1903-07-07

['While I do not pretend to talk about railway matters, I must call the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to an incident that occurred in the county of Peel when I was a member of the county council. An electric railway company came to the county council and asked for liberty to run its track along a certain part of the highway, but the council flatly refused because it was thought that accidents would result to farmers with their horses and cattle on the highway if street cars were allowed to be run there. The county council took the view that if the electric railway were a paying affair the promoters should be compelled to buy their right of way the same as any other railway company. * It is very annoying to farmers, particularly with young horses, to go out on the highway and meet an electric railway ear. I think that the rights of rural municipalities should be recognized in this matter as well as those of cities. If an electric railway is a paying enterprise the company should be compelled to buy their right of way in the direction which they wish to go. The county of Peel absolutely refused to grant this company running rights over a certain road from Toronto to Oakville. I know that in our section of the country the people are opposed to allowing electric railways to be established on the highways, because of the difficulty they have with young horses. Street ears can be controlled on the road and no damage will be done to them, but if their operation on the highways is legalized by legislation they have a right to run Mr. HENDERSON.\nthere and in the event of damage being done to people in vehicles drawn by horses which are not manageable, the injured parties have no redress. I think the rights of municipalities should be guarded as well as those of cities and towns.\nProgress reported.']
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: In regard to the items of supply which were the subject of discussion yesterday, I propose to ask the House now to take concurrence in the various estimates which have been passed in committee.
House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Fisheries, salaries, &c., $85,000.


Mr. SPROULE.: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries promised to give us on concurrence a statement as to what state this fisheries question was in between the provinces and the Dominion. I presume he is prepared to make that statement, but I do not see him here to-day.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) be good enough to let the item pass, I will undertake to call the attention of the minister to the matter. I have no doubt he will be ready to carry out whatever promise he has made.
I prefer to have the item concurred in, but if the hon. gentleman wishes it postponed I will have to consent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not object to it passing, but it would be interesting to know in what position the question stands as between the provinces and the Dominion, and if any decision has been arrived at with regard to a settlement.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will call the attention of the minister to it, and an explanation will be given at an early date.
Item concurred in.
Public works-chargeable to income-harbours and rivers, Quebec, $491,650.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: There is one vote in this item with reference to which, I understand, a motion will be made. I refer to the Grande Vallee pier, $7,200. I do not know if there is any objection to let that stand without letting the whole item stand.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid that under procedure it will be difficult to separate them. Perhaps it will be sufficient if I give my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) the assurance that no expenditure will be made of the money covered by this vote until the main estimates are through. That will, perhaps, meet the hon. gentleman's view.


Robert Laird Borden: That is satisfactory. But, in order that we may keep ourselves technically correct, so that we may move afterwards that the four-fifths be struck out, I would like to move that this item be struck out, and let the item be carried on division.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So long as my hon. friend has placed himself on ' Hansard ' I suppose that it is all right. I do not object to his method.


Robert Laird Borden: I move in amendment that the words ' Grande Vall6e pier $7,200 ' be struck out.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to, on division.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 21) to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways-The Minister of Railways and Canals.
On section 24; regulations of the board.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved that section 24 be amended by striking out the three subsections (e), (f) and (g) and substituting the following :
(e)	With respect to the use on an engine ot nettings, screens, grates and other devices and the use on any engine or car, of any appliances or precautions and, generally, in connection with the railway respecting the construction, use and maintenance of any Are guard or works which may be deemed by the board necessary and most suitable to prevent as far as possible fires from being started or occurring upon, along or near the right of way of the railway.
(f)	With respect to the rolling stock, apparatus, cattle-guards, appliances, signals, methods, devices, structures and works to be used upon the railway so as to provide means for the due protection of property, the employees of the company and the public.
(g)	With respect to any matter, act or thing which by this, or the special Act, is sanctioned, required to be done, or prohibited.
Mr. GERMAN.: I would like to see the amendment as this is the section where my proposed amendment in relation to protection from fire should come in. I notice there is something in this amendment in relation to fire.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have a section providing for that to which I would call the hon. gentleman's attention later on as it applies to his case particularly. This does not. This makes provision for fire-guards and for protection along the right of way.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I do not see why the minister makes this reference to cattle-guards in this section.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are not dealing with the cattle-guard question here.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You mention cattle-guards.
^ The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. Yes, but we are coining to cattle-guards later.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not want this section to pass without understanding what it is. .
< The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. I do not want the hon. gentleman to be compelled to make the same speech twice. We will deal with the cattle-guards later on.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The minister has the use of the words in a certain sense, and if


Robert Laird Borden: the board sanctioned a cattle-guard the company might he able to say it is suitable and sufficient notwithstanding that it would not turn anything.


Mr. COWAN.: It is time enough to talk about that when you come to it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am not sure that the hon. gentleman is right.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Are you sure I am wrong?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am at present of that opinion, and I do not think that time will be saved by interrupting me in this way.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This clause will certainly not have the effect the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) fears, because even though the board were to make regulations with regard to cattle-guards, I do not think that this Bill will exempt the company from liability if they were liable otherwise. The words are iuserted here to enable the board to express its judgment as to what class of cattle-guards ought to be used. It would not relieve the company from liability if they used them and if they were defective.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved to insert in subsection 2 the following :
Any such orders or regulations may be made to apply to any particular district or any railway or section or portion thereof ; and the board may exempt any railway or portion thereof from the operation of any such order or regulation for such time or during such period as the board may deem expedient.
In the case of fire-guards, for instance, they may be necessary on one portion of the line and utterly unnecessary on another, and this is to enable the board to have discretion in the matter.
On section 59-paid up stock may be issued for certain purposes.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We adopted the section referring to paid up stock as it is in the existing law. My first inclination was to make it more effective, and to, if possible, require additional precautions and safe guards, but upon more mature consideration I would not make any very strenuous effort to retain the clause in the Bill if it is the wish of the committee to strike it out. If it were eliminated from the Bill I do not see that any great inconvenience would arise, I am not going to move, however, that it be struck out, unless hon. gentlemen who have considered the matter deem it advisable to do so. Under the existing law the board of directors have the power, and if we preserve it at all I think we should put that

power into the hands of the company. 1 would suggest the following as an alternative :
The company may make and issue as paid up stock, shares in the company whether subscribed or not, and may allot and hand over in payment tor plant, rolling stock, docks, elevators, wharfs, warehouses or materials of any kind, and also for the services of contractors and engineers, such an amount of such stock as shall be the fair and bona fide value for the property purchased or services rendered as aforesaid; not being promotion services ; due regard being had for the fair value of the stock, and such issue and allotment of stock shall be binding on the company and such stock shall not be assessable for calls.


Mfi. BARKER.: I would like to ask the minister whether that clause would not enable a person to act as a contractor in disposing of the bonds of the company, and to obtain from the company for his services a certain amount of paid up stock on which he would not pay a dollar ? I think the amendment is open to the same objection that was referred to before in the discussion on the original clause, that persons with financial influence who might be employed to place a large amount of bonds or debentures, might get practical control of the company without putting a dollar into it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think what the hon. gentleman suggests, and a great many other things as well, could be done under this clause. I do not think it would be possible to frame a clause that would not be liable to abuse.


Samuel Barker: I think the section as now proposed is just as objectionable as the old clause. The word ' contractor ' in the old clause was generally supposed to refer to a contractor who undertook to construct a railway; but I think that these contractors in reality do not often have stock given to them. It is more generally given to financial contractors, and all the objections raised against this method of disposing of the stock of the company without cash being paid for it apply to this clause quite as much as they did to the old clause. I see no objection to issuing stock for the payment of right of way or equipment, because in such cases it is given for a property which has a specific value; but the value of the services of a gentleman who has influence on the money market in placing bonds is an absolutely unknown quantity, and the company could give to such a person as much stock as it chose, and there would be no possible check upon it. What is the need of putting the word ' contractor ' in this clause at all ? If it were useful for a company to pay for its right of way or its rolling stock or anything else with stock, it could do so; but when you put in a word which would enable the company to give stock to the kind of contractor I have referred to, you throw the whole thing open without any possibility of a check upon the company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend's objection is chiefly to the use of the word ' contractor.' That word has been in this section ever since the first enactment, so far as I know, and I question very much whether it is subject to such a wide interpretation as he supposes, or that it would be held to mean more than a person who contracted with the company for construction or for some other work on the line. I question very much whether it would be held to apply to a person who acted as a broker for the sale of bonds. If it did, I do not imagine that it would be any more objectionable than it would be as applied in the other cases. If the company has bonds to disjtose of, it has to pay brokers or bankers or other financial men to dispose of them; and if the stock had a fixed value, I am quite sure that the company would not be willing to pay any more than what the ordinary percentage on a business basis would amount to. If they had not any value in the market, it would be pretty difficult to say what limit might be put upon the issue of such shares. I think the section is some improvement on the existing law, but I do not say that it would not be liable to great abuse, and if the hon. gentleman wishes to move to strike it out altogether, I would not raise any objection.


Samuel Barker: I think the section is of no real value except to enable the company to issue stock without getting any money for it, and it is important that the company should not be allowed to issue a very large amount of capital. I would therefore move that this clause be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and section struck out.
On section 91,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved that the following be substituted for section 91	[DOT]
The directors may, with the sanction of the shareholders of the company, at a general meeting, declare a dividend to be paid out of the net profits of the undertaking. Such dividend shall be at and after the rate of so much per share upon the several shares held by the shareholders in the stock of the company.
He said:	I propose this in order that
the law may conform to the existing practice.
Motion agreed to.
On section 92-rate of dividend,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved that section 92 be struck out and the following be inserted in lieu thereof
[Stage Direction]
The directors may, before recommending dividend, set aside out of the profits of the company such sum as they may think proper as a reserve fund to meet contingencies or for equalizing dividends or for repairing maintaining, renewing or extending the railway or any portion thereof, and shall submit their action in regard to such reserve fund to the shareholders at a general meeting for their approval, and the directors may invest the sum so set apart as a reserve fund in such securities as they may select, not however inconsistent with this or the special Act.
Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: Can they do that without the approval of the shareholders ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The clause provides that they must submit such action to the shareholders for approval.


David Tisdale: It does not say that In case the shareholders do not approve the directors will be unable to set aside such reserve fund. That possibly might be implied. As I understand the general law, dividends can be declared on the net profits, and this is an interference with that to the extent that this reserve fund can be taken out of the net profits and set aside. It ought to be made clearly subject to the approval of the shareholders.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is a necessary implication. If the shareholders do not approve it cannot be done.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 9A-no interest on calls in ar-rear,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved to amend by adding the following section :-
The directors may take from any dividend accruing to any shareholder all or any such sum or sums of money as may he due from him to the company on account of any call or otherwise.
David Tisdale: The only objection to this would be that there- might be a disputed account, and the directors ought not to be the party to decide the dispute.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is taken from the English Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 105-sale of forfeited and unissued shares.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose that the following be added as subsections 2 and 3 :
2. The company shall not sell or transfer more of the shares of any such defaulter than *will be sufficient, as nearly as can be ascertained at the time of such sale, to pay the arrears then due from such defaulter on account of all calls, together with interest, and the expenses attending such sale and declaration of forfeiture, and if the money produced by the


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: sale of any such forfeited shares be more thin sufficient to pay all arrears of calls and interest thereon due at the time of such sale and the expenses attending the declaration of forfeiture and sale thereof, the surplus shall, on demand, be paid to the defaulter.
3.	If payment of such arrears of calls and interest and expenses be made before any shares so forfeited and vested in the company shall have been sold, such shares shall revert to the party to whom the same belonged before such forfeiture, in such manner as if such calls had been duly paid.
These subsections are new. It will be known to the committee that the law as it stands now permits forfeiture of the defaulter's shares, and whatever surplus there may be is appropriated by the company for its own use. It seems to me enough, if the company gets its call, and the interest and all that is due to it ; and that whatever balance there is ought to be returned to the shareholder.


Samuel Barker: May not difficulty arise in some cases ? Take the case of shares on which 40 per cent have been called, and the shareholder making default of all or part of the 40 per cent. When the share is sold, what is it that is sold, the full share or the 40 per cent. For, a man may owe 10 per cent upon it, and it may sell for 35. We would get back 5 per cent, but what would become of the 60 per cent uncalled ? I am not clear on that point.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When you sell the share in that case, you sell a share on which only 40 per cent has been paid and 60 per cent is due, the amount due being subject to call. If it has a market value of more than 40 per cent, when the subscriber has made up all that was coming to the company with interest and expenses, he ought to get back the remainder.


Samuel Barker: Is it clear that you sell a partly paid up share, or do you sell a share ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AaD CANALS. You sell it on the basis of what is paid up.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there not likely to be some confusion in this respect ? Supposing that five calls have been made of 10 per cent each. Four of these calls have been paid by every person, but certain shareholders make default on the fifth and their shares become forfeited and sold. You sell them as shares on which 50 per cent has been paid up


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Only 40 per cent paid up, and 10 per cent called and not paid and 50 per cent subject to call.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, you collect out of the proceeds of that enough to pay the remaining call of 10 per cent.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is it.
On section 112,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS ANI) CANALS moved to strike out subsection 3, and to insert the following in lieu thereof:
3.	The company may except from the operation of any such mortgage, deed or assets, property, rents or revenues of the company, and may declare and provide therein that such mortgage shall only apply to and affect certain sections or portions of the railway or property of the company; but where any such exception is made the company shall in such mortgage deed expressly specify and describe, with sufficient particularity to identify the same, the assets, property, rents or revenues of the company, or the section or portions of the railway not intended to be included therein or conveyed thereby.
4.	Every such mortgage deed and every assignment thereof or other instrument in any way affecting such mortgage or security, shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State for Canada, of which deposit notice shall be forthwith given in the ' Canada Gazette ': such mortgage deed or other instrument need not be registered under the provisions of any law respecting registration of instruments affecting real or personal property.
5.	A copy of any such deed or instrument so deposited, certified to be a true copy by the Secretary of State, or by the Deputy Registrar General of Canada, shall be received as prima facie evidence of the original in all courts.


Robert Laird Borden: The bon. gentleman will observe that under subsection 5 it is necessary that the handwriting of the Secretary of State and the Deputy Registrar General shall be proved. That might be rather inconvenient. In the Canada Evidence Act, according to my recollection of it, the signatures of officers of state are not required to be proved. Under this subsection I think they would require to prove the handwriting of the Secretary of State or the Deputy Registrar General.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I might add these words at the end of subsection 5, ' without proof of the signature of such official.'


David Tisdale: I would like to point out to the hon. minister, before the amendment is adopted, that by striking out subsection 3 he leave* out the provision requiring the mortgage to be deposited with the Secretary of State, and providing that until so deposited and until notice is given no such mortgage shall have any force or effect. Does the hon. minister designedly leave that out ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I think it is a very objectionable clause. In subsection 4, as we propose to amend the section, provision is made for the publication of notice in the ' Canada Gazette.'


David Tisdale: My point is that if some penalty is not put upon them they may
never deposit the mortgage, and yet the mortgage is in force. The object' of the other subsection was to compel them to deposit it. Now, they are not bound to register it, and it is only made directory that they shall deposit it where anybody can find it. It is in force the instant it is executed, and unless it is made obligatory to deposit it the mortgage is in force and it is impossible for the public to get at It. In Ontario we always register these mortgages in a land office, and they are always registered unless a special clause relieves the company from the necessity. I rose to mention the fact that the mortgage becomes in force now the instant it is executed and there is nothing to compel the company to deposit it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Subsection 4 provides in explicit terms that the mortgage shall be deposited. It is not required to be registered under the provisions of the ordinary Registration Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it not desirable that there should be some means by which the public can have knowledge of what property is covered by a conveyance of this kind ? Of course, there is a provision in subsection 4 of section 112 that the document shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is in lieu of the ordinary registration.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but the difficulty is that you do not insert the usual provisions of the Registration Act which require the conveyance, or deed, or mortgage, to be registered, and in default of registration make it void as against the conveyance of any person who shall first register the same. While there is a direction to deposit this mortgage in the office of the Se'cretary of State, there seems to be no result whatever in case the document is not so deposited. It is a provision which the railway company could ignore absolutely, in whica case there would be no way of getting access to the document. It might be important that the public should know to what extent a railway company has mortgaged its undertakings. People who are doing business with the railway company would want to know that. The hon. gentleman has made a change in that respect from the former law. Has he given any consideration to the possible results which I have just mentioned ?


David Tisdale: There is no doubt the other clause was distinctly put, was a penalty if the mortgage was not deposited:
Until so deposited and notice given no such mortgage shall have any force or effect.
The notice would not be so important, but it would leave an unprecedented position in a legal sense. I quite agree that it is not necessary to record it elsewhere than in the office of the Secretary of State, but to leave

it directory, so that if the company see fit they may not do it, and the mortgage will go into force the moment it is executed, I think is objectionable. I do not see any hardship in the old law requiring that they shall deposit it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The old law did not say that. That is the provision of the Bill as we introduced it, but these words are not in the existing law at all. Upon the first consideration w'e gave the subject it struck us, as it would strike any lawyer, that perhaps that provision had better go in, but it does not seem to be wise to continue it. That is the view we arrived at. Mortgage deeds and other conveyances have not been habitually or largely registered in registration Offices throughout the country. Whatever is done with them in a public way is simply to deposit the mortgage, according to the provisions of the existing law, in the office of the Secretary of State.


Robert Laird Borden: The practice in the different provinces has probably been different. At one time in the province of Nova Scotia these documents were required to be registered, but the law was so amended providing that they need not be registered or filed. I understand from my hon. friend from South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) that the practice has been to register them in Ontario. The only circumstance I want to bring to the hon. minister's attention is that it seems to me that in some way or other the public have the right to inform themselves of the contents of these documents, and you could hardly accomplish that result by a provision of this kind.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You might put a peualty in.


Robert Laird Borden: You might put in a penalty for every day's delay after the document had been executed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Two months is the limit under the existing law. We might make it less than that.


David Tisdale: There is a further provision here that it shall not be necessary to register under any provincial law. If you want to build the real estate in Ontario you must register the mortgage, and I do not think you will find any mortgage upon which bonds are founded in Ontario but what is registered in every county through which the line passes. I know I have had to register several and that was the custom of the Grand Trunk Railway. In Ontario they did that at that time, and I am not sure but that there was a special clause in the Railway Act, or in a special Act, making the bonds a lien on all the property of the railway company without registration or formal conveyance. You have removed here the necessity for regis-Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
tering them locally, and I would like the minister to give his consideration to that matter.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We propose to substitute this deposit in the office of the Secretary of State in lieu of registration.


Mr. LENNOX.: I think you will find an express provision in the Registry Act of Ontario, for instance, which makes it necessary that mortgages should be registered. I presume the mortgagee would desire to have the registration for his own protection.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I expect he -would.
On section 176-construction of branch lines, lapse of power, &c.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: At the end of subsection 8 of this section, I propose to add :
* Nothing in this subsection contained shall be deemed to take away or impair the rights or powers of any company under any contract with the government of Canada approved and ratified by special Act of the parliament of Canada.'
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 184,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move to insert after the words ' But the board shall not grant leave to any company,' the words ' incorporated after the passing of this Act.'


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty about this amendment seems to be that so far as all existing railways are concerned it authorizes the board, without the consent of the municipality, to grant permission for the construction of a tramway or street railway along the streets of any municipality. That is a very important amendment, for it practically repeals the clause wrhich was agreed upon the other day. I should think the minister ought to state to the committee the reasons which induced him to make so important a change.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Since the clause was introduced one or two of the companies have complained that we were taking away from them specific rights which they had acquired, and the taking away of which w-ould have a very injurious effect on their interests, financial and otlienvise. The securities they were arranging to finance would be seriously prejudiced, and we would practically bar any further extension of the rights on which their undertaking had been started. I confess that the words we have put into the hands of the chairman would free all existing companies from the restriction imposed by the clause.


Mr. CLARKE.: It would destroy the value of the clause.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is a very serious question ns to how we could deal with a case of this kind. For example, here is a company which is in operation, and which lias acquired its status, iinancial and otherwise, on the strength of the lines it has already built and other lines which it has in contemplation. If we enabled a civic corporation to bowl them out entirely without any possibility of relief from any quarter, we would be pursuing a rather hazardous course with respect to such an undertaking. We can imagine the case of a couple of rival corporations operating in one city, one of them being very much more influential than the other, and being able to impose its will, as it were, upon the municipal body, and inducing it to refuse to allow the other corporation to make its extensions, while allowing the rival corporation to make all the extensions it desired. It would seem unfair that such distinctions should exist, and that the arbitrary power should rest with the municipal body to favour the one corporation and refuse to extend equal privileges to the other.


Robert Laird Borden: Could not that condition of affairs obtain with regard to companies hereafter incorporated ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It might ; but when parliament is granting these incorporations, it would no doubt be put in possession by the promoters of all the necessary facts and circumstances, so that it could govern itself accordingly. But it looks to me as though, while we were moving in a direction which would meet with the acceptance of the public in the majority of cases, such legislation might and doubtless would work very injuriously as respects others. It might cover one ground without covering the other.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the minister lay on the Table the memoranda of protests which he has received with respect to this clause as amended ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have been called on personally.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might not provision be made for those specific cases instead of amending the clause so as to destroy its value ? Around every city and town in Canada at the present these tram railways have their lines, and if this clause is amended as proposed, it will practically destroy all the advantages which the minister was good enough to give us the other day.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not understand that. '


Edward Frederick Clarke: The minister can readily see that if this clause is amended as proposed. it leaves it wide-open to the commission to allow any railway to run through the streets of cities whether the corporation 191
is willing or not. The amendment he proposes is simply deplorable.


Mr. MACLEAN.: On the same line I wish to point out that the city of Toronto receives an immense and growing revenue from its street railway franchise. The revenue will disappear entirely unless the streets of the city are protected from the aggression of the railway companies. They will have lines of their own independent of the municipality. In that way you would take away the great revenue which the city has at present from that source. Toronto receives a quarter of a million dollars a year from its street railway franchise. If the railways could come into the city under this law, the cohtrol of the street railway franchise would be taken away from the city.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think that would follow at all. I can mention to the committee one case which has been very much before my mind, and which has been dealt with by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council on several cases ; that is, the case of the Montreal Terminal Company. This company had occasion to make application to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council from time to time, to be allowed to make extensions under their charter through different streets of the city of Montreal, and the way the matter has worked out has been this. The committee has always recognized that the city authorities must be consulted, and there has been no instance in which it has been necessary for the committee to make an order adverse to the city council. But the city council had not the arbitrary power to exclude corporations from the use of the streets without the approval of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. I may say, as a matter of fact, what is pretty well known in the city, that the Montreal Street Railway Company is very much opposed to the terminal company having these rights, and it is a very influential corporation, and has exercised its influence as against this company; and if the Railway Committee had not been supreme in the matter, the terminal company would probably have been refused the privilege which was given to the other company.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does not the operation of its lines in the city of Montreal depend on the good will of the city council ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It does, although its charter does not say so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If this amendment carries will not the position of the city of Montreal be seriously jeopardized ? The contract 'o,f the Terminal Railway Company operating in the city has several years to run, and at the end of that time the council may renew



the contract or not as it pleases. I have a memorandum here respecting the Montreal Terminal Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not subject to the consent of the council.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand that the city has the right to designate the streets through which the company shall run, the number of years it shall run, and the conditions generally under which the road shall be operated. I would not be a party to the company being deprived of any of its rights, but I do not want to see the municipality deprived of any of its rights or privileges. My hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) has pointed out the serious effects this amendment would have upon the city of Toronto. With all due respect to the members who may compose the railway board, we would greatly prefer being allowed to manage our own streets and our own interests without the interference of any board or tram car company. The interests of a quarter of a million of people ought to be of greater moment to parliament than the carrying out of the schemes of two or three railway promoters. 'The franchise of the Toronto Street Railway Company will in ten or twelve years be worth twenty millions of dollars to the city of Toronto. That city, which has the exclusive right to operate street cars on its own streets, has given that right to the Toronto Street Railway Company for thirty years, nearly one-half of which term has expired. That city has the best tram car system in Christendom, and should be allowed to continue in control of its own affairs. The company should be made to come to the city ; but the hon. gentleman, by his amendment, would take away our control and say to the promoters of railway companies :	If you can get the ear
of the railway commissioners you may go into Montreal or Hamilton or Toronto, or any other city, whether the corporation likes it or not. Such a provision would work a monstrous injustice to the municipalities. The interests of the people in our great municipalities ought to come in front of the interests of these promoters. The citizens of every large municipality are desirous of getting the most perfect tram car system they can, and the franchises given by this parliament would not be worth the paper they are written on were it not for the large aggregations of human beings in the cities into which these tramways enter. If the municipalities impose conditions upon the companies, it is the people who have to pay. The promoters do not put then1 hands into their pockets and pay out whatever sum may be charged by the municipalities for the use of their streets. The regulation of the traffic, the conditions under which cars are allowed on the streets, the number of cars, the


Edward Frederick Clarke: fares, the protection to life and limb-every one of these should be provided for by the municipal authorities, and I would ask my hon. friend, who has put his hand to the plough and given us a reasonable measure of protection from the charter mongers, not to take away what he gave us a week or two ago, and what we accepted ns a generous measure of protection. If the position of the Terminal Railway in Montreal be jeopardized, if its rights be prejudiced by this clause, let special provision be made for that railway. No municipality desires to take away any right it has given. What we stenuousiy object to are these insidious attempts made by promoters to get greater privileges over the streets of municipalities.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) speaks about a reasonable measure of protection by the amendment given to the municipalities. The hon. minister will remember that I did not agree that that was reasonable, because it only applies to cities and towns and left out townships and villages. In my opinion, townships and villages have as much right to be protected as cities and towns. Of course I am in favour of justice being done to the cities and towns, but I also want our country districts and villages to be protected. Take the Hamilton and Grimsby Electric Railway, which runs through the counties of Wentworth and Lincoln upon the only highway between the escarpment and the lake from the city of Hamilton through Grimsby to Vineland, some twenty-five miles, of which escarpment the mountain at Hamilton and the Heights of Queens-ton are the principal elevations, and which is the only road that runs between these points on account of the irregular width of space of land between the escarpment and the lake. Certain conditions were imposed upon that road by the municipalities when allowing the railway to go on the highway, but if this amendment carries, this railway board can interefere with these restrictions and break the by-laws and conditions imposed by the municipalities upon this company. The board may say that it is in the interests of Canada that that railway should use steam or be relieved from certain regulations imposed upon it by the municipalities. tinder the Electric Railway Act, which is an Ontario statute, and under which this railway company is incorporated, this railway could not run a foot without the consent of the municipalities, as I showed by the statute I quoted a week or two ago. This railway connects with the Canadian Pacific Railway for freight and traffic and gets its charter from the Ontario legislature. Under that charter, it could not run a foot on any highway in either of those counties, as I pointed out to the hon. minister the other day, without the consent of

the municipalities. It had to make its bargain with these municipalities, and are not these municipalities the parties most competent to look after their own interests ? They are not innocent babes or people of unsound mind who require to have their interests managed by executors or curators or guardians. The reeves and councillors of the townships, the mayors and aldermen of the towns, are just as well able, yes, much more able to look after the municipal interests and use of highways than this railway board. But if this amendment passes, the bargains which the municipalities made with the railway companies may be set aside, and the railway board is to control the highways instead of the municipalities who are responsible for the repair and safety of the highways. If this passes, what would be the result ? This board, if it thinks fit can say of the bargains made by the railway companies with the municipalities that they are improvident and unreasonable and so set aside all these bargains. In other words, it allows the railway to use and to sell to Somebody else something to which they have no right and which they have contracted not to use except under certain conditions and limitations. This would remove restrictions imposed by municipalities and hand over control to the board. The highways are properly under the control of the municipalities ; and surely the people who elect the reeves and councillors, and who have the opportunity once a year to declare by tbeir votes whether they are satisfied with the acts of their representatives or not, and who are most intimately concerned with the proper use of these highways, should be allowed to control the use of those highways. This proposal of the minister still leaves the villages and townships out in the cold. But, while I think that the townships and villages should be protected, as an honest man, I am bound to say that the towns and cities should be protected also. The hon. minister proposes to restrict this to railways that are not now incorporated. This is equivalent to saying to me : I will allow you to possess a fortune five years from now if you can get it in the meantime, but what property you have to-day I will take away from you. These railways are now existing and are running under certain limitations, and the hon. minister says that only new railways shall be compelled to come under the control of the municipalities. The municipalities have made bargains with these railway companies, but these bargains will go by the board if this proposal is adopted.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is nothing to be gained by making exaggerated statements concerning what we are dealing with here.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Mine are not exaggerated statements.
191i


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They are most extremely exaggerated statements. No one proposes to interfere with the powers of the municiapli-ties to impose whatever terms they choose to impose. All that the board does is to say, that one street and not another shall be used. That class of questions arises in respect of these tramways under the existing law. Take, for instance, the case of the Montreal Terminal. Their charter gives them the right to use the streets of the city, but it does not give them the right to go upon the streets for the purpose of laying down tracks or otherwise using them until the corporation has looked the question over and has decided whether this street or some other street is the one they should have the power to use, or until they have decided whether they will require such a percentage or contribution from the earnings of the company, or what other regulation they shall deem it in the interest of the public to impose. That is the state of the law as it is to-day, and it is absurd to say that if this amendment were passed it would cut that ground away. It would not do so. All that it would do would be to give to the board of railway commissioners powers which the Railway Committee of the Privy Council now possess to enable them to say whether or not the absolute refusal to allow the company to make any use of any of the streets is a refusal which is a just, proper and reasonable one on the part of the municipal corporation. That is all that this Bill proposes. The Railway Committee of the Privy Council, as I say, has that power to-day, and I want to say that in no single instance has that tribunal made any order which was not made ultimately and finally, with the consent of the city corporation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But this board may do so.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This board would exercise their jurisdiction, I apprehend, in the same way as the Railway Committee of the Privy Council has exercised its jurisdiction. Tnere is no reason to suppose otherwise. Now, my hon. friend could not expect that oue who is not closely associated, either as a citizen or otherwise with the city of Toronto could appreciate the superlative importance and grandeur of that city. We who reside at a distance cannot grasp the infinity of those great qualities which these hon. gentlemen's town possesses, and we can only gaze upon it from afar in wonder and admiration. My hon. friend may discover in that circumstance some little explanation why we cannot see the force- at least I am unable to see the force-of much that he suggests. Very much that my hon. friend has said that would apply to the common towns of the country, such as Montreal, Hamilton, London, Halifax and

St. John, I can fully agree with. I think that these ordinary towns ought to have a great deal to say with respect to the use of their own streets. I might, perhaps, if I knew Toronto, be prepared to admit that, as respects the streets of that great city, the corporation ought to have everything to say-and more. But, for the reason I have stated, I cannot go further than would be applicable to the ordinary towns of the country. Now, with regard to the ordinary towns, authority has been given to companies to lay down their tracks in the streets. At the same time, parliament in giving that power said that that power should be exercised subject to the control and direction of the corporation of the city. Now, the company in Montreal to which I referred, under general legislation was given that power. But the city corporation may make it a condition of the use of a particular street that a portion of the revenues of the company shall be given to the city. These revenues might never attain the magnitude of those in the city of Toronto, but still, they might reach a very respectable sum. Parliament has given these powers, and it has been represented to me that this parliament, having given these privileges, ought not arbitrarily to take them away. If that argument is one which ought to have any weight at all, I am sure the company will join with me in endeavouring to work out the problem of the recognition of these privileges consistently with the maintenance of proper rights on the part of the city corporations.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Samuel Barker: With regard to the proposed .further amendment to section 184, I wish to call the attention of the minister to the fact that this is not merely a question of rivalry between two companies in a municipality, but rather a question between any one company and the municipality itself. I refer to that particularly, because the city of Hamilton, which I represent, is very materially interested in this matter, not because of any rivalry or competition between two railway companies, but because of its own position should the Board of Railway Commissioners see fit, under any power secured here, to grant powers to railway companies to pass through the streets of a city. There is in Hamilton a street railway company enjoying rights granted by the city itself, not by any parliament or legislature. The legislature incorporated the company with certain powers, but the city of Hamilton, like many other municipalities, had the absolute power to define what streets the company should construct its works upon, and all the accompanying con-Hon. Mr. BLAIR.	.	[DOT] *! ,
ditions, rates and terms, just as if it were the parliament itself. Under those conditions the city of Hamilton has granted power to the street railway company there for a limited number of years. The hon. gentleman must see that the power that is proposed to be given to the Board of Railway Commissioners under the General Railway Act, is not a limited power for a perpetual power. Now the city may say. we are willing to grant privileges to a railway company for ten, fifteen, twenty or thirty years ; but the Board of Railway Commissioners are not bound by the wishes or the opinions of the city in that regard. Under present conditions, it is, I think, the intention of almost all the municipalities in this country where street railways have an existence, to take over these railways and operate them at the expiration of the present charters. Now, if in ten or fifteen years hence the corporation of the city of Hamilton, for instance, should think it to the interest of the people to run the street car service itself, it is a most important feature of the whole thing whether another body, some other company, should have the power to compete with the corporation upon other of its streets, under power granted by the Board of Railway Commissioners, who know nothing whatever of the local wants or interests, who perhaps may live at Ottawa, and know as little about the city of Hamilton as they do of the city of Vancouver or the town of Moncton. I think it must be obvious to the committee that this 'parliament cannot well deal with any question about the operation of street railways in municipalities. The further amendment that is proposed to be out in this clause, as I understand it is one under which the board may allow privileges to street railway companies heretofore incorporated, and in spite of the opinion of the municipality concerned. That is the objection I take to it. Now with regard to the terminal railway in Montreal. I understand that a letter lias been sent by Mr. Mullarkey, secretary of that company, to the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). That is a company that does not possess any special privileges. Mr. Mullarkey says, quoting the language of the charter :
The company may lay out, construct, and operate branch or circuit lines, to be operated by electricity only, in such streets in the city of Montreal as are designated by the council of said city, and subject to such terms and conditions as are imposed upon the company by the said council.
This is a material point, because the council designates the streets upon which they may run, subject to such terms and conditions as are imposed upon the company by the city council. Now it does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, in face of a charter granted upon such conditions, to give to a Board of Railway Commissioners, who know as little

about the wants and interests of Montreal as I do, the power to Ignore the terms and conditions which the corporation of Montreal may wish to impose-I say that seems to me a monstrous stretching of the powers of this parliament. According to my view, this parliament has no more right* to deal with the question of street railways in the city of Montreal, or the city of Hamilton, than it has with the canals, if they exist, in Mars-they have nothing whatever to do with them. That is my judgment, and I think the government should be careful how they put into a General Railway Act any words that would appear to interfere with the independence, rights and legislative powers of the provinces. 'There can be no question that it was intended that the provinces should deal with nil such matters as these ; and I think it is a grave matter for this government to throw any doubt upon that power. But if there be any doubt, if the hon. gentleman wishes to reserve all the rights heretofore granted by parliament, if he thinks it desirable to protect what is called vested rights, I recommend the suggestion that is made here that the particular company that may be affected by this legislation should be specially mentioned. Although it may 'be said it is not a good form of legislation to mention in a General Railway Act a particular company, and its particular rights, I beg to call the hon. gentleman's attention to section 276, of the General Railway Act, of 1888 now in force, where a special condition with regard to two railway companies was provided for, because they had rights that perhaps other companies did not have. Section 276 puts certain restrictions and conditions upon all the railways of the country, but expressly reserves the rights, under certain charters, of two railway companies that are expressly mentioned in that section. Now if there is any question whatever as to the rights of this terminal company in Montreal, under the words which I presume are correctly quoted by the secretary of that company, if there be any question at all as to the propriety of reserving its rights, or assumed rights, the hon. gentleman should put in a restriction safeguarding whatever rights it may have under its charter. If, before this legislation came before the House, they had obtained from the city of Montreal any rights upon the streets of that city, those rights are now in existence, and surely it will be an easy matter to put in words to protect and preserve them. It ought not to be left a matter of doubt throughout the whole Dominion as to the rights of every city, town, or municipality, because some company in Montreal claims to have a peculiar right. The municipalities want to know where they stand, and if there is one exceptional case let that be mentioned in the clause, and not leave every municipality
in the whole Dominion in a state of uncertainty as to its position.
The MINISTER OF, RAILWAYS AND CANALS. I am not at all desirous that this committee should extend any favours to any of these electric railways operating inj any of the cities. All I desire, and in that I am at one with hon. gentlemen opposite, is that we shall not take away from any company that has had a particular franchise conferred upon it that franchise in whole or in part. I go the full length that my hon. friends opposite have gone as to the character of the legislation that ought to be passed by this parliament on that subject. I do not think we ought to be easily convinced that we should legislate upon this subject, and I agree that these companies ought to go to the provincial legislatures in the first place, and in the second place I am prepared to go as far as any hon. member of this committee in giving a full measure of control to the municipal councils of the different towns and cities. I am willing that they should have the right to say whether they will have a street railway at all. I do not lag behind hon. gentlemen opposite in respect to that branch of the question. Now, what I do desire, though, is that we should say all that is really necessary in order that we may leave these companies exactly as we find them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We quite agree with that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) has read one of the clauses of the charter of the Montreal Terminal Railway. I have no doubt it is correctly quoted by Mr. Mullarkey who claims that this company has the right to lay down its lines in the city of Montreal, of course, under the restrictions contained in the Act. All the Acts which have been passed by parliament in recent years have contained similar restrictions; that is to say that the terms and conditions under which these privileges shall be exercised shall be under the control of the municipality and that the council shall designate which of the streets shall be occupied. The charter does not say ' which, if any,' but ' which ' of the streets. When parliament, whether wisely or unwisely, gave to the company the right to run their street railway within the city upon the streets of the city, I take it that it would be a distinct violation, or a refusal to submit to the voice and direction of parliament, if the city should refuse to allow any of its streets to be occupied for that purpose. I take it that inference is clear and I believe my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Borden) will agree that it would be a disregard of an Act of parliament if any- city council or municipal body were to refuse to allow a company to get into the city at all. That is practically one of the conditions we are facing and in the

interpretation which the Railway Committee placed upon that Act we thought, that, while the city council of Montreal might properly impose all reasonable and proper conditions when designating the streets, they were bound to designate the streets or else the legislation would be absolutely nugatory and in that view, after having refused in the first place to name any streets, if my memory serves me, the city council were advised to agree and did agree. So that there was really no trouble and they came to an agreement with the company later on when they found what view was-entertained by the railway company and everything went on satisfactorily. If we were to put a provision in this Bill to the effect, that this clause should not deprive any company chartered by parliament of its rights to lay down its line, subject to proper oversight and direction and subject, to the conditions of the special Act, I think we would not be going too far as we would simply be preserving the rights which had beien created. But, I do not think we should limit it to this particular company. I do not know but that there may be a great many others and to specifically mention one particular company in the way which the bon. gentleman suggests is not legislation which one would wish to favour. True, it was done in 1888, but it is not a desirable system at all. I am sure my hon. friend would not think that it would be a desirable thing to do if it could be very safely avoided. If rights have been created by this parliament, can there be any reasonable objection to say that it is not proposed to take away these rights by this Bill ? I do not think, if a proper interpretation and construction are put upon the meaning of this Bill, that we are depriving the town or city council of the right of imposing terms. We are not doing that. The Railway Committee or the board of commissioners or any body constituted for the purpose of deciding these matters would be bound to consider what the special Act required, and would be bound to make their ruling in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Act creating the corporation. I do not think that there is any good ground for taking a serious view of the matter at all. I am perfectly willing to withdraw the words I was proposing to the committee and substituting anything else that might meet more fully the views of hon. gentlemen who are discussing this question if proper words can be chosen for that purpose.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Chairman, the question is a broader one than has been put by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. We are to-day in the midst of a constitutional revolution in this country, and the party in power, by the legislation they have put through this House recently, are fast carrying this country into a, legislative union. The provinces are being stripped of many Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
of their powers and especially have we seen this session and during past sessions a general raiding of municipal rights particularly in the province of Ontario. If the municipal rights of the province of Ontario can be raided as they have been raided by this parliament, repeatedly, then the civil and religious rights of the other provinces will also be attacked and very soon we will find that the old battle of provincial rights will be up again. I take the position that wrongful legislation has been repeatedly passed through this House, legislation raiding the rights of the provinces, and to put the question which is now before the committee and before parliament, the question of the Toronto and Hamilton Railway, I propose to read to the committee the case of the municipalities against this raiding. This is well set out in a paper which I have in my hand and which says :
Memoranda re Bill 147, Incorporating the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company.
This Bill contemplates the incorporation of an electric railway to run from Toronto to Hamilton, a whole distance of some forty miles. It authorizes amalgamation with or the acquisition by purchase, lease or otherwise, In whole or in part, of the franchises, works, plant and other property of the Hamilton Radial Electric Railway Company, the Hamilton. Grimsby and Beamsville Electric Railway Company. the Hamilton Street Railway Company, the Toronto and Mimico Railway Company, the Metropolitan Railway Company, and the Toronto Suburban Railway Company, all companies'Incorporated by the legislative assembly of the province of Ontario, and all subject to municipal consent, and control.
The purchase of the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company, a company incorporated by the Dominion parliament but which has not yet been constructed, is also authorized.
The Bill also declares the undertaking to be ' a work for the general advantage of Canada,' and provides that upon the acquisition of any of the lines of any of the companies above enumerated that the Railway Act of Canada shall apply to such lines and ' to the maintenance, repairs and operation thereof.'
Manifest Objections.
1.	An undertaking entirely provincial and essentially for municipal services in its nature is removed from provincial and municipal control.
2.	Existing railways whose very existence depended on the consent of the municipality interested are without the consent of such-municipality entirely removed from municipal jurisdiction, and become1 clothed with the powers, privileges and independence of a great state line. A revolution is created in the control and conditions of the streets of municipalities.
3.	An intolerable conflict of legislative powers is precipitated-provincial rights and those of important municipal councils disregarded and local sources of revenue abolished-and it must hereafter be recognized that should this Bill become law it is open to other promoters to go from parliament to legislature, or vice versa, in an attempt to obtain greater powers, or to evade contracts and obligations entered into.
4.	The result must be that these local lines will practically be operated and maintained

just as the company desires. Imagine an ap-lication with its attendant cost being made to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council by the city of Hamilton to have a certain car declared to be out of repair and unfit to be operated on the street railway system of that city, or one by the county of York that a small section of the road bed of the Metropolitan Railway Company was out of repair-and on the other hand consider the unreasonableness of expecting that the Dominion authorities could efficiently oversee and look after the many auestions trivial in themselves, but, of large importance to the municipality, which necessarily arise in connection with ' the maintenance, repair and operation ' of a city or rural street car service.	.
5.	All the paramount powers of a state railway are vested in this extensive tramway without going into detail it is only necessary to refer to the very extensive powers of expropriation- the absolute right to build branches up to a distance of a quarter of a mile-and with the consent of the railway committee, up to six miles-the absolute right td remove trees to a distance of six rods from either side of the railway-to divert streams, change position of gas and water pipes, sewers or drains, and telegraph, telephone or electric light wires or poles, and the right to appoint constables, all of which are given to the proposed company by the Railway Act. 6, W-H-Y ?
Why should the company in the case of future friction with Toronto or Hamilton have the right to level every shade tree, whether on or off the streeet, to a distance of six rods from its railway ?
Why should the company have the right to cover the streets of either of these cities with lines under the name of branches ?
Why should the difference in principle between steam railways owning and occupying separate rights of way and railways occupying the highways belonging to the municipality, be lost sight of and obliterated ?
Why should the portions of the county of York on the highways of which railways have been already constructed under the safeguards of proper agreements, ask that all extensions of such railways, rural or urban, shall be as to ' maintenance, repair and operation,' only controlled by the provisions of the Railway Act, while they protect themselves by proposing to continue by an amendment the operation of , their agreements 7
By section 600 of the Municipal Act of Ontario, municipal councils obtain jurisdiction over the streets in the municipality, and section 601 vests every such highway in the municipality - Why should this jurisdiction be transferred to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council ?
Tha Ontario Railway Act, the Ontario Electric Railway Act, and the Ontario Street Railway Act have all declared that no railway constructed under their provisions shall be carried along a highway without the consent of the interested municipality. Why should these provisions be over-ridden, and the power therein contained transferred from municipal councils [DOT] to a railway committee or board by declaring a work similar in character to be for the general advantage of Canada 7
The right of the Dominion parliament to so Interfere cannot be supported except possibly after the declaration that this undertaking is for the advantage of Canada.
It is respectfully submitted that this declaration cannot fairly be made. At the very most all that can he pretended is that the work may
be for the benefit of portions of the counties of York. Peel. Halton and Wentworth-counties already well provided with electric railways constructed or under construction. In any event it is with much confidence submitted that the right to decide just what is best in the interest of the locality, the right of home rule, should be left with the people of the locality and the provincial parliament, who it is submitted have not proved themselves unworthy to discharge that trust.
(Sgd.) W. D. LIGHTHALL for the Canadian Union of Municipalities.
FRANK MAGKELCAN, K.C., and
S. H. KENT, Secretary, for the Ontario Municipal Association.
W. F. MORDEN, Mayor, and
FRANK MACKELCAN, Solicitor for the City of Hamilton.
TAYLOR McVEITY, Solicitor on behalf of the Corporation of
the City of Ottawa.
THOMAS URQUHART, Mayor for the City of Toronto.
W. B. BURGOYNE, Mayor,
for the City of St. Catharines.
JOHN H. BELL, Mayor
for the City of Kingston.
THOMAS CARSCALLEN, Reeve for the Township of Saltfleet.
The signatures to this document will show that the protest has the endorsation of the municipal authorities of some of the leading cities of the Dominion. It is proposed that this parliament should remove the jurisdiction over these railways from the provincial power and from the control of the municipalities interested. That was never contemplated in the Confederation Act, and yet provincial rights are constantly going by the board, and all under a Liberal administration, whose leading principle used to be the upholding of provincial rights. Just before dinner the Minister of Railways made a reference to the city of Toronto in a somewhat sneering way.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Oh, no.


William Findlay Maclean: He said it was some kind of a very superior city and people up there. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that the people of Toronto are inoculated with the doctrine called public ownership, and as the member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has said, they hope in a very short time to own and control the street railway of Toronto. But if legislation of this kind is allowed to go through this parliament, this franchise will not be worth a single cent. The city of Toronto derives $250,000 a year revenue from its street railway ; it hopes soon to derive $500,000, and it hopes within twenty-one years to own and control that street railway and to give the people a better and cheaper service. If you pass legislation of this kind at Ottawa, by which you are openly raiding municipal and provincial rights, you will deprive Toronto and all other cities of this fine revenue. It is a

shame to see the way a number pf the cities of this Dominion have been raided by the legislature. Down in Quebec the street railway corporations and the electric corporations of all kinds have raided the cities and have obtained powers they ought not have obtained, and it is now proposed to still further raid the cities in the federal legislature and to rob them of their inherent municipal rights.
There is something wrong surely. I have read the protest of the municipalities against their being robbed of valuable franchises in the interest of private corporations. Surely the people have a right to ask that their municipal rights be protected against these rich corporations. Let me tell the Minister of Railways that there are two kinds of confiscation, notwithstanding that the only kind he can see is the confiscation of the rights of corporations. Let me tell him that you can confiscate as well the rights of the people, and that is what you are doing here, and that is what it is the duty of the minister to prevent. He must lay down a principle that will govern not only this Toronto and Hamilton Railway, but which will govern all these other corporations who are now beginning to believe that the easiest way to accomplish their ends in raiding the municipalities is to get past the municipal council, get past the provincial legislature, and come to Ottawa, where they believe they will get everything they want. This has got to be such a menace that the municipal organizations have formed an association to defend their rights, and we find them circulating amongst members of parliament the document which I have read. It is high time that a protest was entered and that the House and the country should know that a constitutional revolution is taking place by which municipal rights and provincial, rights for that matter are being invaded by this federal parliament. It is incumbent on the minister to declare on behalf of the government that this Dominion parliament will not allow municipal rights to be invaded by corporations who come to Ottawa as a last resort, when they cannot obtain what they want from the municipalities and the provincial legislatures. I trust the minister will not make merely an amendment which will.protect one street railway, but that he will make a clear-cut announcement that this parliament of Canada cannot be used for the purpose of overriding the will of the provinces and the municipalities. If some provision of this kind is not made, the city of Toronto and other cities will be robbed of their power to grant franchises and robbed of the rights which as municipalities they should possess.
In the end we will find the province of Ontario and the other provinces turned over to these corporations with perpetual charges and franchises. That is the danger.


William Findlay Maclean: Under this Act, as the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has pointed out, you give these corporations perpetual franchises through the rulings of this board of railway commissioners. At present every one of them has a limited franchise, subject to termination after a number of years, and for the enjoyment of which they pay liberal allowances to the munici- , palities, and for which they are being educated to pay larger rentals. The city of Toronto to-day, if it could recover its street franchise, would give a million dollars for it; the city of Hamilton would like to get back its franchise; probably the county of York would like to get the franchise it has given to the Metropolitan Railway. But if the owners of these railways understand that the way to get past the municipalities and the provincial laws is to come to the federal parliament and have these works declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, so that the board of railway commissioners could step in and interfere with them, I say good-bye to provinciai rights and to our federal union, for the day has arrived, brought about by the action of the Liberal party, when practically the doctrine of a legislative union has been established in this country, with one supreme legislature and no other in it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I must say I am exceedingly pleased to hear the hon. gentleman give us the assurances he has given us to-night.
I am glad to know that, after a long period of slumber, he has at last awakened to the importance and necessity of arousing parliament and the country to the imperative need of wise and safe legislation in this direction.
I hope my hon. friend is not going to relapse into that comatose condition, speaking in a political and legislative sense, in which he has existed for so long a time; for I think this parliament and the country would be relieved if we could get an assurance from him that from this time forward he is going to conduct himself with a greater measure of propriety and with some regard for the public interest; that he is going to see that the legislation passed in this House shall reflect no discredit upon it, and is going to exhaust the utmost measure of his great abilities to see that the people's rights are protected to the remotest.degree. My hon. friend must not be content with getting up for a few minutes and making these declarations and calling upon other people; but he must live up to the promises he has made, and to the expectations which no-doubt his remarks have aroused among the members of this House, and which, when known in the country, they will no doubt arouse throughout Canada. As my hon. friend has started in a judicious direction, I want to see my hon. friend, with that boundless energy which distinguishes him,

that great foresight which he possesses, that keen perception of right and wrong for which he is so well known, stand up manfully and help the government in this movement as he has not hitherto felt it his duty, and his inclination to do. I am going to ask my hon. friend, in the spirit in which he has spoken to-night, to lend me his valuable support towards correcting this amendment, so that we may have the law in perfect shape, so that we may have the people's rights in every particular protected; and while we are protecting them, and protecting corporate rights, and seeing that the municipalities are not trodden under the heel of these ruthless corporations who are seeking to swallow up other people's properties, rights and interests, I want him to assist me in an equally strong effort to secure the rights of individuals. I am going to propose an amendment which I think will meet with general acceptance ;
Nothing in this Section shall deprive the company of rights conferred upon it by any special Act of parliament of Canada heretofore passed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That takes the place of the other ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I am going to withdraw the other amendment altogether.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to offer a suggestion '! Why does he not make the clause say : ' Nothing in this Act shall interfere with the rights of the municipalities ' ? Do not protect the companies. Protect the municipalities; that is what we want.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Has my hon. friend reached this point, that whilst he is desirous of protecting the municipalities, those bodies which are well able to protect themselves, he will allow individuals to suffer and individual rights be trampled under foot ? When parliament has conferred a franchise or a right, will he be prepared to ask parliament to withdraw that franchise after interests have been created and grown up under it ? My hon. friend will not, I trust, forget the eloquent appeal which he made to us a few minutes ago.


Samuel Barker: I beg to call the hon. minister's attention to this fact. In his amendment he proposes to leave at large all acts which have been passed before this Act becomes law. I think during this session there have been some hundred Acts of parliament passed already. I do not think the hon. gentleman addressed his mind to this difficulty when this subject was introduced into parliament. But I would like, on the general question, to quote again from this letter with regard to the Montreal Terminal Company. The right given to it by this parliament was ' to run over such ,
streets in the city of Montreal as are designated by the council of the said city.' The hon. gentleman argues, perhaps with some technical legality, that that means that the city council had to give power to run over some streets. But what would any municipality understand from these words : ' and subject to such terms and conditions as are imposed on the company by the city council ' ? Is there one municipality in this Dominion that would not understand these words to give them absolute control over the company that was proposing to lay tracks on its streets ? We find that when this matter came before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, that body, according to this letter, seemed to think that the city must be reasonable, that it could not impose terms that would be unreasonable. In other words, the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, or the board of railway commissioners acting in their place, would be the judges of whether the municipality was imposing reasonable conditions or not; and if the municipality in their opinion was acting unreasonably, the board could tell them what was reasonable. In other words, the board would be the body that would dictate on what terms the railway would be constructed through the streets of the city. I understand that one difficulty which the Railway Committee of the Privy Council found in this case was that the city wanted to impose on the Terminal Railway company conditions more onerous than had been granted to another company. Why should thSy not ? Why should not a municipality impose any conditions it thinks proper ? In one year conditions may change. A year ago a city may have made a blunder by granting a railway company power to run along its streets on too liberal terms. Is it to be bound for all time by what it does one year ? If the year after it wants to impose more onerous terms, why should it not have the right to do so, and why should the board of railway commissioners or the Railway Committee of the Privy Council undertake to discuss whether the municipality was seeking to impose unreasonable terms or not ? Beyond question the moment you put in an Act of parliament that the municipality shall have the right to dictate the terms and conditions upon which a company shall enter a city, you give that municipality the absolute power to say whether that company shall enter the city at all. Because this House chooses, without rhyme or reason, to insert into an Act that a particular work is a work for the general advantage of Canada, should it have jurisdiction in such matters. Surely it was never contemplated that the mere insertion of these words would or ought to give jurisdiction where, under the constitutional Act, none was intended to be given. It was intended only that a work should be declared for the general advan-

tage of Canada when it was really a Dominion work, and. that in that case alone the declaration should be made and this parliament should have jurisdiction. But under the loose legislation that we have been passing, these words have been inserted into statutes in order to withdraw jurisdiction from the provinces over purely local concerns and vest it in this parliament without any reasonable ground for doing so.


Haughton Lennox: The more this question is discussed, the more important it appears and the more fully we realize the great variety of interests affected. It involves certainly the question of provincial rights. This is not the only Bill that raises in a very distinct form the question of provincial rights. If we go back to preceding sessions, we shall find a number of other instances which show that we are gradually raising again the old issue of provincial rights. This measure is an encroachment, not only on provincial, but municipal rights as well. With regard to the municipalities, there can be no more serious proposition perhaps than the one involved in the question raised this afternoon. True, the hon. minister proposes to modify the attitude he took earlier in the session, but even with that modification we are not dealing with the case upon a proper basis. In the cases of the cities and towns, we have perhaps grappled with the most serious phase of the question, but next in importance are,the rights of the incorporated villages and townships. Many of the electric railways may be converted into steam f-ailways, and we are confronted with this proposition, that in the future we may have the miles of electric tramways now upon our highways, highways which belong to the municipalities and were made by the municipalities and were intended primarily for the use of the people-we may have these electric lines converted into steam railways and locomotive engines puffing up and down our municipal highways.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say seriously that if a company is chartered to operate an electric road, it can, of its own sweet will, change its system into a steam railway line and run locomotives upon the public highway ?


Haughton Lennox: Those of us who have even a slight acquaintance with these matters know perfectly well that it is an easy step to change an electric railway into a steam railway. The Metropolitan Railway is to-day purchasing steam engines to run on its tracks.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They cannot do it without permission.


Haughton Lennox: I admit that, but it is entering the thin end of the wedge. As my


Samuel Barker: hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) has said, we are upon the eve of a revolution in the system which has governed in this country in the past. Why, how astounded the people would be if it had been proposed in the first instance to have a steam railway run for even a few miles along the highways. And yet, we have the fact that in the old and populous county of York, the Metropolitan Company is running along what was the best highway in the Dominion of Canada, Yonge street, and they are making preparations to-day to propel their cars by steam. Now, this matter, as 1 say, is probably of primary importance to the cities. But, as regards the local municipalities it is of great importance too, and it will be a serious question throughout the length and breadth of this country for all the local municipalities, for the incorporated villages and townships as well as for the cities. What are we proposing to do ? We are proposing to vest in a board of three members the right to say, in defiance of the wishes of the municipalities, whether an electric railway or tramway shall be operated upon their highways or not. I submit that that is a proposition which, when it is realized by the people, they will never submit to. It is revolutionary. I believe it to be one of the most serious innovations that have been proposed by the government at any time ; and, so far as I am concerned, I shall oppose it in toto. The Minister of Railways says that we must not hamper the railway companies ; that we must make some provision that will safeguard the interest of the companies that have already been chartered, or we shall be encroaching on vested interests and hampering these railway companies in negotiating their securities. Which is the question of paramount importance, the facility with which these railway companies negotiate their securities, or the rights of the people who live along the lines on which it is proposed that these railways shall run ? I submit that the people who live in these rural municipalities, who live in these villages, jire the best judges of the needs of these townships and villages, and it is for their representatives, not for a board of three persons, however eminent they may be, to consider whether it is in the interest of the municipality that these railways should be run within their confines or not. It is upon the decision of the people of the locality that the matter should ultimately rest. The hon. gentleman thinks that we must consider vested rights. But there is a broad distinction to be drawn between vested rights that have been exercised and assumed, and vested rights of which the companies have first knowledge from the discussion of the matter upon the floor of this House. What we have been doing throughout the discussion of this Bill in more than one instance is suggesting, by legislative sanction, that these companies should encroach more and more upon the

rights of the people, suggesting to them to claim rights that they never dreamed of before. The hon. minister has only heard of one company, he says, that has encroached upon the rights of the municipality. I will promise the minister that if this legislation passes in the form he proposes, there will be a great crop of such encroachments upon the rights of municipalities. That will be the effect of the legislation the hon. gentleman proposes. The question of exclusive control within the cities of the valuable franchises existing there has been so ably dealt with by hon. gentlemen who lia ve given it special consideration that I do not propose to discuss it further. But 1 do suggest that in the case of municipalities outside the cities and towns they also have very valuable franchises in their roads and highways, and these should not be left to be dealt with by a board sitting in Ottawa. An important point was certainly raised by the minister when he suggested that possibly, in some instances, the representatives of the municipalities could not be induced to let the railway company use the highway upon fair terms. I am quite free to admit that there may be instances in which an extreme position is taken in that regard. But whether is it safer to leave that to the council of the municipality who can be changed, and will be changed by the people when they cease to represent fairly the views of the municipality, or, to vest it in a board composed of three men remote from'the municipality, knowing nothing of the local interests or local requirements, out of touch with the people, and having no ear for the needs of the locality. I submit that it is vastly more in the general interest of the people that, those who are in touch with local interests, the municipal council, who can be deposed if they cease to voice the views of their constituents, should be left in control of these matters rather than that such control should be handed over to a board which cannot be held to similar responsibility by those whose interests are most deeply affected.


Mr. BLAIN.: I would like to ask the hon. minister a question with respect to the point involved. I have a letter from Joseph Burton, Esq., the reeve of Toronto township, which is a township in Peel county, lying between the city of Toronto and the city of Hamilton. The Toronto and Mimico Railway Company applied to the legislature of the province of Ontario at its last session, and secured a charter to run a road between Toronto and Hamilton through this township. My correspondent tells me that in that charter the rights were left with the municipalities to say where the road should be built through the township. What I want to ask the hon. minister is, will the amendment he proposes take away that right from the municipality of that township ?	,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would not affect it-would not have any relation to it at all. This does not relate to any company incorporated by a provincial legislature, except so far as crossings with Dominion lines are concerned. It will not affect the question in the slightest degree.


Richard Blain: I understand, then, that the rights that were allowed to remain in the municipality referred to, by the charter granted by the local legislature of Ontario at its last session, will not be interfered with by the amendment that the minister is now proposing.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It will not affect them at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Supposing that a railway company comes down here and gets itself declared to be a railway for the general advantage of Canada, won't these rights be interfered with unless he puts in the word ' municipalities ' ?


Tins MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: W'hen they come down here we will be in a better position to judge.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The minister should be informed of the facts. There is a Bill now passing through the House having for its object the amalgamation or grouping together a lot of these tram lines, one of which is to run between Toronto and Hamilton to connect with the Hamilton Radial system. Now my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) asks this question : That being one of the group of trains that are to be absorbed by this company which now has a Bill before parliament, if its enterprise should be declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, will not the rights of the municipality to which he has referred be taken from it ? In case that Bill passes through this House and the company is declared to be incorporated for the purpose of constructing a road that is for the general advantage of Canada, will not the rights of the municipality be interfered with ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know what Bill the hon. gentleman refers to, but has there been auy Bill before this parliament which proposes to absorb a number of lines ?


Mr. HENDERSON.: Yes, and it will come up to-morrow night as a private Bill.


Richard Blain: The hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) introduced it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Has the legislature given the other companies the power to sell to this company ? Unless we assume by a distinct declaration that it has a control over these local lines, they would not have any power to sell unless their charter gave it to them, or some amending Act of the provincial legislature.

Mr, LANCASTER. This Bill coming up to-morrow niglit asks for power to purchase a certain number of railways, one of which is the Hamilton, Beamsville and Grimsby road incorporated by the Ontario legislature. It got permission to run on their highway by certain regulations and under certain conditions only, and if it does not conform to those conditions it can be put off that highway. Now, if this Bill coming up to-morrow night passes, and that railway is given permission to sell out to this Toronto and Hamilton Railway, I ask the minister if it is not the case, unless this section is made to cover other municipalities as well as cites and towns, that the rights which the townships of Barton, Saltfleet, Grimsby, Clinton and others nows possess, townships through which this railway runs, will go by the board ?


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: There seems to be so much doubt about the interpretation and meaning of the clause that we are discussing, that I would like to be clear about it. In the city of Montreal we have two street railway companies to which we have granted certain privileges and rights. They have undertaken to do certain things, one of which, for instance, is to remove in the winter all the snow from the streets. 1 would like to know if the Bill passes in its present shape, whether any conditions that may have been imposed by the city of Montreal, or that we may deem proper to impose later on, will be affected ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They would not be interfered with by this Bill.
Hon, Mr. TARTE. Then we would have tlie right to impose any other conditions that we saw fit ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You will have all the rights you have heretofore had, whatever they are.
Hon. Mr. TARTE, It will not interfere with the conditions we have imposed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


William Findlay Maclean: In the city of Toronto there is a limited street railway franchise. Approaching the city of Toronto are four or five suburban lines, and there is now a proposal to consolidate them and have them declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. Under that consolidation they propose to ask this parliament, or this board of railway commissioners, the right to run to the centre of the city of Toronto. The road that comes from the west is to come to the centre of the city, say to the city hall, and the suburban line that is coming from the east is to have the right fo come to the city hall, also the road from the north, also the road from the north-east, also the road from the north-west. These suburban roads have none of them limited franchises, they have perpetual franchises. They come Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
to the centre of Toronto, they are declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, they are united into one line and thenceforward they are entrenched and in possession of the streets of Toronto for ever without the leave or consent of the city, and the franchise which the city owns in its street railways is done for for ever, and the city will never get a dollar of revenue thereafter. All these things are in the minds of these railway companies to-day, they have them all in view, they are trying to secure these things from the provincial legislature, they are trying to get them by surreptitious means from this parliament, by asking to be declared a road for the general advantage of Canada. Why, look at what took place in the city of TOronto the other night. The very same people who are now attempting to consolidate these suburban roads, raided the city fhe other night and tried to take possession of our streets in the middle of the night, had fifty men at work, and if the mayor and the authorities had not been alert they would have been in possession to-day, and would have thereby prepared the way for this very broad proposition that they have in hand. So there is a danger of the municipal rights of cities in these franchises being taken away from the people by this Bill. The constitution of Canada never contemplated that. There was no legislation of this kind introduced in the old days into this parliament. But now the provincial authorities in Canada have said that their rights are being raided. They themselves are to blame. There is a way of stopping many of these companies from coming from under provincial jurisdiction to Dominion jurisdiction, and that is by putting in provincial legislation some kind of a clause providing that if they go to the higher legislature, their rights already obtained shall become null and void. Some legislatures are protecting themselves in that way. I am not giving an imaginary case; I am giving! the actual facts showing what Is taking place in the city of Toronto to-day and that Is the reason why the municipal authorities are aroused, why they have organized, why they are before this parliament hnd why they intend to ask that this Bill which is coming up to-morrow be defeated. I trust the hon. minister will hold this clause over and that he will give the municipalises an opportunity of being heard, and especially, not only in connection with this clause, but in connection with this Bill, that he will be prepared to assure the municipalities of all portions of this Dominion that therd is no intention on the part of the government or of parliament either through this Railway Bill or any special Bill to in any way deprive them of the control which they ought to have over their own streets and over their own franchises within their respective limits. What I say as to cities is equally true also to other municipalities, whether it be a township, village or any other corporation.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: As tlie matter lias been discussed very largely in reference to the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Bill, I may be permitted to say a word or two on the subject. I do not think this is the proper time to discuss the Bill and I do not intend to discuss it, but the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) and other hon. gentlemen who have spoken have discussed that Bill and have placed it unfairly before the committee. One would imagine that all the discussion was on the rights of the city of Toronto and that it was the only municipality in the world to be considered. I want to say that every one of the municipalities surrounding Toronto is anxious for the passage of the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Bill. Every single one is anxious for the passage of that Bill, not in its present shape, but as it is proposed to amend it.


William Findlay Maclean: By whom ?


Archibald Campbell: By the promoter of the Bill. When the proper time comes, as hon. gentlemen know very well, that Bill is to be amended. The amendment has been submitted to every municipality surrounding Toronto, and every municipality approves of it and is anxious for the passage of the Bill. It seems to me, that, if the hon. gentleman had been as anxious as he pretends to be now for the rights of the municipalities, he would have been in his place when this Bill was considered. It was introduced on the 5th of May, read a second time on the 12th of May, referred to the Railway Committee, stood on the Order paper for a month, notice was given of the meeting of the special day fixed for the consideration of the Bill in the Railway Committee, and when the Bill came up, where was the hon. member for East York? Away at work on his farm neglecting the duties which he is paid to attend to here. Where wTere the four members from the city of Toronto ? There was not a solitary one of them in attendance at the committee ; not one of them paid any attention to tbe committee.


William Findlay Maclean: Where was the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell)- raiding the city of Toronto ?


Archibald Campbell: The hon. member for West York wns in his place in the committee defending the rights of the municipalities as he has always been found in his right place. I was not away neglecting my duties and drawing my pay for doing it as the hon. member for East York was. The question has resolved itself into this : There are two parties to this Bill. There are first the municipalities around the city of Toronto.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I wish to ask your ruling whether it is proper to anticipate
an order on the paper by discussing it before we reach it ?


Archibald Campbell: Before you rule, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I am discussing the particular Bill that has been referred to so often by the hon. member for East York and the hon. member for 'Hamilton (Mr. Barker) who have been discussing it. I am discussing the principle, and I want to show why the amendment which is proposed by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is in the interest of the municipalities of this country and why it is an amendment that should be adopted by parliament. I am illustrating that by the reference that has been made by the hon. gentlemen who preceded me to the Bill of the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company. The Bill to which reference has been made involves two points.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: As my ruling has been asked, I may say that references were made to this Bill, and I regarded them as illustrations of the point which hon. gentlemen were discussing in regard to municipal control. If the references were so intended they were perfectly within the rules of the House. But, to discuss the merits of a Bill which will come before us to-morrow is beyond the rules of the House and the Bill in that sense cannot be discussed.


Archibald Campbell: I quite agree with your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I was not proposing to discuss the Bill except in its application to the matter now before the committee. The point has been raised in behalf of the municipality of Toronto, for instance, that no railway should go into the city unless by the sanction and approval of tin* municipality. I take the ground that whatever rights you give to the city of Toronto you must give to every other municipality in the country. The municipalities have just as good a right to have whatever protection is required. The municipality of Scarborough, of Etobicoke, Toronto township or any other municipality should have the same rights as are given to the great city of Toronto. Where are you going to be landed ? Suppose a great railway work is projected that is in the general interests of the country and you place it in the hands of any little tu'penny ha'penny municipality on the whole line to hold it up and stop the whole work ? I say it is not right. These railways, and this is the amendment which will be proposed to the Bill to which reference has been made, should first be required to obtain the consent of the municipality having jurisdiction over the highways. But if a municipality refuses to give that consent, or if they cannot get its sanction, then, they should have the right to appeal to the railway commissioners who are disinterested men, whose duty it is to take charge of these matters. Or, you may

refer it to the bight court if you like. The rule has been heretofore to refer the question to the Governor in Council and the Governor in Council has always sanctioned any proper request and done what was right and proper in the interests of the people. I expect that the commissioners who will be appointed under this Railway Bill will be men above reproach and men who thoroughly understand all these questions. If they do not know it will be their duty to go and find out. They will consult the city of Toronto, they will consult the municipalities interested and they will take into consideration all the rights and privileges and look thoroughly into the case and I am sure that they will give a decision that will be in the interest of the people at large. But I want to point out that if the proposition of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) is carried into effect it will place it in the power of any one municipality to block any great railway enterprise that is in the interest of the whole country. The promoters of such an enterprise may get the consent of fifty municipalities and the fifty-first will say : You cannot get through this municipality, and the railway is blocked. I do not think that is in the interest of the country, much as I believe in protecting and guarding the rights of municipalities, and I know that under the railway commissioners all the rights and privileges that should be accorded to the municipalities will be ensured to them, the terms upon which the company shall operate upon the streets, the amount of money they shall pay, the amount of roadway they shall keep up, the percentage that shall accrue to the municipality, all these things will be taken into consideration and justice will be done to all. I think the amendment pro-proposed by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is one that is in the interest of the country and ought to receive the sanction of this committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The clause proposed by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals Iras two very serious objections. The first is, that it proposes to protect the rights of cities and towns, but not of incorporated villages or rural municipalities. I agree with the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) that there is just as strong reason for protecting the rights of incorporated villages and rural municipalities as there is for protecting the rights of cities and towns. In this respect that clause falls short. My second objection is that it proposes to protect the rights of railway companies under existing charters, quite regardless of whether these rights were properly or improperly obtained. I have been amused often at the contention of those who cry out vested rights when they come here. I have been amused I say at their contention because in my opinion it is not confiscation to denude them of so called vested rights which Mr. CAMPBELL.
I
have been improperly acquired. In the first place they got these vested rights through our invading the rights of the municipalities or of the provinces as the case may be. It is we who did the confiscation for them originally. As a member of this parliament for many years I have watched with a great deal of interest the trend of legislation here. Twenty years ago we had jealous defenders of provincial rights, but to-day they are silent. It was with pride and pleasure that twenty years ago I saw almost every member of the province of Quebec jealously guarding provincial rights, but those who have taken their places to-day seem to hold provincial rights as of little value. None were more strenuous defenders of provincial rights than the Ontario reformers of twenty years ago, but Where are they to-day ? I have heard it said over and over again in this House, when It was proposed to declare that a work was for the general advantage of Canada, that we could not take away provincial rights by that mere declaration. Many eminent lawyers have held that view. But to-day, fortified by the decisions of our courts, we believe that whenever we say a work is for the general advantage of Canada, that declaration is sufficient to deprive the provinces of their constitutional rights in that corporation. We have been practically confiscating rights belonging to the provinces ; we have been surrounding the provinces with chains, and to-day we are endeavouring to weld the links so as to bind them for ever. That is just what the proposition of the Minister of Railways and Canals will do. He declares that when a railway has acquired rights, whether they be properly or improperly obtained, we will not interfere with them. . Well, whether you call it eonficsation or socialism or whatever you care to call it,
I publicly declare here that I have no respect for rights which are improperly obtained, and as a member of parliament and a member of this commonwealth, I would take away these rights and restore them to those to whom they properly belong. I have always regarded that as wrong, and what was wrong twenty years ago cannot be right to-day.


Mahlon K. Cowan: You thought it was right then.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not. I have voted against it persistently and consistently for twenty-five years, and I regret to see that many Liberals who fought side by side with me on this issue twenty years ago are now amongst the most willing to invade the rights of the provinces.


Mahlon K. Cowan: You did not always vote that way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. member was better informed he would know that there is no truth iu the senseless interruption he makes. I never interrupt the hon. gentle-

man, and I dislike these interruptions that are not founded upon common sense. If the hon. gentleman knew my record in this House he would not make the statement he has made, but on the contrary he would give me credit for consistency in this, as he might fairly do in other things. Let me give an example of interference with municipal rights. They are building a line of railway in Winnipeg which runs twenty miles out in the country, and wherever there is a depression in the street I found the street railway was building an embankment to keep their track on a level that must greatly interfere with the drainage of the surface water from the street. I do not know whether they are working under a provincial or Dominion charter, but if it be a provincial charter the people of the municipalities are remiss in their duty. When I asked why they allowed such a thing to be done the answer was : They are working under a charter and we cannot interfere with them. This railway runs through rural municipalities, and it is a living example of how rural municipalities may be seriously injured by the operations of these corporations. I hold, Sir, that we should protect the rights of these rural municipalities just as well as the rights of the cities. I object to this proposal of the Minister of Railways and Canals because It perpetuates rights that were improperly obtained. I object to it because it does not protect the rights of the rural municipalities; and I object to it because it is an infringement of the rights which the provinces should enjoy under the constitution.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: I had not the opportunity of hearing this motion read, but I would like to know if it is a fact that a railway can go along a highway in any municipality without the permission of that municipality? If that be the case I hope the minister will amend it. In the county of Jacques Cartier where I live, we have a road there only wide enough for two carriages to pass, and if a railway should be permitted to go along that narrow road it would block the entire traffic. I do not think that is what the minister intends.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is.


Robert Bickerdike: If it be, then I hope that the minister will amend the clause so that they will at least have to get the consent of my municipality before doing such a thing.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And every other municipality.


Robert Bickerdike: Well, I am speaking for my own parish in particular.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not mean anything of the kind, and I hope that I have made it clear on more than one occasion that I do not mean anything of the kind. What we are
doing here is passing a law which shall have reference solely and exclusively to federal charters and to the railway companies incorporated under federal charters. We are not proposing by this legislation to interfere in the slightest degree with the legislation of any of the provinces. I want hon. members to keep that in their minds. The question as to whether or not this parliament has wisely exercised its powers in declaring local works to be for the general advantage of Canada, and thereby acquiring control over provincial charters, is a question altogether outside of this Bill. We are not proposing to do it here. I quite agree with what many hon. gentlemen have said, that that power has been exercised too freely in the past. But whose fault is that ? is it the fault of any one party in this House in times past ? I think not.
Mr, MACLEAN. Yes. The government have


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend will pardon me. I say no, and my hon. friend will find it difficult to establish it. I believe there has been no division of party lines upon that question-never ; and why ? Because the question has not been raised ; because parties have applied here for legislation, and members of committees and the Committee of the Whole, when it came before them, have allowed the legislation to pass. Those who have been opposed to that legislation may reflect upon themselves, but they have no right to reflect upon any one else. They have no right to claim exemption for themselves or for any one political party, nor to claim the right to criticise the action of their opponents. The question has not hitherto attracted the same amount of attention that it attracts now, because the people who desired incorporation for what were merely provincial purposes have been coming to parliament very frequently of late. There has been a disposition to come to parliament for these powers, for some reason or other, and these applications have multiplied so rapidly that they have aroused, no doubt legitimately, a strong feeling against the practice. I am prepared to assist any member of this committee, when a Bill of that kind comes up, to strike out the clause declaring the work to be . for the general advantage of Canada, unless good reasons are given why it should be so declared ; and the members who sit on the right hand of the Speaker will not yield to those who sit on the other side in their declarations in that regard. I see a very weak and flimsy, and I do not think very creditable, attempt by some hon. members on the other side of the House to make political capital by representing themselves to be the only people who care anything about municipal interests, and by spending hour after hour in speechifying on the subject when no body was controverting the position they

took, in order that their remarks might be spread out on 'Hansard.' I exonerate some of the hon. gentlemen opposite from this charge; but the gentlemen who have been doing this are not of the same size as others. I say they want to spread their speeches out on 'Hansard,' in order that they may send them out among their constituents to show how they have been standing up for the rights and liberties of the people as against those fellows on the other side of the House, although it would puzzle any man among them to find anybody opposing them. I do not claim that we on this side of the House art any more zealous in that particular. I admit that lion, gentlemen opposite desire that proper legislation should be placed on the statute-book in reference to these matters. I am willing to acknowledge that, and they will, if they desire to be fair, acknowledge that we on this side are just as anxious in the same direction. This is a very weak attempt, I say, on the part of some lion, gentlemen opposite to parade themselves before the country as the bold and valiant defenders of the peoples' rights as against their opponents-a vain attempt. I do not believe that, when they come to count up the result, they will count many noses. The people know how cheap such an attempt is. We have a Bill here which we are trying to make as good a Bill as we can make it; and I think my hon. friends opposite, barring this little disposition which exists on the part of some, have the same desire. I know that some lion, gentlemen opposite would like to create the impression that this Bill would have come out of this committee in a most deplorable shape if it had not been for the important assistance they rendered in its preparation. I know that some of my hon. friends are not making these long speeches for nothing. After it is all over, I know that they will make large claims in respect of what they have done. My hon. friends on this side of the House, you will observe, are not making long speeches-why ?


Mr. COCHRANE.: Because the minister is doing it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will tell you why. They are not so anxious to hear themselves talk ; and in the next place, they have done in hosts what has only been done by individuals on the other side. They have taken means of calling my attention, during the long period that this Bill has been under consideration, to jioints which they would like to have covered, and to improvements which they would like to have made, and the record of their work appears in the many amendments which have been made to the Act. I have availed myself of the suggestions of members who came to me privately, whose sole desire was not limited to the opportunity of making a speech. They wanted to see Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
the legislation improved, my hon. friends on the other side of the House have been equally zealous, I will not say more zealous ; and the fruit of their effort has appeared without their making any great show in ' Hansard ' or on the floor of parliament. We are going to have this Bill in pretty good shape; but it could not emerge from this committee in good shape if we were all of the disposition of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule). My hon. friend has had a long experience in parliament, and lie knows that the credit of this parliament cannot be sustained if, after we confer a right on any individual in this country, on the strength of which he has invested his means or his friends have invested their means, we propose to take that right away, be the consequences what they may.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are doing it in every session of parliament.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are not doing it this session. My hon. friend thinks we might do it properly. My hon. friend would do it without hesitation. I would not do it. The vast majority of this House would hesitate to do it, and I am quite sure that no interest that could possibly be involved would justify us in doing it. The question about which all this talk has taken place is not whether we are going to tread with the iron heel on some municipal authority, or sweep away the rights of any municipal body, or interfere with the freedom of any body ; but the question is, shall we, in enlarging and extending the power of the municipality, make it subject to this one limitation, that if any rights have been conferred upon Individuals by this parliament, those rights shall not, in the working out if this Bill, and in the interpretation and construction of this law, be taken away from them. If any rights have been conferred toy this parliament, those rights shall not, in the working out of this Bill, aud the interpretation of this clause, be taken away from them. I do not think that the subject is one which would justify a very great deal more discussion than we have had. Our minds must be pretty well made up, and I hardly think that anything more need be said.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Hon. members on this side must l'eel under a great debt of gratitude to the hon. gentleman for the fatherly advice he has given us in such a kindly spirit. I assure him that we appreciate it cordially and heartily. Would he now permit a very humble member from this side to make a suggestion to him ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We appreciate the great amount of labour he has given to make this Bill as perfect as possible. When we saw

occasion for it, we offered suggestions. We have not gone behind the door to do so, but at the right time and place, when the House was in committee and the hon. gentleman and his supporters had the right to criticise our suggestions, we have expressed our opinions and offered amendments when we found what we believed to have been flaws in the Bill. We did so in the most respectful and friendly way. Some of our amendments were accepted in the best possible spirit by the hon. minister, and we believe that he accepted them because he considered they would improve his measure. We feel confident that the hon. minister is actuated solely by the desire to make this Bill as perfect as possible. In his closing remarks, the hon. gentleman said that what he proposed to do was to secure to corporations the rights which they had received in years gone by from this parliament. 1 do not think that, if the hon. minister had confined himself to the amendment which he now accepts, five minutes of the time of this committee would have been occupied with any further discussion upon clause 184. What we have objected to is the fact that the hon. minister, when he entered the chamber, distributed among us a number of amendments, amongst them an amendment io clause 184, the effect of which would liave been to destroy that recognition of municipal rights which he was good enough to make some eight or ten days ago; and 1 take it that he has been so impressed with the arguments or suggestions from this side that he has gracefully withdrawn the amendment he presented in the first place and lias submitted a further amendment protecting the rights of the companies incorporated by this parliament some time ago. We on this side have no desire to take away from any company the rights it has legally acquired from any legislative body with power to grant them; and when he declared that the rights of one company, the Montreal Terminal, might be injuriously affected by the amendment he accepted ten days ago, my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) suggested that he should make a special provision to protect the rights of that company. We have not the slightest desire to interfere with whatever rights the Terminal has legally obtained, and join with the hon. gentleman in protecting them, but we thought-and the hon. gentleman will not contradict the statement-that if the amendment he presented to section 184 had been allowed to go, every municipality in tiie country would have been at the mercy of the railway commission and every municipal right might have been taken away by the action of the commissioners. The hon. minister before recess made reference to tiie city of Toronto. I do not know whether he intended to be sarcastic or flattering, but I would make this suggestion. I would, on behalf of the mayor and cor-192


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
poration and citizens of Toronto, invite him to come to that city and take a trip over its train-car system. All the provisions in connection with that system were prepared by the engineer and solicitor of the city, the contract was drawn by the city attorney, the system was laid down on the conditions imposed by the city, and we have the best street railway system in America today ; and I think that the municipality gets a greater revenue from it, considering its mileage and traffic, than any other municipality does from any other street railway. I do not intend to make a long speech and lie put in the category of other hon. gentlemen whom the hon. minister has chastised and stigmatised most unfairly. If the amendment which he suggested to section J84 became law, the privileges we are enjoying in Toronto to-day would practically disappear.
The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to tell him that I know something about the situation in Toronto, and I have the temerity to say that I know as much at least about it as the hon. gentleman. Let me tell him that if power were given the bbard of commissioners to allow other tramways to come into the city of Toronto, the value of the franchise we have there now would be destroyed. Because that franchise was made valuable by the fact that the company leasing it has the exclusive right to operate an electric car service into and through the city.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman know how many companies are authorized by this parliament to lay down street railway lines in Toronto ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not know of any company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In that case this section would not have any application to Toronto whatever.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do know that attempts are being made, and have been successfully made, to get legislation through this parliament declaring works to be for the general advantage of Canada, which are purely and entirely provincial in their nature. 1 want to tell the hon. gentleman that the sole object of these promoters in coming to this parliament and having these enterprises declared to be for the general advantage of Canada is to escape the obligations which the province and the municipalities would impose upon them. No one knows that better than the hon. minister himself. If the right to operate street railways is to be declared for the general advantage of Canada, where will legislation of this kind stop ?


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
It is a prostitution of the powers and prerogatives of the parliament of Canada to pass such legislation. Would the lion, gentleman seriously argue that a group of railways around the city of Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, or Condon would be a work for the general advantage of Canada and should be incorporated by this parliament ?
Mr. WADE.: Will the kon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: When I get through, my hon. friend can follow. And I would prefer that 'he would allow me to continue my line of argument.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I do not blame him, for not wanting to get an answer.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. gentleman insists, I shall give way to him.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I would ask my hon. friend, in the most respectful manner, whether iie does not think that the proper time to guard against those things is when the particular charter is before parliament ? And is it not right that we should have a General Railway Act to deal with the different railways that are chartered by this parliament ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman twelve months ago asked me the same question, when I was making an emphatic protest against the incorporation of the Toronto Niagara Power Company. I tried to point out to him that all railways declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada will come under the purview of this commission. The hon. gentleman will admit that, in this I am right. The tram-car lines come here seeking incorporation and are declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, and the control and operation of those lines will come under the jurisdiction of the board of commission.


Fletcher Bath Wade: That is not the question I a Eked.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We are trying to protect the rights of the municipalities by the amendment to clause 184. How did that clause read before the hon. minister proposed his further amendment this afternoon ? It read as follows :
The railway may be carried upon, along or across any existing highway upon leave therefor having been first obtained from the board as hereinafter provided. But the board shall not grant leave to any company to carry any street railway or tramway or any railway operated or to be operated as a street railway or tramway along any highway which Is within the limits of any city or incorporated town until the company shall have first obtained the consent therefor by a by-law of the municipal authority of such city or incorporated town.
Though I am not a lawyer, I take it that if that clause were permitted to remain in that shape, these tram-car outfits which are declared to be works for the general Mr. CLARKE.
advantage of Canada, could not go along the streets of a municipality at all without first obtaining the consent of the municipality. That is our contention. Have we not the right to demand that protection for these particular municipalities and for all municipalities ? Is it not a reasonable proposition that where a great number of human beings are assembled in one city, one hundred and fifty, two hundred or two hundred and fifty thousand people, that their rights in the highways shall be protected ? Is this parliament more jealous of the rights of railway promoters and tramroad promoters and exploiters than it is of the rights of the people ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Has anybody disputed that?	'


Edward Frederick Clarke: My hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) I understood, disputed that.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Not at all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then, what was lie disputing ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: The Toronto and Niagara Power Company was not a railway company at all, but was absolutely a power company ; and the rights of municipalities were guarded in the Private Bills Committee before the Bill came back to this House.


Edward Frederick Clarke: My hon. friend has contradicted the statement I have made. Let me draw attention to the discussion that took place on the Toronto and Niagara Power Company. I drew attention, when the Bill was in the committee stage, to the fact that the gentlemen who were asking for incorpora tiou as the Toronto and Niagara Power Company were, probably by coincidence, probably by circumstances, the owners of the Toronto Railway Company, and also of the Suburban Railway companies that it is now proposed to amalgamate with the Toronto and Hamilton Company. And I drew attention to the fact that it was only reasonable that the municipalities through which the power company passed should have the right to obtain power, and that the power company should sell it to them without discrimination ; because I pointed out that the franchises, of the tramroads would fall in, and unless the company was obliged to sell power without discrimination the value of the franchises would he destroyed. And when we asked that this should be done, hon. gentlemen opposite voted against that simple proposition. Twelve months have elapsed since that charter was given. And now we find that tile gentlemen who got that charter and their associates are asking now for a charter for a railway, to be declared a work for the general advantage of Canada, to amalgamate not only the suburban railways, but the Toronto and Hamilton Railway in one company, and to over-

ride by legislation from this parliament the obligations, the duties, the conditions which the legislature of the province of Ontario imposed upon them and which the municipalities have imposed upon them. This is our position. It is a sound position, and we are not going to recede from it Hon. gentlemen opposite may think that we are wrong. They have a right to their opinion. But it is surely our bounden duty, at every stage when an opportunity offers, to protest against the Invasion of municipal rights, when we believe that that invasion is not in the public interest. The hon. minister very courteously amended this clause, No. 184, when it was before us ten or twelve days ago. The amendment the hon. gentleman agreed to did not go so far as that I suggested to him. I desired that the municipalities-all the municipalities rural or urban-should have their rights protected. The hon. gentleman confined it to the exclusion of tramroads from incorporated towns and cities. So far so good. But I say that the rights of all should be protected, that rural municipalities had rights that ought not to be disregarded, and that the object of this parliament should be to protect those rights as against the claims of railway and tram-road promoters. One word more before I resume my seat with regard to the position the city of Toronto occupies. I have already said that the franchise of the street railway belongs to the city of Toronto, but it has been leased for a period of years. The citizens of Toronto have not objected to the entrance of suburban trams. In fact, we have been tryin'g to get them in. We are building a market at an expense of more than a quarter of a million dollars to store country produce, to facilitate the business they are expected to do. But, while we want the suburban tram-car lines to come in, we want them to enter upon the lines of railway already existing, and we want them to come in upon conditions imposed by the city of Toronto. The difference that has existed between the promoters of the Toronto and Hamilton railroad and the corporation of Toronto has been that, while the citizens of Toronto desire that whatever agreement they make for the entry of the suburban roads should terminate with the lease of the Toronto franchise, the proprietors of these suburban roads had the audacity to ask that they should have the right in perpetuity to run their lines into the city of Toronto. Was that a fair proposition ? And, not being able to obtain from the provincial legislature, or from the municipality of the city of Toronto, these privileges, these unfair and unjust privileges, they come here and ask this parliament to incorporate them as a work for the general advantage of Canada and seek to override _ not only the municipal, but provincial rights. That is a statement of facts, and I challenge contradiction of it ; and 1924
I say we are only doing our duty as members of this opposition in raising our voices, however feebly and ineffectively, in favour of maintaining municipal and provincial rights and against this parliament being made the means of incorporating a purely local concern and declaring it to be for the general advantage of Canada. Mv hon. friend from West York (Mr. Campbell) said that the municipalities about Toronto were in favour of the entrance of the Toronto and Hamilton Railway.


Mahlon K. Cowan: That is not law yet.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I only refer to it as the hon. gentleman referred to it. I only want to say that the city of Toronto lias not interfered, that it has left the suburban municipalities free to make any arrangements they thought good, and I think the least the city of Toronto has a right to expect is that the suburban municipalities will allow the city to make its own agreement. The principal value of this franchise is in the right of access to the city of Toronto ; and if that is a valuable franchise the city of Toronto is the best judge as to what value to place upon it and "what terms to exact from those to whom it is conceded.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I do not propose to follow the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) in the long diatribe-


Edward Frederick Clarke: Diatribe ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Yes, diatribe. I have chosen the word advisedly. I do not propose to follow the hon. gentleman in the long diatribe which he has chosen to inflict upon us here to-night concerning the street railways of Toronto. He has done so notwithstanding that he knows that that matter will come up to-morrow evening. But I may go one step further and tell the hon. gentleman that he never discovered the Bill known as the Toronto and Hamilton Railway was something that was going to interfere with the rights of Toronto until it had its second reading, and after it had passed the Railway Committee. The hon. member for Toronto was silent as a'091111 in its shell while that was going on until the press drew the matter to his attention. When the question of the tramways and electric railways of Toronto come before us. we shall be pleased to listen to what the hon. gentleman has to say upon the subject. But now we are discussing a general railway commission Bill, yet he wishes to discuss this question of provincial electric railways, something entirely beyond the jurisdiction of this parliament, something which I hope, and which hon. members on this side of the House hope will not be dealt with here, but will be left to the jurisdiction of the province.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why, the Bill before us deals with them in half a dozen sections.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I admit tljat the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) lias taken a great deal of pains and a great deal of care in connection with tliis matter, out I must tell bim in tliis, as in most other sections of the Bill, be is entirely wrong. The Bill does not propose to deal with provincial electric railways-


Edward Arthur Lancaster: All I want to say to the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) is that he had better read the Bill.


Mahlon K. Cowan: And all I want to say to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) is that if he were to read the Bill half a dozen times more his ideas would be quite as beclouded as they are after the reading he has given it. The hon. member for West Toronto tells us that the Bill to incorporate the Toronto and Niagara Company usurped the rights of the streets of the city of Toronto to the absolute disregard of the rights of the citizens or the corporation of that city. I desire to draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to section 13 of the Bill of last year, which was passed before the Private Bills Committee and afterwards was passed in this House without amendment, though the hon. gentleman made a speech in connection with it. This, be it remembered, was not a tramway company, but it was for the purpose of transmitting power from Niagara Palls to the city of Toronto to supply the city, and the effect of the Bill was to give the right to erect poles and to do other works to carry out the purposes of the company. There was this express clause put in :
Provided the same are so constructed as not to incommode the public use of streets, highways or public places or to impede the ^ access to any house or other building erected in the vicinity thereof, or to interrupt the navigation of any waters, but the company shall be responsible for all damages which it causes in carrying out or maintaining any of its said works.
So that in the Bill which the hon. gentleman held up as an example, the very safeguards were put in which now at last he wakes up to say ought to be inserted in all Bills in which the public interest is concerned.


David Henderson: I do not propose to travel out of the record as the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Cowan) has done, but to deal directly with the question before the committee. Niow I would assure the minister that I do not intend to make a speech to circulate in my constituency, notwithstanding the statement made by the member for Essex. The amendment that was adopted by this committee to section 184, reads as follows :
But the board shall not grant leave to any company to carry any street railway or tramway, or any railway operated or to he operated as a street railway or tramway, along any high-


Edward Arthur Lancaster: way which is within the limits of any city or incorporated town.
Since the minister 'has given us an assurance. that he is enlarging the powers of municipalities, I wish to ask him why he does not give the same power to townships and villages that he gives to cities and incorporated towns. Now that is what my constituents desire should be done. I have a special request that the minister be asked to extend that privilege, or right, or power, to other municipalities as well as incorporated cities and towns. If he will accede to my request, I shall make no further protest with regard to this section. I realize that he will only be granting what is our right, and I contend that the minor municipalities, the incorporated villages and townships have the same right to protection for their streets and highways as the towns and cities. Now I hope and trust that the minister, since he is endeavouring to meet the views of the committee, will enlarge the amendment by adding the words 'other municipalities.'


Fletcher Bath Wade: I asked the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) whether he did not think that the proper time to raise these objections in regard to street railways was when the charters for them were before the House. Was not that the time to ask that such conditions and provisions should he thrown around the charters as were necessary in order to protect the interests of the cities and towns ? Certainly all hon. gentlemen must recognize that we are to-night attempting to frame a general railway law, one that will apply to all railways that are in existence to-day, and to all railways that may come into existence in the future, and to street railways that may be chartered by this parliament. Now I was astonished at some of the speeches made by hon. gentlemen opposite. A stranger listening to them would suppose we were passing this clause for the first time, and he would be surprised to know that ever since Canada had a Railway Act, and long before the Dominion existed, a similar Railway Act existed in the old province of Ontario and the other provinces, in which substantially the same clause was contained as we are now discussing. Section 183 of the General Railway Act as amended in 1888, contained substantially the same provision, by which a railway company can cross a highway or, by leave of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, can go along that highway. Now, Sir, I do not take a second place to the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) or to any other hon. gentleman on that side of the House, or upon this, in my desire to protect the rights of the provinces and of the municipalities. Nobody has ever raised any such question before. These hon. gentlemen are setting up a man of straw for the purpose of knocking it down. X want to ask the hon. member for East Grey if, during all those twenty-five years he has

been sitting in this House, lie ever raised bis voice to say one word against this section 183 as it is contained in the Kailway Act ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can tell the hon. gentleman that twenty-one or twenty-two years ago I fought that question as vigorously as I could, when it was proposed by the same means to take over the Toronto, Grey and Bruce Kailway. I drew attention to the fact that it was a provincial railway that had been subsidized to the tune of $300,000. In one of the by-laws were contained certain provisions that were regarded as valuable for municipalities, and if that railway was amalgamated with a Dominion railway and declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, it took away provincial rights, and I fought it as vigorously as I could, as I have done many times since.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Now I wonder if the hou. gentleman has satisfied himself that he has answered my question. What I asked him wasi this, if he could tell me that he ever stood in his place in parliament and uttered one word against this section 1.83 which has been in the Railway Act ever since Canada had a Railway Act, as Infringing upon the rights of provinces or municipalities. That is what I want to get from him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not remember whether I was present at the time that Act was passed. But I say that from time to time when private Bills were brought before par-liameut infringing upon those rights, I objected as strenuously as I knew how.


Fletcher Bath Wade: There is an Act upon our statute-book which is substantially the same as the section we are now trying to enact. There is this difference, that under the old section as it stood it was necessary, before you could run along a highway, to have the consent of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. Instead of that tribunal we nowhave the board and it is upon that that hon. gentlemen are making all this talk about guarding the rights of municipalities.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There was no Railway Committee of the Privy Council for years after the question was debated in this House.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The hon. gentleman is certainly taking a marvellous position. We have had the old Act amended time and time again. Let me pin him down to this that in 1888 the whole railway legislation was consolidated. Did he, when the Act was going through in 1888 and when he was upon this side of the House, rise up and say anything about infringing upon provincial rights, or city rights, or municipal rights ? Did he not sit in his place and give a silent vote, or if he spoke, did he not speak in favour of it ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Never.


Fletcher Bath Wade: We, upon this side of the House, are getting somewhat tired of this kind of talk. It is a fact, and hon, gentlemen know it, that before a railway can be located over the country the company must come forward with their plans showing the location and get these plans approved and if these plans show a line running along the street, before they can be put into execution, they must have the approval of the board. There is a tribunal provided for by this Bill which will listen to all parties and decide as to whether it is proper to allow a railway to pass along a street in any municipality. I can imagine that in 99 cases out of 100 cases the railway company will not be allowed to build their line along the highway, but in the 99th case, or perhaps in the 999th case, it will be absolutely necessary that the railway should be carried along the highway or a street because there would be no other feasible way by which it could be carried along. Then, I ask hon. gentlemen as a reasonable proposition : Must not this parliament have the power to enact a law by which a charter can be carried into effect that is granted by this House ? The speech of the hon. member for East Grey would lead us to suppose, in fact, he has made the solemn declaration, that he would wrest from these companies 'all the rights they have of crossing highways under the provisions of this section. That is a bold declaration to make. It may be one that will bring to him some influence in the rural districts but I am sure


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I never made such a declaration.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I am glad to know I misunderstood the hon. gentleman and that he will not take such a position now. The hon. gentleman will lead us to suppose that this parliament has no powers. Surely, that is a peculiar contention. The parliament of Canada has the right to declare what are works for the general benefit of Canada. The parliament of Canada has the right to pass a general railway law, parliament has the right to incorporate railway companies and I must take this occasion for saying that I regret that hon. gentlemen opposite have so much to say about this charter jobbing and of people who are around grabbing up all these franchises. I cannot imagine what sort of men are conducting these affairs in the province of Ontario. We hear nothing of that kind in our province down by the sea and I cannot believe that the people who are organizing these companies are quite as bad as their friends over there paint them. If we have the right to enact a general railway law and if we have the right to charter railway companies must we not possess the right of saying that they can build their rail-

ways ? I would call the attention of lion, gentlemen to the present situation where it is proposed that a railway shall he built from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Suppose that we enacted here a provision by which that railway company, before it could cross a municipality, had to get the consent of that municipality.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No one has suggested that they should be prevented from crossing a municipality.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I do not want to put you wrong and you are not going to put me wrong.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Do not put up a man of straw,


Fletcher Bath Wade: If you are going to give a municipality this right for which the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is contending, then you must be logical and you cannot allow a railway to cross a municipality until they have obtained the consent of that municipality. That is the logical conclusion of what he said.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The hon. gentleman repeated that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We never contended that.	,


Fletcher Bath Wade: Would it be right or fair that a municipality could come in and say : Yon must not pass along a street of this municipality ? It may be the only possible place where they can pass through that municipality but the municipality will say :	No,
you cannot pass through, you will have to go around. Here is a provision which should be exercised only in extreme cases and we have appointed a tribunal to judge and determine as to when an extreme case arose and with such a provision I cannot see what my hon. friends have to complain of.


Peter Macdonald: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals shall have leave to withdraw his first amendment to section 184 that the following words be inserted ' incorporated after the passing of this Act' ?
Amendment withdrawn.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would not waste the time of the committee by making any further observations regarding this subject if it were not for a statement or two made by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals and by the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade). The hon. member for Annapolis has thought fit to read the hon. member for East Grey a lecture because he happened to be in this House years ago and did not object to a clause in the Railway


Fletcher Bath Wade: Act which was passed at that time, when so far as my knowledge goes he was not present. But he said these very same grievances existed in 1888 and that they existed even before confederation.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I did not use the word ' grievances.' Do not put words into my mouth.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say these grievances exist to-day Why was it that the attention of parliament was not directed to the question then as it is to-day ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: You were here; we were not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the matter with the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: I say that you were here and we were not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is impossible for the hon. gentleman to keep quiet. It was because of, the fact that we had no electric railways and no street railways then in Canada. We had none of the troubles then that we have to-day.


Fletcher Bath Wade: No street railways in 1888 ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have answered the hon. member. I do not know whether he wants to be facetious or foolish. He can play either part to his heart's content. At the time when these discussions took place regarding provincial rights we had not street railways or electric railways to any great extent in Canada. They have grown up since that. At first when we had electric railways they were incorporated by the provinces, but since that it happened that the owners of these railway corporations came here for rights that had been denied by the provinces. They came here to secure rights that they could not get from the provinces and then they were taken out of the control of the provinces.


Mahlon K. Cowan: What electric railway in this Dominion has been incorporated by this parliament ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am going to address myself to the committee, not to the hon. member (Mr. Cowan) who seems so particularly anxious, whenever I am on my feet, to interrupt me. It is something that I have never done to him. I have had quite enough of it from .that source, and if I must say what will be very disagreeable, I will say it. I can tell the hon. gentleman that. At that time we. had very little trouble from this source, but when we began to take over these railway corporations and give them fhe powers that the federal parliament alone could give, strong objection was raised to it. Although the evil had not grown to the present extent, they were strenuously fought by members on both sides of this House,

and I regret to say that the contention of these gentlemen did not prevail. Of late years we have in two different ways invaded provincial rights ; one by taking over the charter rights conferred by {lie provinces and declaring them to be for the general advantage of Canada, and the other, by this parliament giving Acts of incorporation to roads that under the provisions of the British North America Act should he under the jurisdiction of the provinces. It is because of the growing tendency in this direction that there is a strong demand for the protection of provincial rights. The Minister of Railways said that if every one was like me it would be an unhappy day for the corporations. I did not propose to take away vested rights that were properly obtained, but I did say that I would have no hesitation in taking rights away from a corporation that were improperly obtained, and I repeat that statement on my full responsibility as a member of parliament. Suppose a man steals your horse and sells it to an innocent party, you have the right to take that horse back when you find it in the possession of the third party, and if these corporations become improperly possessed of public property, the public should have a right to claim them back. I have no respect for vested rights improperly acquired, and I am prepared at any time to restore these rights to their proper owners. I commend to the judgment of this House the amendment proposed by the member for Toronto, because it confirms to corporations the rights they have properly and legally secured.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The hon. gentleman is an old member of this House, and I am but a new member. Might I ask him if he was in the House supporting the government that proposed to wrest from the provinces the inland fisheries and the inland reserves?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is foreign to the question we are discussing. It was declared by many legal authorities that we could not by the mere statement that a work was for the general advantage of Canada, take away provincial rights, and many of us allowed that question to be fought out in the courts. But there has since been a decision of the courts that we can take away these rights by such a declaration, and in view of that, we think it is time to stop it. I am consistent in my whole parliamentary career for I have always fought on the same lines as I am fighting to-night.


Mahlon K. Cowan: It must be amusing to the members of this House to hear the member for East Grey, that encyclopedia of ail parliamentary knowledge in his own judgment, saying for the first time in twenty-one years that he was now in favour of defending provincial rights. For the last twenty-one long years he has been wandering in the wilderness, and the greater part of that time
supporting a government that constantly invaded provincial rights.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Come back doctor.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I am not surprised that the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) should leave the Chamber. I rose to ask him whether he referred to street railways being incorporated by this parliament ? When he was speaking I asked him for the name of an electric railway that had been incorporated in the province of Ontario by this parliament, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule), shielding himself behind his rights, refused to answer, and stated that I was making an absurd interruption.


An hon. MEMBER.: And then he runs away.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I rose in my place now for the purpose of addressing a few remarks to the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the brave and gallant gentleman left the Chamber. For twenty-one years he was the enemy of provincial rights in this House, when men on this side who have grown grey in the service of their country were fighting the battles of provincial rights. For twenty-one years the hon. gentleman from East Grey was silent and dumb as an oyster in his shell, and voted every time against provincial rights in this House, but now at last he has suddenly found the light and he has become a champion of the provinces. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) saw fit to draw a comparison about a man stealing a horse, and I can only say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) reminded me of a story which comes'from the far off state of Kansas.
A new member of the legislature of that state after listening to a long speech void of either interest or merit arose, and in a nasal twang replied as follows ' Mr. Speaker, I have listened for the last hour or hour and a half to the hon. gentleman, not that what he said was worth listening to or the manner in which he said it particularly, interesting, but because I could not prevent my auricular organs from performing their natural functions within a reasonable distance of a noise of that description, and the longer I listened the more I was irresistibly driven to the conclusion that the honourable gentleman had started his mouth agoing and had then gone away and left it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


David Tisdale: It seems to me that there are one or two important misapprehensions with regard to this clause. As I understand the question which has been raised just now, it is a very important one. There is no gentleman on this side of the House contending that a railway as distinguished from a street railway shall not be under the control of the board. I was call-

ing tlie attention of the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) to what I thought was a misapprehension on his part. I regard this as one of the most important propositions under the Bill, because it effects the jurisdiction of this House, the rights of this House, the rights of the provinces and the rights of the municipalities. As I understand it, no one on this side of the House objects to that part of the Bill which is the same as the old law. The hon. gentleman stated the old law correctly, as passed in 1888, I think, that a railway cannot be constructed along a highway of a municipality without an order from the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. That was the tribunal established to deal with such matters, after a very exhaustive inquiry by a commission presided over by Sir Alexander Galt, and it has remained the law until this Bill was introduced, under which we are shifting the authority to the hoard of railway commissioners. It is not contended on this side of the House that that should not be made the law. The amendment proposed relates entirely to street railways. My hon. friend from Annapolis accused somebody of putting up men of straw to knock them down, and I think he put up one without intending to do so. Possibly he misunderstood the hon. gentleman on this side of the House, because I can assure him that my hon. friends on this side, those who are old members, from the care and trouble that many of them have taken in discussing this Bill, are most anxious to have a proper Bill.


Mr. HEYD.: What does the hon. gentleman want ? I have been listening for two hours and a half to try to find out what hon. gentlemen opposite are driving at.


David Tisdale: I doubt if I have spoken an hour in the House during this session or two hours during the last session. I want to assure the minister that my hon. friends on this side of the House are discussing the Bill with a desire to improve it. They may be wrong in some instances, and I am free to say that with some of their contentions I have disagreed ; and I may disagree with them in regard to some other matters. The difficulty seems to arise from the powers to be exercised by railways proper as contra-distinguished from street railways. The hon. member for Annapolis seemed to misunderstand that.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to interject a remark ? I am sure I take very great pleasure in listening to anything the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) says on any question pertaining to railways. I know that his sole desire in discussing this Bill is to make it as good an Act as he possibly can ; and I believe that every hon. gentleman on this side of the House will agree with me in that. But what I stated was that this Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
parliament has not yet incorporated a street railway company, as far as I know. It is a question which will have to be determined by this, parliament, whether it will incorporate street railways or not. But if this parliament does in its wisdom see lit to incorporate street railways, then I submit that the control of these railways and the regulating of their running and crossing must be under this board. I submit to the hon. gentleman if that is not a fair proposition.


David Tisdale: I quite admit that ; but the hon. member for Annapolis went further than that. He charged gentlemen cn this side of the House


Fletcher Bath Wade: Not the present speaker.


David Tisdale: If I understood the ton. gentleman rightly, he charged the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) with having been in the House when a law was passed by the Conservative government, and now going back on it and objecting to it. The hon. member for East Grey is not objecting to it any more than he did when it was passed. The hon. member for East Grey has always held what I called radical opinions on this subject, and to my certain recollection he opposed his own party at different times in connection with that Act. But it was the law, and we on this side of the House are not objecting to it. It is satisfactory that both sides of the House can concur thus far. The hon. gentleman lor West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), who spoke so ably and so strongly about municipal rights, did not object to the railway commission having control in Toronto or outside of it over railways proper, but he does object strongly to it having control over street railways. I go with the hon. member for East Grey this far. When the Act was passed in 18S8, we hardly heard anything about street railways. This country has progressed, however, and electric railways have grown up rapidly and have become important, without the question as to what jurisdiction wTe do exercise or should exercise over them having been raised. But that has become a very important question, and I am bound to say for myself, that for some time I was not impressed as much as I have been lately, since the discussion of this Bill has arisen, as to the exercise of the power of declaring the work to be for the general advantage of Canada. I understand that under the constitution we have power to do that if we see fit. I believe that the British North America Act gives that power to us absolutely, trusting to this House not to exercise it improperly ; because under our constitution, as I understand it, the right of eminent domain is relegated largely to this parliament, to the extent that wTe have at least concurrent jurisdiction with the provinces on many of these questions, and this is said to be one of them. I do not under-

stand that that is challenged on either side of the House. This question of street railways has become important, particularly in the larger towns of Ontario, and we must pay attention to it and investigate it. The provincial legislature has sent a memorial to this House, finding fault with the manner in which we have seemed to exercise that important power. Now, 1 am one of those who are not willing to abnegate one title of our power. At the same time, when we have a discretionary power, of course we must be careful and reasonable in exercising it. This has become an important question, and I think both sides of the House are willing to consider it, and I have no doubt that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has been troubled a good deal in the preparation of this new Act, which had to do two important things. One is the establishment of a railway commission and the other defining the powers and jurisdiction of that commission, particularly with regard to electric railways.
This question of electric tramways and their relations with the municipalities is a difficult one for to deal with and possibly may . require to be dealt with by a general Act applying especially to them alone. Evidently the hon. minister is not disposed to go as far in excluding electric tramways from municipalities without their first obtaining the consent of these municipalities as hon. gentlemen on this side desire, and we shall therefore have to be more careful when special Acts come up to see that the rights of the municipalities are in each case protected, but there is no doubt that there must be some tribunal to decide disputes between these companies and the municipalities in cases where the companies have been incorporated by this parliament. That tribunal must necessarily be the railway commission. Such disputes have frequently come before the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, and I have never known a case in which the municipality was not content to abide by its decision. There is no doubt a great deal in the contention that these tramways should be left exclusively within the jurisdiction of the local authorities, and the fact that the hon. minister is not bringing in a general measure to deal with them leads me to believe that he is disposed to take that view himself, but of course we cannot abrogate entirely our right to interfere. I am in accord with the hon. minister in protecting the rights that we have granted, but I am sorry that he could not go the length in protecting the municipalities desired on this side of the House.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I would like the hon. gentleman to answer the question I put to him. I am asking for information only. Suppose this parliament does incorporate an electric tramway, does he not think that that tramway should come under the operation of the General Railway Act of Canada ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am sorry that the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) has left the Chamber, as 1 was anxious to enlighten him with regard to the question he put some time ago. That hon. gentleman however seldom favours us with his presence for any length of time, but contents himself with coming in now and then and by his interruptions seeking to turn our parliamentary proceedings into a farce. He undertook to show his superior knowledge to mine by pointing out that the electric railways were not dealt with in this Bill at all, and he did not give me a chance to set him right. Why, we have taken up nearly the whole day in discussing an amendment of the hon. Minister of Railways which deals exclusively with electric companies, and further let me draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to sections 5 and 1 which also deal with electric companies. And section 7, as I have said, brings all these electric railways within the scope of these provisions. Perhaps some hon. gentleman will inform the hon. member for South Essex that when he comes in to interrupt legislation with very doubtful contributions to the debates of the House-perhaps, in kindness to me, they will inform him-that he should be more careful in his interruptions in the future and should learn something of what he intends to talk about. The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) sneers at us ont this side as champions of provincial rights. I do not know whether he means by that that he is a better champion of provincial rights than we are. I assume that he is not going to interfere with provincial rights improperly. And I would point out to him what he would have known had he been attending to his duty Sere for the past week or two. I pointed it out to the Minister of Railways. The general Railway Act of Ontario, the Electric Railway Act, and the Street Railway Act, of that province, all dealing with the subject here touched upon contain provisions by which it is expressly enacted that no railway shall pass upon or along any highway, but may only cross the same, without the consent of the municipality. If the hon. member for Annapolis wants to have the legislation of this parliament directly in conflict with that of the largest province of the Dominion-I do not pretend to say whether the legislation of his own province is the same in this respect as that of Ontario, though I think it likely that it is- if he wants the legislation of this House to be directly in conflict with that of the largest province on a question that has been piiima facie delegated to the provinces, the right to control the highways, of course, the hon. gentleman must be left to his choice. Under the circumstances, I need not weary the House longer with the discussion of the argument of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade). I wish to impress upon the minister the absolute inconsistency of the law as he pro-

poses to leave it sin saying that the electric railways shall not be permitted to deal with the board without the consent of the municipalities, so far as cities and towns are concerned, but that that consent shall not be required in the villages and townships. And I would desire, notwithstanding what the minister said a little while ago and notwithstanding the insinuation he made (and which may have included me) to urge this point once more upon him. The hon. minister insinuated that we on this side were talking too much, and that hon. members on his own side accomplished more by seeing him privately with regard to proposed amendments. I do not think it is our duty to go to the hon. minister privately to ask if he will agree to have legislation amended. I think it was better to bring the matter before the House and get the combined wisdom of the two hundred and fourteen members of this Chamber upon our arguments, and not attempt ' Star ' chamber legislation in regard to such an important Act as this is. I doubt whether good would be accomplished by what the hon. minister thinks ought to be done, and I think it is more charitable to him and better for the Dominion that we should assume that in speaking as he did about us and about hon. gentlemen on his own side he was only joking, for lie has made no amendments in the interest of the people that did not come from this side of the House.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am going to ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. But, before doing so, I wish to make an observation. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), I think, were present when this subject was under discussion before. They urged very strongly-I know the hon. member for Lincoln did at least-what the hon. member for Halton is now advocating. That point was thoroughly discussed. I think it is only a fair claim I am making upon the committee when I say that, when we have had an exhaustive discussion upon any one question, and a full opportunity to consider it, and when that question has been disposed of, it is not entirely reasonable to present the same arguments again and ask to have the subject reconsidered. My hon. friend, I think, coincided with the view I then stated that, so far as electric railways are concerned, after very careful consideration I concluded that we might properly make provisions that they should not be allowed to operate in any city or incorporated town unless dnth the consent of the municipal authority.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think I heard all that the hon. gentleman said on that subject. I know he said it would make it apply to cities and towns. But I have never yet been able to get him to state a reason for not making it apply to incorporated villages and rural municipalities.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think I must have stated my reasons; I must have replied to the hon. gentleman's question. I did not think it desirable to give to all municipalities the same control that we were giving to the councils of towns and cities. We were giving them this power without any appeal at all. The flat or decision of the municipal council of a city or incorporated town is made final. I can well understand that in the ease of a populous centre, the streets ought not to be used except under some such conditions as we have laid down here. But when it comes to country districts, many of them sparsely settled, the case is different. It may be a great convenience to people living at long distances apart to have a street railway to facilitate communication, and I do not think it would be reasonable or proper that any one of these townships through which a railway was seeking to have the privilege of running should have the power to hold up the street railway company. I think that that would be an extreme power to give without any right of appeal. That is my reason, and I still think the reason is a sufficient one. Hon. members are debating this question as though we were incorporating electric railways between towns and cities in vast numbers. We are not doing anything of the sort, and I hope we are not going to. As I said before, I shall lend my voice as far as I can to refuse charters to these purely local companies wherever they come from.
I do not think we should pass such charters. There are very few instances where such incorporations have been granted. I think it would be difficult to name half a dozen in Ontario, and I do not know of any in the eastern provinces. There may be one or two in the province of Quebec.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are several in the province of Ontario. There is one that was from Port Perry to the Georgian bay, to Kincardine, Meaford, Owen Sound, South Lambton and Durham. There is another radial railway around the city of Guelph, another that extends to Galt and Preston. These are all under Dominion charters.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the hon. gentleman is not up to my limit yet, and probably he has named all he can think of. Now these people ought to have gone to the provincial legislature. I would send them there. Therefore, I hope the committee will see its way to allow this clause to pass as a proposed amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would ask the minister why he excludes villages, though many incorporated villages are larger than some incorporated towns ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: An incorporated village might cover a largo area, and yet have a sparse

population, a much less population than an incorporated town.


Mr. INGRAM.: I rise to dispute a statement that has been frequently made, that this parliament has never granted any electric railway charters.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS ANI) CANALS. Surely the hon. gentleman is not quoting me as having said that ?


Andrew B. Ingram: No, it was the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade), and I think the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan), who stated that frequently to-night. I want to point out that as far back as 1899 this parliament granted a charter to the Montreal Island Belt Line Railway, and to change its name to the Montreal Terminal Railway Company. In this charter hon. gentlemen will find these words :	' may be
operated by electricity only.' So here is an electric railway charter, notwithstanding the statement made by these hon. gentlemen. I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that more lines of railway are being constructed in this country that use electricity and other motive powers than steam, and it is their intention to carry freight and passengers, and to interchange freight and passengers with railways that are under the General Railway Act of Canada. The minister has already conceded legislation in his Bill to meet the case I have quoted ; therefore, I say lion, gentlemen on this side of the House are quite justified in using the language they did with regard to electric railway lines.


David Henderson: I trust the minister will pardon me for pressing my amendment. I said, when on my feet before, that I had been requested to ask the minister to extend the same favour to minor municipalities as had been extended in this section to cities and incorporated towns. I will read a resolution passed at a meeting held in the town of Oakville, in the county I have the honour to represent, on the 24th of June last:
Moved, by Colonel Kerns, reeve of Burlington, seconded by Mr. Bryans, reeve of Etobicoke, that the amendment of the honourable the Minister of Railways not allowing electric railways to enter upon any street or highway in any city or incorporated town be extended to include all municipalities.
That is the request I referred to. Therefore, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Blain, that section 184 as amended be further amended by adding after the word ' town ' where it occurs in said amendment, the words ' or other municipality.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. member evidently is under the impression that all any of these companies would have to do would be to go to the Board of Railway Commissioners and they would get permission to enter upon
the streets of municipalities. Now that is contrary to all experience. They do not get this permission except in cases which are made abundantly clear. If the people in any locality petition against it, 1 do not think there is any board of railway commissioners that would give permission to a railway company to enter upon the streets of a municipality unless it were very necessary that such permission should he granted. Take for instance, a case where a street railway or an electric railway traversed through several rural townships or villages. Supposing that there was one municipality at one end which was in favour of granting the company this power and petitioned for it, and supposing that at the other end another municipality was also in favour of giving this permission to the company, but that between these two was a third municipality which was opposed, which for some reason or other declined to fall into line with the other two, and said : We don't want this tramway running upon our streets, we won't give them permission. Would it be right that one township or one village should be able to hold up the whole enterprise ? If an instance of this kind occurred, and the law was changed, as the hon. gentleman suggests, there would be no remedy ; if it occurred under the existing provisions of our Bill, there would be a remedy, because they could go to the board and show the board what the difficulty was, and the board would have the power to decide the question. Now in ail these cases there ought to be some controlling power, some independent tribunal, which would consider such a difficulty from an independent standpoint and pass upon it. I do not think it would be advisable to carry this clause, and, therefore, I hope the hon. gentleman will not press it. If he does I will have to ask the committee not to accept it.


David Henderson: The case I have in my mind is one where I am sure the municipalities want the electric railway that will ask for a charter to-morrow night but they do not want the electric railway to run along the streets or highways, at any rate, without their having something to say as to the conditions on which they should do so.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Put that in the Bill.


David Henderson: The very fact that the Bill, as we have it now, makes provision that the consent of a city or incorporated town must be obtained and that no reference whatever is made to a township or village corporation to my mind would lead to the conclusion that they would not have the right to make any remonstrance to the board before the board adjudicated upon the matter although the hon. minister has told us that the board would not be likely to deal with it until they had heard from the municipalities.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Railway Committee of the Privy Council has never dealt with such a case without hearing from the municipalities.


David Henderson: This is possible, but I dare say that under the law as it existed before, there was no such distinction between an incorporated town and an incorporated village. Here there is such a distinction. We are to have a board on which certain rights and powers are conferred by the statute. It may well say to one : We will listen to you, and to the other : We are not called upon to listen to you. I would like to take the sense of the committee on that resolution, because I know the intense feeling that prevails in my county in reference to this very matter, and I would not be doing my duty did I not urge upon the hon. minister to grant us the same rights as have been accorded to the city of Toronto and accorded to a small town in my own county. I refer to the town of Oakville.
The MINISTER OF RAILW^xS AND CANALS. We had better strike them all out probably.


David Henderson: I am quite satisfied.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: While I do not pretend to talk about railway matters, I must call the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to an incident that occurred in the county of Peel when I was a member of the county council. An electric railway company came to the county council and asked for liberty to run its track along a certain part of the highway, but the council flatly refused because it was thought that accidents would result to farmers with their horses and cattle on the highway if street cars were allowed to be run there. The county council took the view that if the electric railway were a paying affair the promoters should be compelled to buy their right of way the same as any other railway company. * It is very annoying to farmers, particularly with young horses, to go out on the highway and meet an electric railway ear. I think that the rights of rural municipalities should be recognized in this matter as well as those of cities. If an electric railway is a paying enterprise the company should be compelled to buy their right of way in the direction which they wish to go. The county of Peel absolutely refused to grant this company running rights over a certain road from Toronto to Oakville. I know that in our section of the country the people are opposed to allowing electric railways to be established on the highways, because of the difficulty they have with young horses. Street ears can be controlled on the road and no damage will be done to them, but if their operation on the highways is legalized by legislation they have a right to run Mr. HENDERSON.
there and in the event of damage being done to people in vehicles drawn by horses which are not manageable, the injured parties have no redress. I think the rights of municipalities should be guarded as well as those of cities and towns.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Post Office Department-salaries, $224,480.
['Also the postmaster at Dead Creek.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 2 a.m., Wednesday.', '\n\nWednesday, July 8, 1903.']
Edward Frederick Clarke: In the legislation which has passed this House respecting railway mail clerks, provision has been made to increase the salaries of these officials. Is it the intention of the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) to provide for any increase in the salaries of railway transfer agents ? These are men who are connected with the railway mail service and who transfer the mails from train to train at divisional points and elsewhere. I have been asked to put that question to the Postmaster General.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: The Act, passed last session, makes provision for increases in the salaries of the railway mail transfer agents.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does not that say ' hereafter appointed ' ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It also contains a provision allowing them during the six months to come in under the provisions of the Act.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have been asked if it is the intention to increase the salaries of those officials Who handle the mails at the different divisional points of the railway.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They will come in under the Bill at present before the Senate.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They are provided for ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There are post office clerks who are now sent out on a line to assist the railway mail clerks for the purpose of accelerating the delivery of letters by the first delivery. They practically do the work of the railway mail clerks and they are liable to the same risks, but they are not provided for. Is it the intention of the Postmaster General to grant these gentlemen mileage ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: These are post office clerks and they are eligible for the promotions that the Bill which has passed this House contemplates.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Their occupation when engaged on railway service is more hazardous than when employed in the post office.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No doubt.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it not fair that these gentlemen should have mileage for the time they are on duty on the trains', as well as the railway mail clerks V The POSTMASTER GENERAL. I do not think so. They are not fully responsible like railway mail clerks and they only make a run for a short distance. They retain their status as post office clerks.


William Findlay Maclean: Would the Postmaster General tell the House what progress has been made towards the introduction of rural mail delivery.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have not yet reached a conclusion upon that subject. I have had it looked into by the officers to a considerable extent, but it is a very large and serious question indeed. Some very wild statements have been made from time to time as to its supposed paying character, but I do not know that they are founded on fact. The| United States Post Office Department is going through an ordeal just now over it. They voted millions upon millions for the service, and the first reports made by their officers seemed to indicate that it was remunerative. It now turns out that a number of the high officials responsible for that service are under criminal indictment for frauds of vafious kinds, and I am inclined to think! that their reports in regard to the service have not been reliable. Questions are now engaging the attention of the criminal courts of the United States and we are not warranted up to this moment in taking the records of the United States in this respect as a safe guide. It is estimated that it will cost the United States some $25,000,000 to establish a system of even a limited character. We should approach that matter with very great care in order not to make mistakes. Should the system be established in Canada, although we might in the first instance throw safeguards around it yet, it might naturally lead us into a very serious financial problem. I have not been able to reach a conclusion in favour of the important step of establishing a. rural mail delivery in Canada. I do not wish to take any attitude against! ,jt, and my present opinion is that it is wise to defer reaching a conclusion until the system has been longer on trial in the United States.


Haughton Lennox: I do not dispute the proposition of the Postmaster General in any way, but I would like to ask him whether he has considered the carrying on of an experiment in the matter without adopting any policy in reference to rural mail delivery ? Would it not be possible for him to, select some limited section of the country and make an experiment with regard to it V Has the hon. gentleman made any inquiry into tliis svstem outside of the examination of the United States postal records ? I know that there is a strong feeling among a considerable portion of the rural community that they would like to have this service,
and they have asked their representatives to urge it upon the Post Office Department, that if they can undertake the service without any unjustifiable expense the Post Office Department should do so as soon as possible.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In reply to the hon. gentleman's inquiry as to whether the department has any data other than the official postal records, I have to say that some of the officers of the Post Office Department have visited the actual routes traversed by some of the rural mail-carriers and have informed themselves as accurately as possible, from actual observation of the work, as to the extent of the mail matter which is being carried, and they report the greatest discrepancy between the number of pieces of mail matter carried on those occasions by the couriers and the official returns of the same trips. Speaking from memory, I believe that in one instance tlie official return of the number of letters supposed to be carried on a certain route was near 500, while by actual count by one of my officers, the number was forty-eight or thereabouts, which shows how unreliable the official report was in that instance. I am not in a position to characterize all the reports in the same way-far from it; I would not be warranted in doing that. But that was the result of the count in that instance, and my officer was in actual communication with the couriers themselves. As to experimenting, that would be the only safe way to proceed ; but even in that case it would be necessary to select representative routes and districts and to provide proper safeguards. I suggested to one of the officers who has been studying the matter particularly, to endeavour to devise a set of regulations or specifications which would be safe to follow in a test of that kind. As yet he has not been able to do so. Probably this fall the officers will make another trip and investigate further. We have investigated in many states almost from the Atlantic to west of Detroit, in order that we may reach safe conclusions. I can only say that it is a subject of such importance that it can only be approached after the fullest investigation. I should rejoice if during my tenure as Postmaster General I could have the honour of inaugurating a system which is apparently of such great convenience to the rural people, but I would not wish, for the sake of a personal pleasure and satisfaction, to take a step that might result disastrously to the country.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to ask the minister if lie has brought down a copy of the affidavit that has to be subscribed tc by persons who tender for supplies ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 1 have not that to-night, but I shall have a supplementary estimate, and all the information I promised last night I will bring down.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will tile minister also bring down a copy of the form of' tender for tile work of collecting from the letter boxes, serving the railway station, and so on ; and copies of the tenders received in the city of Toronto, and the contract that is now in force ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will bring those down.


Richard Blain: Might I ask the hon. minister who receives the rent of the post office boxes in the post offices of country towns ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The postmaster, for renting the boxes, is allowed to retain half the revenue, and the other half goes to the government.


Richard Blain: Can the hon. minister say about how much is received in ills department altogether from the rents of post office boxes?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have not the figures, but I will bring them down.


Mr. BENNETT.: What is the practice in the department in reference to the" repairs to mail bags ? Are tenders called for that work, or is it given out to anybody the minister may prefer ? Also, how is the supply of boots for letter-carriers in the cities purchased-by tender or by preference ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The repairs to mail bags are not given out by tender ; they are given out by the department at the discretion of the minister. As to the purchase of boots, I think the practice has been to have them made in different cities, and sent to the cities where the postmen live.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have been looking over the Auditor General's Report, and I find that a great deal of expense apparently is incurred owing to the fact that the minister has seen fit to have the mail bags in a very large part of the province of Ontario sent for repairs to the riding which he has the honour to represent, I presume to party friends of his own. I also find that the boots for the letter-carriers, to be worn in different cities, not only in the province of Ontario, but outside the province of Ontario, are in turn bought from people in the north riding of York, who, I am sure, are not in a large way of business. It seems to me that if tenders were asked for this work, it could be done a great deal more cheaply than it is. Now, I find the following items for last year :
Watson, W., Aurora, supplies, boots__________ $ 189
Watson, W., Aurora, supplies, boots.... 77

In other words, the hon. minister has taken this large amount of patronage aggregating about $7,400, right to his party friends in his own riding, and given it to them without any competition. It does seem odd also that when boots are required in Brantford for the letter-carriers, they have to be purchased in Aurora. I find also the hon. minister sends his mail bags to the little town of Aurora to be repaired by his party friends, and that it costs $73 to cart them back and forward from the railway station. The returns of the hon. gentleman show that in Ontario there are letter-carriers, who carry the mail bags daily to and from the post offices, who do not receive more than $73 the whole year, yet the hon. gentleman pays that much for sending the mail bags to his own party friends to be repaired. In former years these mail bags were repaired at 15 cents a piece, but in order to favour his party friends in his own riding and to pay them for their party services, he gives 25 cents a piece for repairs. Why should the hon. gentleman graft all this work among his own party supporters In his own riding ? He will not give a contract for the carriage of a mail bag between a railway station and a post office without inviting tenders, but he has no scruples about dividing $7,400 for work and material among his own party friends in his own constituency. Even away down in St. John, the boots for the letter-carriers there are purchased in the little town of Aurora. It is due to the country that the hon. gentleman, who boasts so much of the economy practised in his department, should explain why he grafts this money among his own party friends, and why he does not give the town of Brantford a chance to supply the boots worn by the letter-carriers of that place, and the town of St. John the opportunity of providing boots for its letter-carriers. I am free to admit that the hon. minister has to face somewhat severe competition in his riding, for we know from the public press that Mr. Davis, the Minister of Crown Lands of Ontario, lias handed over a very valuable timber concession to King Bros., of Newmarket, and no doubt the hon. Postmaster General feels bound to do as much as he possibly can to off-set this liberality of the Ontario minister to his party friends.


Farcly.   T.@: , Newmarket, repairs, bags.... $ 550
Hall, Chas. H. King, repairs, bags		1,997
Willis, W. & Son, Aurora, bags, &c		2,383
Winter, T. H., Aurora, cartage, bags______	73
Fleury & Sons, Aurora, supplies	 1,302
Hastings, W., Aurora, supplies	 196


Willis.   W.@: & Son, Aurora, supplies	 117
Watson, W., Aurora, supplies, boots_______	189
Watson, W., Aurora, supplies, boots		207
Fleury & Sons, Aurora, supplies, boots.. 48


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman complains in the first instance of the payment of $73 for the cartage of the bags from the station at Aurora. Well' no matter where the bags are repaired, it is necessary to pay for their carriage. The bags are collected at different centres, and have to be taken to the repair shops, whether at Aurrra or at any


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: other place. I am not aware why Aurora, though it may be a small place, is not entitled to some consideration. As to the rate of 15 cents paid by the former administration, there is less spent on repairing bags now than then. It is quite true that I have increased the rate to 25 cents. I first increased it to 20 cents and then to 25, but when the late government paid 15 cents, they must have sent a great many bags to be repaired which did not need any repairing, and the result was that under the old system considerably more was spent per year than we do at present. For a period of six years before the present government took office, it cost annually $7,765 to repair the bags, at the rate of 15 cents, and under the present system it only costs $7,065 to repair them, although the rate Is 25 cents. In other words, we are paying $669 per year less in the last six years. I do not see why the constituency I represent is not entitled to some consideration. Most constituencies in some form or other, come in for government patronage. The hon. gentleman thinks that my constituency should not have any.


William Humphrey Bennett: No, what I said was that the boots for the letter-carriers in St. John were purchased in Aurora, and it would have been much cheaper to have purchased them in St. John.


The POSTMASTER.GENERAL.: St. John gets its attention from the government in many ways. It is a seaport town and has been equipped with public works at a very large expense. While the cities of this Dominion have benefited by government expenditure, very little is done in the rural constituencies in the way of public works, and they are therefore entitled to some attention in a matter of this kind. At all events the country has got good value for the work done.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Postmaster General is to be congratulated on his frankness if on nothing else. He admits that no tenders are called for for this large amount of supplies-it runs up into the thousands of dollars-though there is every reason to believe that if public competition were invited prices would be lessened very considerably. But the frankest confession he made is that all this is done simply to strengthen his own political position. While he is supposed to have a very strong riding politically, those gentlemen who supp rthim and who may have very close ridings and are not to have the benefit of any patronage though it might strengtheh them. Hon. gentlemen like the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) are thus informed that when supplies are to be. purchased for use in Brantford they will be purchased in such a fashion as to strengthen the Postmaster General's back politically, even at the expense of others. It is most unfair that
public money should be spent, not with a view to the best results in the public service but to strengthen the political position of the Postmaster General. And lam sure that the House and the country will be surprised to know that the Postmaster General, after all his boast of economy and statesmanship in the management of the department, is down to the lowest kind of grafting in the management of the patronage under his control. I congratulate the Conservatives of North York, for the Postmaster General must be getting mightily afraid of the results in his own riding when he finds it necessary to resort to such means of strengthening his position.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is rather an extraordinary admission the Postmaster General made in reply to the hon. gentleman from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett! that boots required by the letter-carriers, say in the city of St. John, are purchased in Aurora or some other place hundreds of miles away. And the hon. Postmaster General explained that as the city of St. John had a certain amount of other patronage, therefore he was not bound to buy the goods there. Are these the methods adopted by a business administration-goods to be bought from party friends, and the excuse given that other patronage is given to the place where one would naturally expect those supplies to be bought ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) expect me to answer ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would be glad to have the hon. gentleman answer in due course.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will answer the hon. gentleman when he takes his seat.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have another question to ask the Postmaster General. He made the statement that under the previous administration bags cost fifteen cents each to repair, but that bags were sent to the repair shop that did not require to be repaired. May I ask how he obtained that information ? Did he personally examine the bags and ascertain that they were out of repair, or did he get the information from some official of the department ? And if he obtained the information from an official of a fraud of that kind perpetrated upon the country, has he ever called to account the official who was responsible for it ? It is hardly fair for the hon. gentleman to throw responsibility upon his predecessor unless he can show that he has brought to book the officers who were immediately responsible for this dereliction of duty. Now. I would be glad if the hon. Postmaster General would answer my questions.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The bon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) has asked me two questions.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Three, I think.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Very well, let us begin with the last. What I said was that it casts more to repair bags under the former system than under the present system. It might be said that any bag needed repair that was in the slightest degree broken. But, in the absence of proper supervision of sending bags for repair, many must have been sent before they were actually in need of repair ; we are sending now those only that require it. The result is that the work does not cost the government nearly so much-not by something over $600 a year. Another question is as to boots made for the letter-carriers who work in the city of St. John. It never was the practice of the department to make boots in the city where the letter-carriers work. I was told by the superintendent of the stores branch, an officer who has been in charge for many years-he is not here this evening, but I give his explanation as I recollect, it-that when boots were made in the town where the letter-carriers live the letter-carriers insisted upon boots different from the regulation pattern. The result was a lack of uniformity and also the purchase of boots'in many cases that had not the wear in them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was that the sole reason ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, that was the sole reason. It appeared to me at the time rather an extraordinary explanation, and I was inclined to disregard it, but the superintendent was clear on the point and I yielded to his judgment. What was the third question the hon. gentleman asked ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have forgotten what the third question was.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: So have I.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Now, we come to a crucial point with regard to these supplies. Is the union label attached to these boots, when they are sent to St. John ? And are the people who furnish the boots required to make affidavit that they are made by union labour paid for at the highest rate of wages ? How are the men who wear the boots to know whether they were made under union conditions or not ? And does the hon. minister exact a similar affidavit with regard to the mail bags How does he make sure that the contract is done under the conditions imposed a year and a half ago ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: As regards the mail bags, the men who make the repairs are obliged to ipay certain wages to their workmen engaged in this work.


William Mulock: Formerly there was no such provision. When an increased allowance was made to the man who has the work of repairing it was accompanied with the condition that he should pay an increased rate of wage to those who did the work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the rate of wages paid for repairing bags under the old regime, and what is the rate now ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know the rate of wages paid to the workmen engaged in repairing under the old government. At first, on taking office I did not inquire as to the wages being paid by the employer. Subsequently, when increasing the allowance the chief object I had in view was to enable the employer to pay a fair wage, I do not know whether there is an affidavit of the wages paid on these small jobs. But an affidavit is required in the case of the manufacturers making the bags. Each account sent in for work done is accompanied by the affidavit of the employer or his foreman testifying to the scale of wages that it is the rate required to be paid under the rules of the department. In the contract itself the rate of wages required to be paid is set forth, and the amount to be paid as verified by the affidavit must show that it is not less than the minimum wage set forth in the contract, otherwise they would not be entitled to payment. But I will bring down that evidence.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who fixes the minimum rate ? Is this where the fairwage officer gets his work in ? Who determines in the various localities what should be the minimum wage ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The only contract of this kind, I think, is in the city of Toronto, except a very small contract made with Mr. Willis, of Aurora. The contract was let some years ago by tender for the manufacture of mail bags. They are of two classes, those of canvass and those of leather chiefly. The public accounts will show what these contracts cost per annum. But the small bags made by Mr. Willis are very trifling in amount. The chief contract is for the manufacture of the ordinary mail bags that are sent everywhere with His Majesty's mails. A large number are used per annum, and the contract w&s a very substantial one. That was let by tender to the Ottawa Supply Company. That contract was made long prior to the establishment of a Labour Department, or thei appointment of a fair wage officer. I think I am correct in saying that it was let in the year 1898. On that occasion I myself made inquiries of certain representatives of labour in the city of, Ottawa, ana submitted to them the question what would be a fair wage to be paid by the contractor for the manufacture

of these mail bags. The persons to whom I applied for information called a meeting of the representative work people in this city who were doing the kind of work involved in making these mail bags, and they made a report to me, setting forth what in their opinion was a fair prevailing wage in the city of Ottawa, and that wage was adopted in connection with the contract.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What contracts have been let since then ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The contract only ran out a few months ago, and it has recently been relet, I do not know whether it is yet signed. I think it is only a week or two since the deputy informed me of the result of the tenders. I have no doubt he has adopted the same method, but he would not have to take the same trouble. But I have no doubt the same principle is applied, and that the minimum wage is set forth in the contract.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are these the only two contracts ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I said there is a small contract for bags let to Willis & Sons, of Aurora. But .it is a trifling one, the Auditor General's Report will show it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are these the only two contracts in which the minimum wage is fixed ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think these are the only two.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would be sorry to think the Postmaster General has erred in the direction of purchasing supplies without competition every year as badly as he did last year. But I find this pernicious habit dates back a couple of years, and it may go beyond that. I find that in 1900, C. H. Hall, of the village of King, for repairs, obtained $1,420. W. Willis, Aurora, obtained $1,600 for supplies. And again in the same year, $275 for supplies. Then comes the year 1901. I find : C. H. Hall, King, repairing and cartage, $1,845; Willis & Sons, Aurora, $1,815; T. H. Winter, carting, $29; Willis & Sons, supplies, $165; W. Watson, boots for Brantford, $27; W. Watson, boots for Hamilton, $175; W. Watson, boots for St. Johns, $202. May I ask the minister if all these goods were supplied without tenders being asked for, and was the work also done without tenders being asked for ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The work of repairs which the hon. gentleman has mentioned was not let by tender and never has been, either by the preceding government or by the present one. I don't think it would be possible to invite tenders for boots unless you had them all made at one place. But I do not think unreasonable I 193
prices were paid, the prices were certified to be fair and reasonable. There Is no mystery about the cost of making a pair of boots for a letter-carrier. The contract held by Willis & Sons for making mail bags is for a trifling amount per annum.


William Humphrey Bennett: I find that this last year this gentleman Mr. Winter, received $74 simply for the cartage of these old mail bags back and forward to the place where the repairs were made. It seems to me a most exorbitant sum to pay a man for doing a little carting. The committee will be astonished to know that Mr. Winter gets $74 when it is by grace of the member of his county, the Postmaster General, but when Mr. Winter has to enter into open competition to carry ordinary mail bags back and forth from the train, he is pleased to make twenty-four trips a week, four trips every day in the year, except Sundays, for the sum of $120. In public competition this man goes back and forward four times every working day in the year for $120; but when he is permitted simply to put his hand into the public chest without leave or license, he is paid $74. I think that other men throughout the country who are forced to go into public competition to perform mail courier service at low rates, will be astonished to find that a constituent and a strong political supporter of the Postmaster General is treated in this most kindly manner.


The TOSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is a little difference in the task of carrying a small quantity of mail matter to and from the station and carrying wagon loads of bags, which involves a good deal of labour and perhaps more appliances. The bags are bulky, and a man would have to have a wagon ana horse, and to handle and rehandle the bags. That is different from merely going to the station for a small amount of mail matter.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would like to ask the Postmaster General this question. I find by reference to the report of 1900 that a firm called the Ottawa Supply Company furnished $11,630 worth of supplies, that in the year 1901 they furnished $16,500 worth of supplies and that last year they supplied $15,338 worth. May I ask if these supplies were furnished under public competition, and moreover, who the Ottawa Supply Company are ? I have searched the directory and they seem to have no place of business.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know the personnel of the Ottawa Supply Company, and I never did know. I know they tendered recently again and lost the contract. As to whether these contracts were made by public tender or not, I am not able to say, but I think tenders were invited. I can recollect having a considerable number of tenders submitted to me by the superintendent of the stores branch.



[Stage Direction]
There was| a fair system of tendering and *the -work was obtained at fair prices, at much more advantageous prices than those paid under the former administration.
William Humphrey Bennett: Do I understand the hon. minister to say that tenders were not called for but that the goods were supplied at what the department considered fair prices ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not make such a statement.


William Humphrey Bennett: Were public tenders invited, and if so was the Ottawa Supply Company the lowest tenderer for this large amount ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Speaking from memory only, while tenders were not publicly invited, tenders were invited by circular from reliable persons and the contract was awarded in competition and the Ottawa Supply Company obtained the contract as the lowest tenderer. That is my recollection, and I am sure it is the case, because I can recall the circumstances of the superintendent having extended the tenders in the book. We have a book in which all tenders are entered as they are opened, extended, and then brought to me if necessary, but not necessarily, because, in regard to the last tenders I do not think the book was brought to me. I think the deputy Informed me who was the successful tenderer, but at an earlier stage I took a more detailed part in the work of the department. The cost under the system in existence now has been less than under the former system. Under the contract with the Ottawa Supply Company the cost of mail bags was less and materially less than under the system in force when I took office.


William Humphrey Bennett: I must protest against this way of conducting business in the hon. gentleman's department. I think it is utterly unfair that the hon. Postmaster General should discriminate in the way he does. Assuming that a courier service is to be undertaken between two points, if it should not be for any more than for $100, tenders are called for and public competition is invited. I believe that the lowest tenderer does receive the contract, but here are $42,000 worth of supplies purchased and the hon. minister frankly states to the committee that when he requires $42,000 worth of goods he is uot going to ask for public com petition, but an official in his department will ask certain gentlemen if they wish to tender and the lowest tenderer receives the contract. I do not think that is a businesslike proposition and I say there should be open, honest, fair competition when such a large amount as $42,000 worth is to be purchased. May I ask the hon. minister who he, or the officers of the department, have met in connection with the tender of the Ottawa Supply Company and is it not a .Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
fact that the Ottawa Supply Company has no place of business in Ottawa, that they are a company only in name, and that they are intermediaries who buy for other persons ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know that there is the slightest foundation for such a statement.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where is their place of business in the city ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am sure that such a company has a place ott' business in the city of Ottawa. It could not be otherwise. We have never heard of their being middlemen. Their affidavit will show who the members of the company are. As to the personnel I do not know.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the hon. Postmaster General know that Mr. Ronan who is now and has been for a number of years, secretary to the Liberal Whip is one of the parties concerned in the Ottawa Supply Company, and the most prominent one ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am told that at one time Mr. Ronan was interested in the company but that he has long since ceased to have any interest in it whatever.


William Humphrey Bennett: Had he an interest in it within the past three years when the supplies were purchased to which I have made reference ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I could not say when his interest ceased.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You do not know when his interest ceased ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No. I do not know whether it has ceased or not. but we can get that Information.


Mr. CLANCY.: Since the hon. Postmaster General is able to obtain that much information in regard to Mr. Ronan, how is it that he is so hazy about the balance of the question that has been asked; namely, if Mr. Ronan has been out of the company for three years ? Surely his officer can tell him who the company is composed of now, and where its place of business is. It seems very extraordinary that so much information can be furnished and that nothing else is forthcoming.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think any hon. gentleman should make any such imputation as that. The Ottawa Supply Company, I presume, is a company of honest business people. I do hot think we are called upon to reflect upon people and to suggest that there is any such thing as a fictitious company. If the hon. gentleman has any information upon that point, I would be glad to get it. All we know is that there was such a company and thaft they supplied good work under the conditions of the contract. If the hon. gentle-

man has any reason to suppose chat there is anything improper let him say so. I will assist him in any way he desires to get any information in connection with the purchase of mail bags.
Mr. iGLANCY. If there is no information to be had it seems that I will have to furnish it. His officer 'told him in the last five minutes all about Mr. Honan. His officer knows who Mr. Ronan is and who the company is. If there is no suspicion about it the bon. gentleman is casting suspicion himself by his own conduct. Surely the hon. gentleman does not expect this committee to assume that neither he nor his officer knows anything about this company ? The hon. gentleman says he is concealing nothing. If he has been doing business with a firm for some years and if it is not a fictitious firm, surely the hon. gentleman can -tell the place of business of that firm in Ottawa. The hon. gentleman should not put it upon the committee to furnish this information. If they are not middlemen the hon. gentleman has created the suspicion that such is the case. This committee ought to know whether we are dealing with a merely fictitious company which is getting a portion of the profits to which it is not entitled. I say that, in view of the statement that public competition was not asked for. To how many persons were these circulars sent out ? Unless the hon. gentleman can tell us all this he will lie under suspicion himself.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What suspicion are you talking about ?


James Clancy: He has left himself open to the suspicion of just what any person would draw a fair conclusion from unless he can tell what this company is.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: ' There is such a thing as decency to be observed in discussing public questions. I told the hon. gentleman I know nothing about this company, but he has made an insinuation, and if he wishes I will have a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee and have the people connected with that company subpcenaed and give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) an opportunity of ascertaining everything he likes about it. I don't know what he means by suggesting that there is any suspicion about it. Is that proper language for a member to use in this House ? You can read about a company in the newspaper, but that does not give you any idea about the personnel of the company. I have no doubt that the officers are perfectly familiar with the persons who are actively connected with that company, and we have at the head of that branch as honest and as efficient an officer as there is in the public service, Mr. Sydney Smith. It is not possible that this could have been a fictitious company for five years and he not to report it. Tim 193J	.
country has been furnished with goods of excellent material at far less cost than under the old system, and yet we are told that that company may be a fictitious company, acting for some one else. I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that suggestion or we will have a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, and we will investigate. Either one thing or the other. I will not let the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) make an insinuation of that kind against my department.


James Clancy: That dire threat will not terrorize this side of the House much. If we are to lay down a code of good morals and good taste, I think the Postmaster General as well as myself might go to the same school. His role of injured innocence does not amount to much. The Public Accounts Committee has enough to do without investigating matters that the Postmaster General should know about off hand. He has one of the chief officers at his elbow, who may be able to inform him. I have not insinuated that this was a fictitious company.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: You have.


James Clancy: I have not. If there is any suspicion about it it has been created by the Postmaster General himself, who cannot, or will not give the information. This company does not seem to have any record in the city directory, and it is very easy for the Postmaster General to answer whether there is such a company or not. Private tenders were sent out to the friends of the government, which, as a matter of fact, is no tender at all, and they were sent under such conditions which always gives to the middleman, who is a friend of the government, an opportunity to get hold of these things. I have not said that it is a fictitious company, but it has the appearance of it until the hon. gentleman explains it away.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman suggests that the experienced officer of the department who is present can give me the information. There are 300 experienced officers in the department, but each is not familiar with every branch.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Which has to do with the tenders ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The department called ' stores ' of which Mr. Sydney Smith is the head.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A very reliable officer too.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He was here last night, and I do not see why he is not here now, but I presume he thought that the estimates would not be reached to-night. However, Mr. Ronan, who the

officer informs me was in the company, is at present an employee of this House, and I will try to get some information from him. I am now informed that the Ottawa Supply Company has its place of business at the corner of Lyon and Sparks streets, in the city of Ottawa.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the capital stock ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have no idea. I am told that there are two persons in the company:	Christopher and
some one else Stratton. Mr. Ronan has ceased to have any interest in it.


Mr. EARLE.: Was he interested in the company at the time the contract was let V


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Richard Blain: About what amount of supplies is purchased for the department in twelve months ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The officer is not able to give me any information as to the amount, which is a fluctuating amount; but the Auditor General's Report will show what is paid out each year.


Richard Blain: Is not the hon. gentleman able to tell us what is the value of the supplies purchased by his department every year ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: A large part of the supplies are purchased through the Secretary of State's Department. The practice is for that department to purchase stationery supplies for all departments. A considerable portion of our miscellaneous expenditure is for stationery supplies, which include a great many classes of goods, such as letter paper, official paper, printing papers, wrapping papers, twine, wax, mucilage, inks, pens and various other articles. Then, there are other supplies such as bags, boots and uniforms.


Richard Blain: Can the hon. minister tell us whether it is the policy of his department to purchase supplies by tender, in so far as the tender system can be applied ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have spoken of the tenders we invite for the supply of bags. The rest of the supplies, which are chiefly stationery, will be found set out in the Auditor General's Report. I do not know how the Secretary of State gets his supplies, but he issues them to the various departments at some specified rate, I suppose corresponding to the rate at which he buys them.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that the hon. minister's department does not purchase a supply of stationery, ink, &c. V


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, we do not purchase them. They are issued to us by the Secretary of State's department. |


William Mulock: 


Richard Blain: With that answer in mind, would the hon. minister give us an explanation of this item : George Bailey, Ottawa, 180 quarts of ink, at $2.25 per quart.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is not ink used in the department, but it is ink used by the postmasters for stamping. That is not the kind.of supply that is in stock for general distribution amongst the various departments.


Richard Blain: Then we are to understand that the policy does not hold good, but that the hon. gentleman's department does purchase very large quantities of stationery, including ink. I see another item :	180
pints, at $1.75 per pint. I may say that that one item of George Bailey, Ottawa, amounts to $3,916. Will the hon. gentleman tell us whether tenders were asked for these supplies ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am not able to give the information. It is a sort of printers' ink used for stamping.


Richard Blain: Another item is the Crown Tailoring Company, Toronto, $1,801. Another is Caldwell, Boyd & Co., Lanark, material for letter-carriers' uniforms, 1,249 yards, at $1.75, and 140 yards, at $1.15, making a total of $2,347. There are three items, page S-43, making a total of about $6,500. Will the minister say whether tenders were asked for these supplies. While I am on my feet, I would like the minister to tell us whether it is the policy of his department in the purchasing of supplies, to ask for tenders, and what proportion of the supplies purchased year by year are purchased under tender, that splendid system which the hon. minister advocated when in opposition, and which indeed was one of the planks of the platform of his party. What I want to know is whether the hon. gentleman has forgotten all that, or whether he is applying what he advocated in opposition to the purchase of supplies for his department ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman has referred me to page S-43 of the Auditor General's Report, and the first name I find there is that of the American Bank Note Company, which received the sum of $23,305 for printing postage stamps, &c. The contract was let about the year 1897. There was at that time another company here doing business, the British American Bank Note Company, and the government invited tenders from these two companies, and awarded the contract to the American Bank Note Company. That contract has, I think, expired and been renewed. I am not aware of there being many persons from whom to invite to tender for that class of work. The tender was awarded. As a result of that tendering, the Minister of Finance explained to the House that the government had effected a saving of something like $150,000 or $160,000. As to

the Crown Tailoring Company's contract, that was obtained after tenders were invited by circular


Edward Frederick Clarke: From whom ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have not got a list of the names. The contract was awarded as a result of that system of tendering, which, in the case of goods of that kind, I think is quite a proper system. As to Bailey, his supplies were ink, &c., and I do not know whether tenders were called for or not. He supplies a number of articles, letter boxes, locks, pens, ink, and other small items.	.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Where does the hon. the minister get his letter boxes ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Some are made in Aurora.


Samuel Hughes: They are very badly made.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Which ones ?


Samuel Hughes: The boxes that open with keys. In Lindsay they are not fit to use.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: These were put in when the public building was erected, and they were put in by my predecessors, but there have been great improvements of later years in the design of letter-boxes, and I do not think that it will be said that the lock letter-boxes now are not good. The last letter-boxes put in were in connection with station C in Toronto. I think the design is a credit to the company, and a great advantage to the country.


Samuel Hughes: Has the hon. gentleman found the letter from Mr. Million that he promised to bring ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where were the postal bags made ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: At the corner of Lyon and Sparks street.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is at the Butler House-a hotel.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are several corners.


William Humphrey Bennett: The other one is a public market.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He may not have meant literally on the corner. The factory is over a store called the Stratton grocery store, where these bags are made.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: The hon. minister has not told us whether the $16,000 of supplies got from the Ottawa Supply Company were got by tender.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The contract was let several years ago, and
tenders were invited from a number of qualified persons, and the invitations were not confined to our friends. I think that we invited tenders from the people who had been supplying the late government. There was good competition, and the prices were materially less than previously.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What were the prices paid previously?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I cannot say, but I remember my superintendent telling me that there was a very material reduction.	,


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were all those invited to tender on the patronage list ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the practice. Are circulars sent only to persons who are lucky enough to be on the patronage list ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know whether there is any regular practice prevailing. In my department l endeavour to see that circulars are sent to competent men. We do not always get satisfactory results from advertising for tenders for certain classes of goods. For example, suppose you advertise for clothing, you may adopt a very strict specification and not get satisfactory results, as to the character and material and so on. If the contract is let very low and the contractor is not going to make money, he will endeavour to save himself by furnishing inferior goods. That is one of the chief drawbacks of the tender system. It is found in many instances wiser to invite tenders from persons of recognized standing in the trade.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How do they get on the patronage list ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If the hon. gentleman has any worthy manufacturer he desires to have put on the patronage list, all he has to do is to send to some minister the name of that person.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Suppose I were to send some one to the hon. gentleman, would he put him on the list ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I dare say I would, if the hon. gentleman will let this item through.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister has not answered two of the questions I put him. I see the firm of Geo. Bailey & Company, of Ottawa, was paid $3,916.15 ; Caldwell Boyd & Company, Lanark, $2,347.99, and Pritchard, Andrews & Company, of Ottawa, $7,905.08. Were tenders asked for in these cases ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The prices paid Pritchard, Andrews & Company for the miscellaneous articles purchased

from them are the regular set prices. I do not see how we could possibly have invited tenders, because the articles purchased are small matters of a great variety, and but few of each description. For instance, they comprise four numbering machines, brass buttons, cast iron plates for letter-boxes, steel stamp with crown, and a lot of other miscellaneous articles. With reference to the scales, I think tenders were invited. There are not very many scale makers in Canada, but notices were sent to Messrs. Gurney & Company, of Hamilton, some firm in Montreal and Pritchard, Andrews & Company, here, and perl'aps others. The scales required for the post office must be well made, because they must do delicate weighing. Therefore, it would not do to accept tenders except from makers who are known to be able to make scales of the quality required by the department. My impression is that Pritchard, Andrews & Company have made a specialty of manufacturing these post office scales for many years. They supplied the department long before I came into office, as hon. gentlemen can see by turning up the public accounts of former years. I am under the impression-still, I may be doing them an injustice -that we cannot even claim them as our political friends.


Richard Blain: I rather differ with the hon. minister as to an account of $7,900 as being so small that it is not worth-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not say that.


Richard Blain: I stand corrected. Do I understand the hon. minister to say that the account of the Pritchard and Andrews Company consisted of such items as could not well be tendered for ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Some of them.


Richard Blain: I see one item of 927 stamps at $3.75. That I should look upon as an order worth tendering for if the policy of the department is to ask for tenders. I would not extend my remarks further on that point, but would just ask the hon. minister to say generally whether it is the policy of the department to ask for tenders for the supply of such articles as we have been discussing to-night ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are some classes of articles which are properly subjects for tenders, and some that cannot be made so. Take the account of the Pritchard and Andrews Company. It is a pity to go into details-


Richard Blain: I do not ask the hon. gentleman to do that.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman speaks of an account amounting to $7,905.08, and asks whether I do Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
not think that it would be made a subject for tender, I hardly think the question suggests a proper answer. The subject matter of the account, I think, would determine the answer much better than the amount. Here are some of the items in this account: Bate's numbering machine (5 wheels) 4 at $17.50-that is a little machine for paging-brass crown seals, 103 at 35 cents- that is something in connection with the coat of arms on the mail bags-Brass buttons, cleaned and burnished, 130 gross at 75 cents; cast iron plates for letter boxes, 10 at 50 cents; dated stamps, 927 at $3.75-


Richard Blain: How about that item ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: These people have been manufacturing these dated stamps for many years and have been recognized suppliers of the government. They are reliable people, and there is some nicety required in the manufacture of date stamps and they have become experts in that branch. Therefore, it is in the public interest that they should be allowed to continue the furnishing of these supplies. They are highly respectable people and reliable; and it is not the practice of the department, in supplies of that kind to have them made here and there. There is uniformity to be considered. Therefore, the custom has been to order from them. If there were a change of the government, I am sure our successors would do as we have done; we are following exactly in the footsteps of our predecessors.


Mr. POPE.: A pretty safe thing to do.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 
Richard Blain: I agree that it would not be possible to invite tenders for many of the items the hon. gentleman has referred to. We do not contend that it is possible to have tenders where the department requires one or two letter boxes, or wishes to have brass buttons burnished. But what I would like from the minister is an answer in a general way. Would he say whether it is the general policy of the department to call for tenders in the purchase of supplies. I see on two pages of the Auditor General's Report accounts for supplies and in all they amount to about $150,000. Is it the policy of the department to call for tenders in these large items or not ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The policy of the v department is to obtain supplies with reasonable competition where the goods are of a nature to be tendered for. In pursuance of that policy, tenders are invited for the furnishing of postage Stamps. I find one extension of this account amounts to $23,305. Then the next item is $3,309, dead letter stamps, &c. These are also furnished by the company under contract. Post cards, &c., $18,801. These goods have been also obtained in the same way. Letter cards, $2,104. Post bands, $1,878. There are about $50,000 worth of goods supplied by the American Bank Note Company as a result of tenders in the manner I have explained. The Crown Tailoring Company, Toronto, furnished goods to the value of $1,801, obtained by tender.


Richard Blain: Who is the Crown Tailoring Company ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The only person whose name I know is George Anderson.


Richard Blain: A Liberal candidate of East Toronto.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think so. His place of business is on Front street in the city of Toronto. I think the contract with Sanford & Co., of Hamilton, for uniforms, was also a result of tenders.


Richard Blain: Would it be fair to the hon. gentleman to state the case in this way : In no case does his department ask for public competition except in the narrow form of selecting business houses of good standing, and asking tenders from these ? But in no case does he ask for tenders by public competition, allowing every person to tender.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Not for supplies.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood the minister to say that he asks for tenders from those who are in the business of manufacturing the articles he wants, ouly from reliable firms. I would like to know how he can make that statement insofar as the Ottawa Supply Company are concerned. This supply company, I am informed, is composed of Stratton Bros., who run a little grocery store on a street in the outskirts of the city, and with them was an employee of the government who was supposed to manipulate this deal. Now this firm simply dickered out this contract. I am satisfied that the minister could have purchased by tender and public competition this $42,000 worth of goods supplied during three years, for much less than he paid these gentlemen. I am satisfied the minister would never have acted in that way if he were buying goods for his own use. In this instance, and in the instance of the Crown Tailoring
Company, he gave contracts to persons who are not in the business at all. He has admitted that he has been giving out large contracts, some $42,000 worth, to parties who were not in the business and never were, and had no means of manufacturing the goods they supplied. Now this Ottawa Supply Company are down here in addition for making wooden boxes. Now, they cannot manufacture wooden boxes in an upstairs place over a grocery store. They furnished 3,500 wooden boxes, which could have been purchased from some box factory much cheaper than from the Ottawa Supply Company. I would like to ask the minister who compose this Canadian Fostal Supply Company, in Montreal, who, for the rent of two mail marking machines, are paid $200. Would the miiiister state in what way these machines are used, and has the same company a contract for other cities ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman says that tenders were invited from persons who were not in the business, in the case of the Crown Tailoring Company of Toronto, and the Ottawa Supply Company. In regard to the Crown Tailoring Company, he is entirely in error. I never knew anything about the Ottawa Supply Company! But I do know that the place of business of the Crown Tailoring Company is situated on Front street, in Toronto, and the company is largely engaged in business. The hon. gentleman will find that store a short distance west of Yonge street, between that and York street. There is a very large establishment with the name of the Crown Tailoring Company. That I believe to be the headquarters of the company that has supplied the goods in question here. The hon. gentleman is in error when he says that they were not in the trade.


John Dowsley Reid: How about the Ottawa Supply Company ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have discussed that. The hon. gentleman was not here when we discussed that.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. I was here.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Then the hon. gentleman should know all about it. We made a contract with the Ottawa Supply Company as a result of fair competition with very substantial manufacturers of this city who were proper persons to supply bags. As a result of that competition this Ottawa Supply Company, being the lowest tenderers, obtained the contract and they have delivered the goods to us in accordance to the specifications and of good quality at much lower prices than were being paid under my predecessors at the time of the change of government. When their contract expired recently, tenders were again invited, they tendered and they lost the contract. Some other person got it. I do not know who.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. gentleman know who has the contract now ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have lust said that I do not know. It is only within the last month the deputy told me the result of the tendering.


Rufus Henry Pope: Are these public tenders ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have explained all that several times.


Rufus Henry Pope: Just in regard to that point.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have said that we invited tenders from reliable persons but not by advertisement. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid, Grenville) asked me about this account.
Canadian Postal Supply Company, Montreal, rent of two mail marking machines, twelve months, $400.
This is an invention for obliterating stamps on letters and it is a very rapid working machine. I do not know by whom it was invented but the firm of Dolphin & Hay in the United States supplied this machine to the United States government and we have had several of them installed in different offices throughout Canada. I think there are two in Montreal.


John Dowsley Reid: There are six in Montreal.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is one in Ottawa, two in Toronto, and there are some elsewhere. They do very rapid work and they are the best stamp cancelling machines up to date. I do not know anything about a company under the name of the Canadian Postal Supply Company. We made our arrangements with the American company. There are no such stamp cancelling machines made in Canada, and I do not know there are any made in the world that are as good as these. I am afraid to say how many stamps this machine will cancel in a minute, but the letters pass through the machine so rapidly that no one can county them. It takes several men to feed the machine. A wheel revolving at a high rate of speed separates each letter from the rest to be carried to the obliterating stamp. The stamps are obliterated as the letters pass the lines. Hon. gentlemen will remember seeing the long bars extending three inches across the envelope in the vicinity of the stamp. These are lines made by the stamp cancelling machine.


John Dowsley Reid: $200 a year seems rather a large amount for the rental of a machine. '


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They cannot be got any cheaper.


John Dowsley Reid: I was wondering whether these machines could be purchased.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, they cannot be purchased.


William Mulock: 


John Dowsley Reid: Therefore you are obliged to rent them.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They are not obtainable in the United States or saleable there, and we could not manufacture them.


James Clancy: On what principle are the cotton duck bags used by the department kept in repair 1


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The superintendent of stores branch, Mr. Sydney Smith, is in charge of that. I do not know what principle he adopts. He, I suppose, gives instructions throughout Canada that when bags get out of repair they should be returned to the stores to be dealt with. He has his officers and I suppose they overhaul the bags and have those repaired that require repairing. At one time there was a good deal of laxity in the matter of returning bags, and there was trouble between the department and the general public in seeing that bags were returned. Occasionally mail bags are sent out to private citizens. I dare say the hon. gentleman had occasionally had a mail bag delivered to him if he had a large amount of mail matter. The department is constantly endeavouring to get traces of these bags. Sometimes newspaper people get the bags and so on. The stores branch gather them in and overhaul them.


James Clancy: I must disclaim being of sufficient importance to have a mail bag devoted to myself. Therefore, I cannot be charged with the theft of mail bags. One can scarcely conceive that mail bags will be found in the same state of want of repair. Any one can very well understand that there [DOT] will be a large difference in the condition of the bags. I see a very extraordinary uniformity in the prices paid for repairing bags.
I will read the list to the hon. gentleman and he will probably be able to give an explanation :
Name.	No. of bags. Price
charged.
cents.


Hugh L.: Carson, Ottawa.. 317	42


Willis.   W.@: Christie, Toronto.. 324	42
James Christie, Toronto .. 35	42
J. Darch & Son, London.. 96	42
Desmarais & Choquetle,
Ottawa	
342	42Geo. Lugsdin & Co., Toronto	
537	42


Mrs.   P.@: O'Donjohue, Montreal	
537	42M. Scarrow,	London	441	42C. Warner,	Ottawa	
338	42
There may be some good reason for this uniformity. There is no objection to sending work of that kind to the friends of the government. I concede the right of the government in all cases where the public service does not suffer by it, to give the patronage to their own friends under our system. The uniformity of prices shows
*6161

that there is a fixed sum no matter in what condition the bags are.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are the ordinary canvas bags for which the rate is 25 cents, and there are bags into which leather enters which cost more to repair. The department has fixed upon these figures as representing the fair average payment for repairs. The superintendent of that branch is Mr. Sydney Smith who is the eon of a former Postmaster General, and [DOT]who has been in the otfice for many years. He is in complete control of that branch and ino one ever interferes with Mr. Smith in [DOT]the proper discharge of his duties. There is no possibility of any job being perpetrated under him. The repairs of these bags require certain machinery that is not found in country establishments and is only found in city establishments.


William Humphrey Bennett: On the 4th of May last, I asked a question relative to two mail services in the vicinity of the Manitoulin Islands. I asked if tenders has been called for them, and the Postmaster General replied yes. I have been informed that formerly the two services were in the one tender, that this year a man named Cleland tendered for $3,050 and that his tender was accepted on the first of April for the joint service, but afterwards he was informed by the department for reasons best known to themselves that the tender was at an end. This, after he placed himself in a position to undertake the duties, owning as he did a very valuable steamer. However the statement in the ' Hansard ' is that he had made a tender for what was afterwards put in two distinct tenders. May I ask the Postmaster General whether it is correct that this gentleman was asked to tender under an advertisement for what is now comprised in these two tenders 1 The reply in the ' Hansard ' is that for the service from Cutler to Wekinagong taking in the intermediate points of Spanish Mills and Little Current, was given, by contract to Simms Bros., at $1,500 per annum, and that the other service known as the Cutler and Gower Bay service was given to Herbert Cleland at $2,000, but he declined it unless he was given the other, and that the contract was given to Wm. Fraser at $1,800. These two services now cost $3,200. Is it correct that tenders were asked for these two services, or was one tender asked and was Mr. Cleland the lowest, and did the department decline to act on it ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is no foundation for the statement of the hon. gentleman for reasons best known to themselves. Speaking off hand, for I have not refreshed my memory with regard to that matter since that answer was made, the facts are as follows :	There had been
a service by boat from Cutler to Gore Bay, and I think to Kagawong, and on to the
terminal point of the route whatever that 'may be. I think the service extends from Cutler across to Gore Bay and thence to a terminal point which I suppose is Little Current. Whatever that terminal point is I desire the explanation to be considered to have reference to it. That service was performed by one vessel and the complaint was that it did not reach the terminal point at a sufficiently early hour. It had to leave Cutler on the arrival of the Canadian Pacific Railway train due at 4 p.m., and the distance was very considerable. The boat had only a speed of eight knots or eight miles an hour and this was considered unsatisfactory. The department decided to try to get a vessel of a greater speed, and if it could not get a vessel of sufficient speed to perform the service within a reasonable time so as to reach the terminal point iatl an early hour in the evening it would divide the service between two steamers, one going from Cutler to Kagawong, calling at Gore Bay, and the other going from Cutler to the terminal point. Accordingly, public tenders were invited. We asked for a steamer of twelve miles an hour. Tenders were put in. Mr. Cleland's I think, was one of the tenders, and so far as I remember, he only tendered for one of the services, that from Cutler to Gore Bay and Kagawong. He did not put in a separate tender for the other service ; but he accompanied his tender with a letter saying that he was prepared to perform the joint ser\ ice for a certain sum-I do not remember the amount. Is it stated in that letter ?


William Humphrey Bennett: 


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He wrote to the department saying that he was prepared to supply a vessel for the service, and the department telegraphed him that they would accept his offer. When the name of the vessel was mentioned, it was found to be the steamer which had performed the service before, the ' Telegram.' The department then communicated with him that if that was the vessel, it was known to have a speed of only eight miles an hour, and it would not be satisfactory. Mr. Cleland was invited to come to Ottawa to see if he could be arranged with to put on a steamer of proper speed. He came here, but no arrangement was made with him. It became necessary then to make other arrangements for the service. Accordingly, failing to get one vessel of sufficient speed to do the joint service, the department had to arrange to get separate *vessels to do the two services In the proper time. The result was that the two contracts *to which the hon. gentleman refers were *made. As to the price, I had not to do with the negotiations or the tenders, but my recollection is. though on this point I may be in error, that the price payable for the two services is less than the amount of Mr. COMMONS
Olelands' offer. Tlie only object of the department -was to get a good service, and we had either to get a faster vessel than the old one, or divide the service.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are the two boats now performing the service capable of running twelve miles an hour ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is not necessary for the two to run twelve miles an hour, as they run on separate routes.


William Humphrey Bennett: Did the advertisement for tenders say that the boats would have to be capable of running twelve knots an hour ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The advertisement referred to the specifications and the proposed contract, which did name twelve miles an hour.


William Humphrey Bennett: It would appear that in the preceding year there had been a contract for this service, and it was performed by the * Telegram ' for $3,400. Knowing that the contest would be keen this year, Mr. Cleland tendered at $3,050, and he was notified by the department that his tender would be accepted. The advertisement made no reference to the rate of speed required.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Will the hou. gentleman permit me ? I say that the advertisement notified the public where they would see the form of contract they were required to sign, and that form stated that the vessel would be required to have a speed of at least twelve miles an hour.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am informed that there was nothing in the advertisement in regard to the rate of speed. The hon. Postmaster General states that it was referrable to the contract, which stated that it would be required to have a speed of twelve miles an hour, and included other details. When Mr. Cleland was informed that his was the lowest tender, he was notified to appear at Ottawa, and he did come down here. He assured the department that his boat would run twelve miles an hour, not including stops; but if stops were included, a boat would require to run eighteen miles an hour. The ' Telegram ' has always been considered a speedy boat, and I am informed that Mr. Cleland would have got the contract but for the interference with the department of the hon. member for Algoma.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is not a word of truth in that.


William Humphrey Bennett: When I asked the question about the contracts the hon. gentleman informed me that tenders were called for these two separate and distinct services. My information is that tenders were never !


William Mulock: called for these two separate and distinct services, but that tenders were asked for the total service, that Mr. Cleland was the lowest tenderer, and that he complied with the conditions, his vessel being capable of running twelve miles an hour, and he certainly attaches the blame to the hon. member for Algoma of having interfered with the department and prevented him getting tlie contract. When he came to Otawa he was told that although his boat did run twelve miles an hour, as required by the department, if the stoppages lessened her time he could not have the contract; and without any other tenders at all being called for, the contract was handed over to this man Simms, a most prominent partisan, a man who was mixed up with the Stratton matter in Ontario.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think that the hon. gentleman is quite misinformed. The hon. member for Algoma in no way interfered. Mr. Cleland is a strong supporter of the present government, and we would have no reason politically for not giving him the contract. The only reason was that his vessel had not the speed required.


William Humphrey Bennett: Were tenders called for these two services ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is my impression. The advertisement, I think, invited tenders in two ways-for one service' and a service divided into two parts. The form of contract brought me by the officer in charge asked for a vessel of twelve miles per hour, including stoppages. Mr. Clel-and's vessel had not that speed.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Cleland emphatically tells me that no tenders were called at all for the second service, and the only tender he ever made was for $3,050, and he guaranteed that his boat would run twelve miles an hour, but the department insisted that should include stoppages, which would mean eighteen miles per hour. He is emphatic in stating that the hon. member for Algoma interfered on behalf of Simms Bros, who are politicians of more than local repute and notoriety, and they got the patronage. Here is a letter from the Postmaster General which shows that Mr. Cleland felt he was harshly treated. He had a vessel worth $15,000 and had made a contract with the department when it was too late to put her on any other route for the season, and he was told that he could not have the contract, although his boat had the speed required. He went to one of the hon. gentleman's political friends. Mr. Williams, and Mr. Williams wrote protesting against the treatment. The reply was not that there had been public competition and that Mr. Cleland's tender was higher than the one accepted, but that the matter was urgent. Here is the reply :

Ottawa, April 20, 1903.
Dear Sir,-With farther reference to the mail service between Cutler and Manitowaning, since writing you on Saturday, the department has received offers for the performance of this service as two separate ones, and as the matter was urgent the offers have been accepted and instructions have been given to have the service established without delay. It will, therefore. not be possible for the department to make a contract with Captain Cleland as referred to in my letter of Saturday.
Yours sincerely,


WM. MULOCK.
[Stage Direction]
D. Williams, Esq.,
The ' Collingwiood Bulletin,'
Collingwood, Ont.
It is evident that no tenders were called for. It was a case of unfair interference not to give the contract to this man when he was the lowest tenderer and guaranteed that his boat would run twelve miles an hour. Whether rightly or wrongly, Mr. Cleland blames the hon. member for Algoma for having interfered, and probably some day will be able to pay the lion, gentleman in kind.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know that I can throw more light by further observations on the matter. Had the hon. gentleman intimated that he would bring this up, X would have refreshed my memory. The impression on my mind is that the advertisements were for one con tinuous service and also for a separate service of two parts. The hon. member for Algoma in no way interfered in regard to Mr. Cleland. He was anxious that the service should be equal to the requirements ; and from the papers submitted to me, I came to the conclusion that Mr. Cleland could not comply with the advertisement, and I do not think he pretended that his vessel had the speed required. He came to Ottawa within twenty-four hours after a telegram was sent to him, and the papers were submitted to me, and I learned that his vessel had not the proper speed.


William Humphrey Bennett: Did he see the Postmaster General himself ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, he saw my deputy. I was not in Ottawa at the time.


John Dowsley Reid: Would the hon. gentleman bring down at the next sitting the names of those who tendered for the goods supplied by the Ottawa Supply Company ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, and the amount of each tender.


John Dowsley Reid: I asked the hon. gentleman the other evening if he knew where a mail clerk named Doyle came from and he said he did not. Has he found that out ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have not thought of it since.


John Dowsley Reid: Was there an appointment made recently of a mail clerk named Doyle ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I cannot say, but I will get the information.


James Clancy: Can the hon. minister give any information as to the dismissal of the postmaster at the village of Port Lambton ? The post office was kept by a man named McNulty and was attended by Miss Ross, who was acting postmaster-probably deputy. The office was removed and Miss Ross was practically dismissed because of that removal. Perhaps the hon. minister cannot recollect


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What county ?


James Clancy: In the disappearing riding of Bothwell, in the county of Lambton. I hope that the disclosure I have made of the locality will not give the hon. gentleman any pangs. Has he any recollection


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, I do not recollect.


James Clancy: I could hardly expect the hon. gentleman to be ready with the information without notice, I would ask him to bring down the correspondence and petitions presented to the department against the removal of the post office from the place where it was, and also against any action being taken on account of the displacement or dismissal of Miss Ross.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will get that information. I understand the hon. gentleman to want all the correspondence and papers bearing upon the change of location and what he calls the dismissal of the postmaster, or leading to the former postmaster ceasing to be postmaster.


James Clancy: And the petitions.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, I will see that all that information is given on the next item I have.


Mr. AVERY.: Would the hon. minister bring down the information as to why he dismissed the postmaster at Enterprise ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will get that as well.


Melzar Avery: Also the postmaster at Dead Creek.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 2 a.m., Wednesday.



Wednesday, July 8, 1903.