lighting purposes passing over railways at present.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They will only be allowed subject to conditions imposed by the railway commission just as they are imposed to-day by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before we get through with this Bill, it will be found that there will be nothing left for anybody to do but to bow down to the railways, when these railways have the sanction of the commission. I entirely agree with my hon. friend for West Toronto. We do not want a municipality to prevent a railway from running but neither do we want the municipalities to give way to the railways in every thing. The railway need not go into the municipality, and if it does go into a town or village it goes there to make money and should be made subject to the rights of the municipality.

On section 193,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved that section 193 be amended by striking out the first and second subsections and inserting the following :-
When a company is empowered by a special Act of the parliament of Canada to construct, ooerate and maintain lines of telegraph, telephone or for the convenience of light, heat, power or electricity, the company may, with the consent of the municipal council or other authority having jurisdiction over any highway, square or other public place, enter thereon for the purpose of exercising the said power, and as often as the company think proper may break up or open any highway, square or other public place, subject however to the following provisions :
(a)	The company shall not interfere with the public right of travel.
(b)	Provided that where the company cannot obtain such consent from such municipal council or other authority, the company may apply to the board for leave to exercise such power ; and upon such application shall submit to the board a plan of such highway, square or other public place, showing the proposed location of such lines, wires and poles ; and the board may grant such application in whole or in part and may change or fix the route of such lines, wires or poles, and may by order impose any terms, conditions or limitations in respect thereof that It may deem expedient, having due regard to all proper interests ; and upon such order being made, the company may exercise such powers in accordance with such order and shall, in the performance and execution thereof or in the repairing, renewing or maintaining of such lines, wires or poles, conform to and be subject to the provisions in subsection one of this section provided, as if consent bad been obtained from such ihunlcipal council or other authority, except in so far as the same may be so expressly varied by order of the board.
You will observe that they must first apply to the municipal council for consent, then if the council will not consent, they may appeal to the board. It will not be possible for the company to insist or the council absolutely and arbitrarily to refuse. This tribunal decides between the parties, as any independent tribunal would, as to whether or not this power ought to be given and under what condition.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do I understand that this clause is intended to reaffirm practically the Act passed twenty years ago ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This Act as amended was passed in 1899. It is not twenty years old.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand there was some litigation arising out of the Act of 1899-out of some defect in the legislation with respect to the Bell Telephone Company's rights.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have nothing to do with the Bell Telephone Company; we are dealing with railway companies.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But I am dealing with the rights of municipalities. Do I understand the Minister of Railways to say that
it will rest with the board of commissioners to say whether any railway company whose work has been declared a work for the general advantage of Canada may erect poles on the highways and squares of the city to carry on telephone business, lighting, heating or anything else ? Surely that cannot be the position of the minister.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. it does not do that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then, what does it do ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The railway company may be authorized, in connection with its own business to have'telephones, electric wires for lighting and so on. But this must be sanctioned by the hoard of commissioners.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is that perfectly clear ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It provides that the company may do what they are authorized by its special Act to do. But we restrict that to the exercise of their powers for the purpose of tlie railway and its undertaking.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But that does not help us very much, whether the special Act restricts or does not restrict. We are providing that the railway commissioners can authorize the railway company to carry on telephones, lighting or heating. Suppose that some future parliament, in its good nature, does not impose such a restriction as the minister has suggested, does that make the legislation any more sensible ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, it does not apply to that at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is the Act we are passing, and now is the time for us to make restrictions that we think should apply. You say the municipalities should give their consent and the minister evidently thinks they will give their consent. But I do not think that anything can be done in control of the streets without the consent of the municipality. And so this law would be not only inadvisable but ultra vires of this legislature. This parliament lias power to give a charter for the carrying out of the undertaking and to do wihat may be necessary for that purpose. But the danger is that more than this will be done without the authority of the municipalities. The streets and highways are vested in the municipal authorities; that is the power that has control of them, and I do not think that this parliament can assist those powers or take them away. But I do not want to make legislation merely trusting to its being held to be ultra vires. I do not think we should authorize the board to undertake to force the municipalities to do with regard to the streets and public places of a municipality what they do not want to do, unless it is absolutely necessary for the purpose of the undertaking which we charter.

And I say that you have only the right to give the power to do what may be necessary to carry out the undertaking. But that cannot he so in the case the hon. minister put.


The MINISTER OB RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) to say that it is only the question of necessity which confers upon this parliament the right to legislate upon the subject ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the hon. gentleman wants to put it that way, I say that it is ultra vires of this parliament to interfere with a municipality except for the carrying out of a purpose for which this parliament has a right to give a charter, and the only reason why railways can force their way across the highways and so on, is because you cannot make the railway otherwise. But where it is not necessary for the purpose of the undertaking to carry poles or wires, this should not be' allowed. The company may carry these things along their own rights of way, but if they1 wish to extend they should buy another right of way. It is surely not right to say that we can authorize a board of commissioners to give a railway company the right to do other than railway business on the streets of a municipality simply because we have the power 'to allow the building of a railway along or across the streets, The railway commission does not care about the municipal rights, but is considering the general interest of Canada, and they might think it in the general interests of Canada to allow railways to run here and there wherever they please. They are not the protectors of the highways, but the municipal authorities are. Recognizing that, this power should be conditional upon the consent of the municipal authorities. Surely this is a case in which the municipal authorities ought to have something to say.


Haughton Lennox: This involves, probably the most serious question we have had to face in connection with this Bill. We are confronted with the proposition of the minister to leave enormous power in the hands of the board. We virtually, as it seems to me, substitute, for what we contemplated before, the right of legislation by this board. The minister shakes his head, meaning, I suppose, that he does not agree with what l have said. We cannot expect the minister always to agree with us; but I can only submit it to his consideration in the hope 'that he may change his mind. The minister has taunted an hon. member on this side with having failed to protest with regard to some matter, I think connected with electric railways. Therefore I wish to state my position as emphatically as I can at this point though I do not know that it will have any effect so far as the minister is concerned. The hon. minister says Mr. LANCASTER.
that this only confers upon the railway company powers in connection with the undertaking of the railway company itself. I should not have so interpreted it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I say that this proposed legislation does not give a railway company the right to go into the electric light business, or the power business, or the telephone business for any purpose outside of their own undertaking.


Haughton Lennox: Although I have no desire to obstruct this Bill, yet I do submit that it is regretable that large amendments are proposed by the minister, often upon the spur of the moment, when we are not able to understand their effect. These amendments are virtually a recasting the section. I submit that in view of the importance of this legislation, and in order that the company may have an opportunity of judging the effect of these amendments, they should be submitted to us a sufficient time in advance to give us an opportunity of studying them. I confess that I am not sure that I grasp the full scope of the proposed amendment. I believe it is trenching seriously upon the rights of municipalities, and it has this additional bad element, that it transfers tlie matter to a tribunal which should never have the power to legislate for a municipality. If we are to divest ourselves of any power of control over railway companies, let us hand it to the municipalities rather than to this board.


John Graham Haggart: - That amendment will give to the company the power of generating electricity or generating power, and that which they do not use for the purpose of the railway, they can dispose of under their special Act. It gives them the power of going on to the streets of a municipality. If the municipality objects to letting them come upon their streets, then they can apply to the board and the board may give them the right of going anywhere. The clause does not restrict the power to the purpose of the railway company, but it gives them the general power to use these streets for the exercise of the powers they have under their special Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Of course, if parliament were to pass an Act giving a railway company the power to run a telegraph business independently and outside the purposes of their undertaking, or an electric light or power business outside of its undertaking, then it would give them an unrestricted power. But parliament is not giving them that power. We have had a great many Acts passed during the present session, and with one exception, I think every railway enterprise going through a section of country where there is a water power upon which they would have to depend for their motive

power to generate electricity was allowed to dispose to the general public of any surplus power they might have over and above what they required for their own purpose. But the railways which have power to erect telegraph and telephone lines and works of that kind, have been strictly limited to the purposes of their undertaking.


John Graham Haggart: That is for telegraph lines and telephones. But this goes further, and gives a company power to generate electricity for lighting and heating and power purposes, for running factories or anything of that kind. They have that right under their charter, and when I was Minister of Railways and Canals and since then, a good many companies have been given that power, but they have no right to enter upon the streets of any municipality without the consent of the municipality. This gives them the power to go into a municipality and to dispose to the public of a portion of their electricity.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They could carry telegraph lines upon the streets of Toronto. If it is conceded that they have that right, surely the minister ought to make a provision that they should not go and dispose of the extra and unrequired light, heat and power jvithout the consent of the municipality. Is not this the place to make that provision ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where is it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In the special Act incorporating the company.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then the contention of my hon. friend from Lanark is admitted by the minister to be correct.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I admit that if parliament does give them the power they could use it, but if they do not get the power, they cannot use it. We have incorporated here provisions which restrict the company as fully as we think it is proper for the company to be restricted. We say they shall procure consent if they can; if they cannot, and if they can make out a case to satisfy the board, then the board may override the decision of the municipal council. The municipal council will not have power absolutely to block an undertaking which has been chartered by this parliament. Then we say that the opening up any streets, square or other public place, is to be subject to the supervision of the municipal council.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. minister will see, of course, that a company might generate ten times as mpch power as it would require to operate its line of railway. It
might generate ten times as much heat and light as it would require. According to our contention it has no right to tear up the streets, squares and public places of a municipality to dispose of the other nine-tenths that it does not require without the consent of the municipality. It has no right to go into such a business as that. I want to be recorded as very strongly against such a proposition.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Campbell).: Shall clause 193 as amended be adopted ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I object to it.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 194,


Mr. COWAN.: Before section 194 is taken up


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think we had better not enter into any question of drainage to-night. It is too late. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. MONK.: Before this motion is adopted, will the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals give us the order of business for tomorrow ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will take up the Railway Bill and supply.
Mi-. MONK. What estimates will be taken up ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have not yet finished the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand that the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. "Mr. Blair) has appointed a special commissioner to make an inquiry into the cause of the accident at West Lome one or two months ago, and that that commissioner has returned to Ottawa after having made an investigation. I would like to ask the hon. minister if the commissioner has submitted his report, and if so, if be will lay it on the Table of the House ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not heard from him for the last two or three days, but when the report is completed I will bring it down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]


Tuesday, June 16, 1903.