1903-06-26

Mr.  R. F.@: SUTHERLAND (North Essex) presented the first report of the Select Stand-Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
ing Committee on Privileges and Elections, as follows :-
Friday, June 26, 1903.
The Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections beg leave to present the following their first report :
Your committee having considered the question referred to them by your honourable House, on the 25th instant, as to whether Mr. Schell, member for Glengarry, has infringed the law respecting the independence of parliament, beg to report as follows :
That the goods in question were sold by the firm of which Mr. Schell is a member, under a written order, to one W. D. Scott, who appeared from such order to be the agent of the Glasgow International Exhibition, 1901 ; that the goods were charged to the said Scott personally, and paid for by him ; that there was nothing to lead the vendors to believe, and they did not believe that they were dealing with the Dominion government, or any agent thereof.
From the evidence adduced, your committee find that the goods in question were sold by the firm of Macpherson & Schell to the said Scott personally, and there has, therefore, in the opinion of your committee, been no infringement of the law respecting the independence of parliament in this case.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
(Sgd.) R. F. SUTHERLAND,
Chairman.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 211) respecting the Nicola Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 212) to incorporate tbe Alliance Bank of Canada.-Mr. Russell.

Tbe PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I beg to lay on tbe Table of tbe House a return to an address of tbe House of Commons, dated tbe lltb of May, for documents relating to tbe granting of provincial autonomy to tbe Nortb-west Territories. I believe this is a preliminary report, and that there are other papers coming.



DEATH OF MR. FARQUHARSON.

Tbe PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: It is my sad duty to inform tbe House of tbe death of one of our colleagues in tbe person of Mr. Donald Far-qubarson, member for West Queen's, P.E.I., I believe that, though Mr. Farquharson was well known on this side of tbe House, be was not so well known on tbe other side, as be entered the House late during tbe present parliament. He was elected to parliament during tbe session of 1902. But, not being in robust health at that time, be never took in parliament tbe position bis undoubted talents would have won for him bad he been in good condition physically. His health did not improve, and to-day I have tbe sad intelligence that be has de-

parted this life. If Mr. Farquharson is not so well known as he would have been under more favourable conditions, everybody is aware that he had attained in his own province a high position, having discharged the duties of several most important situations to the satisfaction of the people he represented. All those who had the privilege of his acquaintance during the short time he was our colleague will agree with me that he won the good will and respect of all. His loss will be felt as the loss of one who, whether in low position or in high position, well discharged his duties as a good citizen and a good Canadian.


Mr.  R. I.. BORDEN@Halifax: I am sure that on this side of the House we all join in the expressions of regret which have been uttered by the Prime Minister with regard to the decease of Mr. Farquharson.
I had not heard of his death until it was mentioned by the Prime Minister. He had not been long a member of this House, and had not an opportunity of displaying those abilities which raised him to the very front rank in his own province. I am sure he enjoyed the esteem and respect of every member of the House, whether they sit on the right or on the left of the Speaker.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. T. EARLE (Victoria, B.C.).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries whether the correspondence promised some time ago is yet ready, in reference to the lease of some portion of False creek, in British Columbia. It is now over two months since I asked for the correspondence, it has been promised on several occasions, but I have not yet seen it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prdfontaine).: I thought it would have been ready before now. I will inquire about it again to-day.



RAILWAY ACT, 1903.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 21) to amend and consolidate the laws respecting railways.-The Minister of Railways and Canals.
On section 231-telegraphs and telephones.
Mr. MACLEAN.: poles, subways, bridges and other premises, on equitable terms, to be agreed upon. And the Railway Company will not grant similar facilities to any other Telephone Company.
5.	The number of annual passes or franlts, free telephone connections, and extent of free transportation shall be determined from time to time by the president of the Railway Company and the president of the Telephone Company. as the expansion of both companies may require, and such passes, franks and telephone connections shall only be issued on written application of an officer of either party, as designated by the president of each company.
6.	The terms and conditions of this contract, as applying to the Canadian Pacific Railway, shall also apply to the Canadian Pacific Railway Telegraph Company, and it is further understood and agreed that where telephone connection with local exchanges is required for an office of either of the above, the agent for which carries on any other business, or acts as agent for any other company, he shall pay one-half the regular exchange rates, and the company or companies represented herein by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company shall pay no-' thing for their services.
7.	This agreement shall remain in force for a period of eight years from the date hereof.
In witness whereof.
And so on. Now, what is the effect of this agreement that no company hut the Beil Telephone Company, no private company operated by farmers or by municipalities, shall have any access to the railway stations of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, a company to which we have given, I do not know how many million acres of land, I do not know how many millions of dollars, I do not know how many other great franchises and privileges ?
I am glad to see the hon. Minister of the Interior <Hon. Mr. Sifton) here now and I wish to tell him that in the great North-west which we are opening up and developing and where the farmers are rapidly acquiring the telephone habit, if I may so term it, every one of these farmers who desires to build an independent line of his own and every community which desires to establish a municipal service is, by this contract, prohibited from entering any one of the railway stations in that country or of having telephone access to the railway to which the people had contributed such large sums of money. It is a nefarious contract, it is a contract contrary to public policy and 1 believe that in the courts it will be so held. I have attempted to have it so held, but I have not yet succeeded and I am appealing to parliament to declare that such contracts are illegal and against public policy. We are inviting people to go into the North-west to settle up the farms there, we are telling the farmers that they have the same privileges that farmers enjoy in the United States, but if this contract is allowed to remain they will never have the same privileges. For six or eight years to come they cannot have telephone communication with a railway station except through the monopoly called the Bell Telephone Com-


William Findlay Maclean: pany. As I pointed out the other day the citizens of the towns of Fort Arthur and Fort William, which are very progressive towns, have succeeded in establishing a municipal telephone system. To-day they are denied access to the Canadian Pacific Railway station in both of these towns by reason of this monopoly contract. They have spent a great deal of money, they are all good customers of the Canadian Pacific Railway, tlxey wish to do business with the station, they wish to know aboxit their freight and things of that kind, hut they cannot get into the Canadian Pacific Railway station with their telephone. I say this is a shame. I know the people will rebel against it and l heard a Liberal of this House say in one of the committee rooms the other day that if this is attempted in the North-west the people will rise and cut the wires. I do not wish to provoke anything of that kind but 1 wish to have an amendment made to the law which will forbid railway companies rom making any such contract as this to the detriment of the general public. It lias been argued that if you allow everybody to place a telephone line in the station you will take up all the agent's time and it will also be said that the telephone instruments will occupy all the wall space in the station, that is not a fact. The fact is that the railway companies are only too glad to have telephone communication with the public, but they wish to have it through the Bell telephone monopoly. As a matter of fact in all great cities the railway companies have ten, twenty, thirty and even forty telephones in their stations for the use of the pfiblic so as to he able to give the public all sorts of information in regard to business. They are glad to answer all the calls that are made. There are other railways competing with them and they are only too glad to answer these calls. If there should be two telephones in a railway station, which I cannot think is likely, vei-y little more wall space will be taken. There would be no more calls to answer if there were two companies having telephonic communication with the station instead of one. Therefore, that argument does not amount to anything. I am asking parliament to stop this discrimination and to compel these railway companies, in connection with telephones, to treat everybody alike just as we compel them to treat everybody alike in connection with express business. I am not asking for anything now that has not been promised to the people. The lion. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) introduced a Bill last session dealing with the telephone question. He gave the people and the municipalities a solemn pledge-the pledge of a minister- that he would again introduce that Bill this session. He received a deputation representing all the municipalities of this country not long ago, he asked them for their views, they gave him their views and he said that on this information and the information that

lie had collected he Intended to introduce to parliament a Bill dealing with telephones. Granting that, I may be told that the proper place to deal with this question is in connection with that Bill. That is the answer you always get. You raise a question now, but you should raise it in some other way and at some other time. You ought to raise it in connection with something else.
1 am raising it in connection with the railway companies because the railway companies are violating a great principle of public policy. We are, in this Bill, regulating railway companies in regard to their treatment of express companies. My idea is that the same kind of provisions should be put into that railway Bill preventing these railway companies from discriminating against the public as represented by different telephone lines whether they are owned by the Bell Telephone Company or any other company. I,et me give one instance. The Bocust Hill instance is not the only one. There are dozens of cases where efforts were made to establish local lines. The Bell telephone people refused for years to give any kind of a local service at Bocust Hill at a moderate rate. They demanded an extortionate price and it was when the people built their own line and tried to get into the Bocust Hill station with it that they forbade their entrance and said that they were going _ to build a line themselves. The same thing happened at Newtonville on the Grand Trunk between Toronto and Kingston. A number of people there, drovers, millers and farmers living eight, ten and twelve miles away from the station, established a line at their own expense. They ran it to the Grand Trunk station, they asked to get into the station to find out about their freight and about trains and things of that kind, but were told that they could not get into the station because of this contract with the Bell Telephone Company. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) said the other day that I was introducing something of a socialistic character. I do not know that this is socialistic. If it is I am not ashamed of it. The hon. minister also called me a radical. Is he a radical ? Is he ashamed of being a radical, or is he a red-faced Tory ? I do not want to throw these little jibes across the House. I remember that the great charge that the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Baurier) made against me two years ago was that I was introducing something that was socialistic. He Is always telling this House and the country that he is a Gladstone Biberal, that he has founded his policy upon the policy of the Biberal party in England and that he looks for the foundation stones of liberalism to the Biberal party of England. If the Biberal party in England is mixed up with anything to-day it is mixed up with measures that may be described as socialistic and radical. Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman gave out his
portrait the other day as the leader of the radical wing of the Biberal party in England. They are not afraid to be called radicals or socialists because they demand square and fair treatment of the people. If there is a reason that the Biberal party have given for basing their claim to be called the Biberal party in this country it is that they have fought the people's battles in the past.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: I cannot find that they have done anything of the kind. All I can find is that they are protectors of the corporations. They are protecting the corporations every day as against the rights of the people. They are not living up to their programme. They cannot justify themselves in being Biberals let alone being radicals or socialists. They are departing from all the principles that the right hon. leader laid down in former days. I hope the right lion, gentleman will give some attention to this Bill and to the amendment which I propose.
I have been looking around the House to see if I could find the hon. member for West Ontario (Mr. Gould). Those who are aggrieved in connection with the Bocust Hill incident are much more his constituents than they are mine and nearly all are supporters of the Biberal party. I had expected that the hon. member for West Ontario would be here to-day to assist me in asking for the adoption of this amendment. I may have to return to the subject again, but in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I ask the committee through you, Sir, to accept this amendment as I propose it, or, to modify it in some way, but to accept the principle and most of all, I ask for the adoption of this amendment in the interest of the farming community of Canada, and more than any other section of the farming community, I ask that it be put into this Bill in the interest of the settlers who are going into the North-west. Nothing is of such vital importance to the farming community as telephone communication. I told the committee (he other day, that hundreds of men :ome miles to summon a doctor through my telephone, or to summon a veterinary surgeon, and they do it because they cannot pay the exorbitant price that the Bell Telephone Company exacts. Why should we permit a company that is treating the people as the Bell Telephone Company is treating the public in a great many portions of the country to continue its exactions ? Along its main line it asks as much as $150 for a telephone service. In the east end of Toronto it is asking the people $150 for a telephone service, and it is asking exorbitant rates in the west end for a telephone service. It is asking exorbitant rates all over the country. There is only one way to check this course of the telephone company, and that is to do away with the agreement ' that it has with the railways. This agree-

ment gives it a monopoly. It entrenches it in its monopoly all over the country. It s in a position to demand these exorbitant rates, but .let every body have access to the railway stations and companies will spring up that will compel the Bell Telephone Com pany to cut its rates in two and treat the public properly. I appeal to hon. members irrespective of party, I appeal irrespective of any class of the community, but sinq ly on the ground of the general public interest to accept this amendment to compel the railway companies to afford equal treatment and no discrimination in the matter of telephones, just as we compel them to give equal treatment and no discrimination to express companies.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: Mr. Chairman,
I am fully in accord with the amendment moved by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean). I believe that a clause should be inserted in this Bill now, providing that all telephone companies may have access to railroad stations. The farmers of this country before very long will be using telephones to a very large extent.
I am satisfied that our farmers will not sit idly by and allow the villages and towns alone to have the benefit of this great public convenience, the telephone system. I cannot see for the life of me why anyone should object to allowing all telephone companies to have access to the railway stations. In many of the states of the union a large percentage of the farmers are supplied with telephones. The top wire of the wire fences is made a conductor, and by placing a tube underneath, the telephone is taken from house to house at a cheap rate, averaging $10 or $12 a year. I believe that the farmers should have the benefit of cheap telephones and also rural mail delivery, and if the Minister of Railways and Canals does not accept the amendment of the member for East York (Mr. Maclean)
I trust he will add some provision to his Bill which will have the same effect.


Mr. SPROULE.: The desire of the present day is to economize time and labour, and our old system of doing business is rapidly giving way to the new. Telephones have been extended all over the older settled portions of the country, and they have proved to be of great advantage to the people generally. In my locality that is the case and it is the same in other localities. Sometimes there is a short telephone line and sometimes a long line, but in every case the farmers derive great benefit from them, as they are saved the trouble and loss of driving miles to town for market reports, for ascertaining if freight is at the station for them or not, for communicating with persons who come on the train to buy their produce, and the hundred and one other things which enter into the daily life of our farmers. The telephone system enables us to do our business with economy of time,1 Mr. MACLEAN.
economy of labour, and economy of expense, and yet the Minister of Railways and Canals would legislate so as to prevent a large section of our people in the country from reaping the advantages which may be gained by utilizing the railway offices, which after all are there for the public convenience. If one company is allowed to use railway stations why should not another. To deny this amendment is not only perpetuating discrimination, but also monopoly. Why should the Bell Telephone Company have a monopolistic right to do business, and why should other people be shut out. Those who are not fortunate enough to live on the line of the Bell Telephone Company in many cases wish to establish a line of their own, and why should we deny them the privilege of being able to utilize the conveniences afforded by these common carriers, the railway companies. The government are always declaring that they are opposed to monopolies. Here is an instance where they can put their declarations into practical effect. If the Minister of Railways and Canals refuses to avail of this opportunity, the people of the country will certainly think that he does not mean what he says when he declares himself as opposed; to monopolies. Section 253 of this Bill says :-
Nor shall any company by any unreasonable delay or otherwise.
I submit that the prevention of the use of their stations for a telephone system is one of the things which would be included in that word ' otherwise.'
Nor shall any company, by any unreasonable delay or otherwise howsoever, make any difference in treatment in the receiving, loading, forwarding, unloading, or delivery of the goods of any particular person, or company, nor subject any particular person, or company, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue, or unreasonable, prejudice or disadvantage, in any respect whatsoever.
If you allow the users of the Bell Telephone to have access to the railway stations are you not discriminating against the users of another telephone system when you deny them this facility ? This is as clear a ease of discrimination as there possibly can be, and yet this Bill professes to set its face against discrimination. I can tell the minister that the public will insist on getting the privilege which the amendment of the member for East York calls for. In my own locality there are two or three private 'phones, one of them ten or twelve miles long, and when the subscribers require to communicate with the railway station they are obliged to go to the trouble and delay of communicating with some one who has a 'phone on the Bell system, and they are put to the extra expense also because they have to pay tolls. That is very unfair. The telephone in my locality passes through a thickly populated country where there are

cheese and butter factories, and saw mills, and yet the value of their telephone is largely depreciated by reason of the fact that they cannot communicate with the railway station. I can tell the minister and the government, that if they refuse this amendment to-day, public sentiment will, within a short time, compel them to accept it, and they might as well do so with a good grace now.	,


Mr. KENDALL.: Does the member for York (Mr. Maclean) intend to have the number of telephones limited that may be placed in a railway office, and if so to what number would he restrict them ?


William Findlay Maclean: Certainly, I intend that they should be limited and my amendment submits this subject to the approval of the railway commission. I do not want that a railway company should be compelled to allow every Tom, Dick or Harry to put up a telephone, but I had to word my amendment as it is worded because it is necessary from a legal point of view. Let it be at the discretion of the board of railway commissioners. As a matter of fact there will be only one line, or two lines at the most, and I have left it to fhe discretion of the board. If the board thinks that a railway is being inconvenienced they can make regulations at their discretion.


Mr. CARGILL.: I think this amendment is in the right direction and the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) is to be highly commended for submitting it to the consideration of the House. If the Minister of Railways and Canals has a sufficient interest in the rural population of this country to make ordinary concessions of this kind when they are asked for, it would be to his own advantage and to the advantage of the government. I do not see any good reason why the Bell Telephone Company should monopolize this particular business. If the people of any particular locality desire to have a telephone system in connection with the railroad station, I do not see why they should be prohibited from doing so. The only good reason I have heard urged against it is that it may interfere with the business of the railway company, but the Bill leaves that to the discretion of the commissioners, and as a matter of fact, business men in the large cities are able to communicate by telephone with the agents of the railway company in regal'd to freight m.tters and othu' railway business. If they want to make inquiry as to whether their freight is delivered at the station or anything of that kind, they call up the agent by phone, and ascertain in that way, instead of making a trip to the station. Why should a section of the rural community be denied the privilege of making connection in that way with a railway station ? This idea of putting in fifteen or twenty or one
hundred telephones in one station is perfectly absurd. We do not ask for anything like that. But I think that any town or village or rural community should have the privilege of making connection with the railroad station, and not be prohibited because of arrangements made between .the Bell Telephone Company and the railway company, which amount to a monopoly. The Minister of Railways the other evening accused the hon. member for East York of advocating socialistic views. If lie was in this particular case I would prefer being socialistic to being monopolistic, because I do not think it is the right of any government to give such a company as the Bell Telephone Company the privilege of shutting out other classes of the community from enjoying the facilities for doing business to which they are entitled. I feel strongly on this matter, and I hope the Minister of Railways will, upon consideration, grant the amendment. There is an agitation prevailing throughout the length and breadth of the country in favour of rural mail delivery; electric railways are being built all through the country; and the day is coming when I believe the telephone system will prevail through all the rural municipalities in the country. In a county where there is sometimes only one town of any importance, called the county town, the farmers living at a distance of from ten to fifteen miles, would find a telephone system most convenient. Perhaps there is no doctor within more convenient distance. For about a mile and a quarter along each side of the road there are residing say ten families. Suppose those ten families clubbed together, and arranged to have a telephone system connected with one farm house. The cost would not exceed $25, so that each family would have telephone communication at a cost of $2.50 per annum. It would cost each of these farmers that much to hitch up his horse and buggy and make a trip to the county town to get a doctor to come out and attend a patient. Considering the matter in all its phases, I do not see why the government should not accept this amendment and embody it in the Bill. It is no hardship to any class of the community at all, except the Bell Telephone Company, which is of course anxious to prevent any others from engaging in the same kind of business. It might interfere with their profits. But that is not just what we are here for. We are here to represent the different classes of the community, and there is no class more deserving of consideration of this kind than the agricultural community.


Mr. OLIVER.: I would just like to place before the House the condition in the district which I represent, as it exists in regard to telephone service, and ns it will exist, within a few months if the agreement spoken of by the hon. member for East

York stands. In the town in which I live, and in the surrounding country, there is a telephone system, with about 300 phones. This system has been built up, partly by private enterprise and partly by government assistance. There are three towns upon the system, and. there are three radial lines, with a fourth being built. In that country the railroad station is necessarily the centre of business, and it is an absolute necessity to the satisfactory use of that system, and to a satisfactory result for the money invested in it, that it should have connection with the railroad station. From Edmonton southward there is a succession of towns, varying from 200 to 500, and 5,000 inhabitants. Some of these have telephone systems and, some have not. One I think is the Bell system; others have been proposing to put in municipal systems, and in others private enterprise has supplied the need. Recently the Bell Company has decided, I understand, to establish a through system from north to south of that district, a distance of about 350 miles, stringing all the towns along the railroad line and beyond the railroad line with its system. If that is done, it simply means that our system, having some 300 phones, will be cut off from the railroad station. The other villages and towns which intended to put in a municipal system will be absolutely prevented from doing so; other towns where there are private or local companies, will be put out of business, just as they will be at Edmonton; and the Bell Telephone Company will be established in sole control of the telephone business in all that territory, simply by the force of this agreement which has been entered into between them and the railway company. In that country there is only one railroad company, and if the Bell Telephone Company secures a binding agreement with that company, there will be only one telephone company. That means high rates, bad service, and everything it ought not to mean and does not need to mean. Because while a telephone company is to a certain extent a monopoly, there is not the expense connected with its establishment to make it such a monopoly as cannot be broken by private enterprise and capital. Leave the Bell Telephone Company on its own footing, and there is a possibility of regulatiug it by competition or the danger of competition; but if you entrench it behind the railway company by cutting off every other telephone system from communication with the railroad, you simply establish the Bell Telephone Company as a monopoly, and do the country that amount of damage. I do not wish to discuss the various points which have been raised by other members and which have been discussed very fully in the Railway Committee. There is no interference with any serious right or privilege of the railroad company. There is no interference that cannot be easily and adequately compensated for by a charge fixed Mr. OLIVER.
for the introduction of a phone into the railroad office; and when the whole matter is left under the control of an independent commission, certainly the railroad company does not stand to suffer in any degree.


Mr. LENNOX.: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Give it up ?


Haughton Lennox: Y'es, I give it up. What does all this amount to, this charge that this means a confiscation of property and of rights ? We have throughout this Railway Bill which is now before us-and which, I trust, with the aid of the opposition, will be so framed as to be a monument to the credit of the Minister of Railways and Canals- many cases in which it is provided that the railway companies shall make certain reports of their doings. In the very next section we are to take up, I find that, under an amendment proposed, in the case of an accident, the railway company must report. What is this proposal that is before us but a proposal to report ? It is simply to facilitate the report in connection with the doings and the business of the railway. The people are not going to ask about a picnic in another township. What they want is means to communicate with the railway by which they can ask when a train that is overdue will arrive. A man wants td ask:
' you promised me a car, but it has not come ; I have been down to see about it five times, and I want to know if the car is there now.' Or :	' About that binder that
was to have been there five days ago. My wheat is ready and is being destroyed by the lapse of time. You said the binder went astray, and I asked you to trace it up. Is it there yet ?' That is a report, and nothing but a report in connection with the legitimate and necessary business of the railway. And why should we not have a report to the people most interested by the most direct and most inexpensive means ? That is the way I view it, though I must admit I have not given this matter a great deal of consideration. What is it that, aside from terms and phrases, we should endeavour to do ? We should not try to drive the railway company to madness by imposing unfair conditions upon them


An hon. MEMBER.: No danger.

552S


Haughton Lennox: Probably not. We ought not to unjustly hamper their business. But the hon. member who has introduced this motion has done it in a reasonable way. Coming from this side of the House, we might assume that it would be done in a reasonable way. The hon. gentleman has not insisted that he knows everything about it. He has told the government he is willing that they should take the principle involved and modify it in such a way as the circumstances make necessary. But he has said what the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has advocated time and again- leave it to the discretion of the board. I quote from the hon. minister's language which he has so often used, for he has said over and over again, ' can not you depend upon the discretion of the board ?' I ask the minister now, can lie depend upon the discretion of the board ? Will it be within the discretion of the board ? I have endeavoured to show that the refusal will create discrimination and build up and fortify an already huge monopoly. I have endeavoured to show that this is reasonable in the interest of the people. I am not arguing from the standpoint of the farmer only, all the people along the line are interested. I have argued on the basis of balancing the conveniences with the difficulties, without any reference to the charges of socialism. I have argued on the basis of what should be our great watchword, the greatest good to the greatest number.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Is the committee ready for the question ?


William Findlay Maclean: We have given the government an opportunity to declare themselves, whether they intend to accept this amendment or not. As they have refused to say anything in the matter, I must call the attention of the Prime Minister and the public to a situation that may be created by this refusal to treat the public fairly. In the Daily ' Gleaner,' a paper published in Fredericton, N.B., I find this item in the Issue of June 10 :
New Brunswick Telephone Company. Annual meeting yesterday. Officers elected. Dividend declared. Trunk line extension.
The annual meeting of the shareholders of the New Brunswick Telephone Company was held yesterday. The usual dividend of four per cent was declared for the year, and considerable routine business was transacted?
The old directors were re-elected as follows:-


Hon.  A. G.@: Blair, Ottawa ; C. F. Sise, Montreal ; President of the Bell Telephone Company, Montreal ; J. L. Black, Sackville ; Dr. A. A. Stockton, St. John ; W. T. Whitehead, M.P.P., and Senator Thompson, Fredericton.
At a subsequent meeting of the directors the fallowing officers were elected : Hon. A. G. Blair, president ; J. L. Black, vice-president ; Hon. F. P. Thompson, managing director ; W. E. Smith, secretary and auditor.
During the past year the rates to subscribers were slightly increased, the company finding it Mr. LENNOX.
impossible to conduct business at the old charge, owing to increased cost of maintenance.
Even with this increase the company's charges are much below those of any other company operating either in Canada or the United States.
Operations have been started on the extension of the trunk line system through Carle-ton, Victoria and Madawaska counties. This will be a copper metallic circuit, and the line will be completed and in operation on or about the 1st of January next. The company will then be in a position to give telephonic communication from all parts of the province to all points in Nova Scotia and the New' England states, connecting at Portland and Boston with other telephone systems.
I call the attention of the Prime Minister to this fact, that the Minister of Railways in his government is a member of this great Bell Telephone Company, now dominating this country; and when I proposed an amendment to his Bill that the public shall be fairly treated, he rises and accuses me of being a socialist, a radical, as one who wants to disfigure his Bill. I want to read something more for the information of the rrime Minister, I am going to read from a paper called the Toronto ' World.' In a special despatch to that paper


The PRIME MINISTER.: Where from 7


William Findlay Maclean: From St. John, N.B., dated June 12 :
St. John, N.B.. June 12.-(Special)-A gentleman well informed on political and provincial matters, speaking to the ' World ' to-day on telephone legislation, declared incidentally that Hon. A. G. Blair was the owner of a large quantity of highly remunerative shares in the New Brunswick Telephone Company (which is practically the Bell Telephone Company). When he was Premier of New Brunswick, there was given to himself and his brother-in-law, Hon. Mr. Snowball and Hon. Senator Thompson, his son-in-law. Mr. Randolph, and other relatives (under the name of New Brunswick Telephone Company), the exclusive telephone franchise for New Brunswick, so that the Bell Telephone Company had to buy them out on coming to this province.
Hon. Mr. Blair holds one-sixth of the stock, Senator Thompson one-third, said the ' World's' informant. * The company's affairs are kept secret, but the facts became known to a few persons connected with the financial difficulties of Mr. Randolph a few years ago, in which a bank seized and sold his shares. One share of the original stock, is' now represented by three shares, each of which is held at at least 270 per cent, making about 800 per cent, of present value, at a minimum estimate.
Mr. Blair is thought to derive the largest part of his large income from this stock (which is practically Bell stock).
Asked how he thought the telephone Bill now before the Dominion House would be supported, the ' World's' informant replied :
'Senator Thompson will be about the bitterest foe of telephone reform in the Senate, although Senator MacKay is president of the Bell Company, and Senator Kirehhoffer is largely interested. Mr. Blair will exert his opposition chiefly through Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick, whose

schemes he will in turn support, such as the Quebec Bridge Company, the St. Lawrence Power Company, &c.
Now, I did not want to bring this matter before the House, but it is before the House now, it is in the public press, and it is now on tiie ' Hansard.'


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Will you send the paper over to me ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes. Under these circumstances, I say it is most unfortunate that it is the president of a company associated with tiie Bell Telephone monopoly who rises in this House and tells me, and the rest of us who are asking for some protection against the Bell Telephone Company, that we are urging something that is socialistic and doing something to disfigure a public Bill. We are doing nothing of the kind, we are doing something which we think to be in the public interest. I say it is contrary to British constitutional practice, it would not be allowed for one moment in England-for a minister to stand up in his place in the House and become the apologist of a company in which he is interested, a company from which he derives a certain portion of his income. I do not care if he did not have a dollar of income, if he merely held that stock and was interested in the company, it is against public policy that he should stand up in this House and be the apologist of that corporation. Now there has been a great deal said in this country about the conduct of our public men, and their relations to public questions, where their private interests become a question of public interest. In this matter I have based my statement altogether on the fact that the minister is the president of this company. I make no reference to other matters contained in this statement; but the mere fact of his being president of this company, and being associated with Mr. Sise, the head of the Bell Telephone Company, I say is against public policy, and it should not be allowed, and it ought to call for the minister's resignation. If the minister does not resign, the Prime Minister ought to ask him to resign. This is not an example to set before the people of this country, it is not an example to set before members of the legislature, it is not a good example to set before municipal councillors all over this country against whom charges are made that they are doing tilings in their own interest which are against the public interest. When they see tiie highest legislative body in this country, when they see cabinet ministers representing the people of Canada, when they see such things being done by a colleague of the Prime Minister, they will say that it justifies everything that has taken place in the legislatures, everything that has taken place
in township and village councils that is wrong. I appeal to the Prime Minister if it is not true that in England such a thing would not be tolerated for a moment in the House of Commons. I want to tell the Prime Minister another thing. In these paragraphs I have read, the name of a Senator in the other branch of this parliament is mentioned, a great friend of the Liberal party, Senator McKay-I suppose I can use his name as it is mentioned in the document I have read. It is a peculiar thing that the very first Senator who was appointed by this government on coming into power was the gentleman who is the present vice-president of the Bell Telephone Company, and was at that time. The name of another Senator is mentioned who has also been appointed by this government. It is a peculiar thing that in some way there is an apparent political connection between the kind of protection accorded to the Bell Telephone Company by the government, by the House, and by this committee so far; it is a peculiar thing, I say, that this company, in its monopolistic tendencies, should be specially guarded in every way.
Now, I did not wish to say this to-day, but I am forced to say it in view of the [DOT] way my amendment has been treated, in view of the way in which the Telephone Bill that I have introduced and is now before a committee of this House, is being treated. It is simply scandalous, and I will stand it no longer. I did not wish to take the stand I have taken to-day, but I am forced to take it, and I accept full responsibility for anything I have said or done. I can tell the Prime Minister that if he chooses to justify this conduct, I will be only too glad to meet him on any platform he likes to select; I especially invite him to come to West Ontario and to East York, where the people have had experience of this monopolistic treatment against the public interest, accorded to them by the Bell Telephone Company. I would like to meet the Postmaster General in his own county of North York, or any portion of Ontario. He is the Minister of Labour, the man who is going to give the farmers rural postal delivery. I am going to hold the Minister of Railways up to the British constitutional practice as observed in England, and which ought to be observed in this country. I say the Prime Minister ought to call for the resignation of his Minister of Railways in view of the simple fact I have brought to his attention to-day, that tiie Minister of Railways is interested in the New Brunswick Telephone Company as president, and that in opposing my amendment he has chosen to impute motives that he should not impute to any member who proposes something in the public interest. I leave it with the right hon. Prime Minister. I leave it with his colleagues, and I leave it with the people of Canada, to deal with it at the proper time.


Tlie PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) must pardon me, Mr. Chairman, if I cannot take liim seriously upon this subject. My hon. friend, perhaps, has been advocating an idea which is deserving of consideration, and, for my part, I may tell him that I would have been gladly willing to have given it that consideration to which it is entitled upon its own merits.


William Findlay Maclean: I waited long enough.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend has not at all improved the inherent merit of his position by the speech which we have listened to and by the reckless charges he has thrown out. He is not fair. He must not abuse his advantages. My hon. friend Invites me to go to East York, and he says that if I accept his invitation he will pulverize me. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be pulverized. Why should I go to East York, where he would hold me up to the scorn of the electors, and where I would be pulverized by himself, morally, intellectually and in every other way ? We can discuss this question here without the necessity of going to East York. We can discuss . it just as well here as anywhere else. My hon. friend has said that it was a strange thing that Mr. Mackay was appointed to be a senator, and he commented upon the fact that he was a senator and president of the Bell Telephone Company. I do not know that it is a crime for anybody to be connected with the Bell Telephone Company or any other respectable company. Would my hon. friend say that it is a charge to be imputed to anybody that he is president of an enterprise that has done a great deal for the country, even though perhaps it has tried to take more from the public than my hon. friend thinks it ought to have taken ? Does he believe that lie can be taken seriously by hon. members on this side of the House, or by hon. members on the other side of the House, when advocating an idea which, as I said a moment ago, has some inherent merit in it, or does he think he is at all advancing his cause by making such silly charges as that ? Does he believe that he is to be taken seriously when he says that the government ought not to have appointed a respectable citizen such as Mr. Mackay is because it happens that he is a member of the Bell Telephone Company ? The Bell Telephone Company, my hon. friend will not deny, has been a good deal of service to the country.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Very well. My hon. friend says that it has taken too much toll from the public. That is a subject for consideration. But, at all events, I do not think the government made any mistake in calling Mr. Mackay to the Senate. If my hon. friend will take my word for it, I will tell him that I did not know that Mr. Mac-Uay. when appointed a senator, was presi-


William Findlay Maclean: dent of the Bell Telephone Company or that he was a member of it. That idea never entered into the consideration of the government in appointing him to the Senate. The same thing might be said in regard to Senator Thompson. It appears that Senator Thompson is a member of the telephone company, and my hon. friend says that my colleague the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) is also a member of the telephone company. That is the first intimation I have had of it, but I do not know that it is a crime for anybody to hold the stock of such a company as that. My hon. friend says that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals ought to resign at once and that I should call upon him to resign, because he is connected with the telephone company. I must say that the views which I hold of the ethics of xiarliament do not agree with the views held by my hon. friend in regard to the ethics of parliament. My hon. friend says that he should resign because he has been the apologist of the company, which is before this House. That company is not before this House. My hon. friend the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals would be deserving of the censure of this House if, being the president of a company, he should be made the promoter of the interests of that company. But who has brought the Bell Telephone Company into this debate ? It is not in this debate at all. This is a Bill of general interest, not for the profit or benefit of any company whatever, not for the profit or benefit of this company or of that company. It is a general Bill for the regulation of trade and commerce on railways. My hon. friend has introduced an amendment upon this subject, my hon. friend has asked parliament that what concerns the Bell Telephone Company should be grafted in this Bill, and because he has brought in that amendment declaring that that which concerns the Bell Telephone Company should be grafted in such a Bill as this, he says that forthwith the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals ought to resign. My hon. friend says that you will never find anything of the kind in England. He recalled the fact to me a moment ago that I claimed to be a Liberal of the British school. So I do claim to be a Liberal of the British school to-day, but I defy my hon. friend to bring anything forward to justify the position that he has taken.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals would resign if he were in England.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No such thing would take place in England. What takes place in England is this : If any member is connected with a company, he will not be allowed to promote the interests of that company on the floor of parliament, and if he does it. he is abusing the privilege of parliament ; but, when there is legislation of a general character brought before parliament, no member is prevented from voting

ov exercising the privileges of his position because it so happens that he is a member of an incorporated company. My hon. friend will not find anything in the records of the British parliament to justify his contention. My hon. friend is altogether unwarranted in the assertion he made a moment ago that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is the main apologist of the Bell Telephone Company. I do not know that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has uttered a single word either as apologist or detractor of the Bell Telephone Company. I have not followed the discussion very closely, but I am sure I am within the judgment of the House when I say that the hon. Minister of Railways and *Canals never uttered one word one way or the other. My hon. friend stated earlier in the debate that I was a Liberal. I do not know what he calls himself. I presume he is a Tory, but he told us that he was a Tory who acts as a Radical. I do not know whether he is a Radical Tory or a Tory Radical, but I rather believe that he is a Radical Tory, that he is one of those out-and-out Tories, whose instincts have always been to entrench upon the property of other people. That has been their habit in the eld land, and in this land as well. But my hon. friend will allow me in this connection to say that I have looked with some suspicion on the legislation which he has introduced upon this subject. I accuse him formally, not of being a socialist, but of being a communist. I thought there was something in his Bill that smelt strongly of communism, because he has betrayed a tendency to commit depredations upon vested rights and the property of other people. My hon. friend has introduced an amendment which I find qualifies very much the Bill which he introduced. There is in the amendment a principle which is not in the Bill which he introduced. The amendment reads :
The company shall, subject to the approval of the board, grant equal telephone entrance to its stations to all individuals or telephone companies asking therefor.
I call the attention of the committee to the words ' subject to the approval of the board.' This is a new feature which has dawned upon the mind of my hon. friend, and I must say it somewhat softens his communistic doctrines. Before that he wanted to commit a depredation upon the property of other parties outright without the qualification which he puts in now, and by which he says that this power shall be exercised only to the approval of the board. I see a great qualification in that, and if my hon. friend had proceeded differently, I would have been disposed to have taken over this amendment for future consideration.


William Findlay Maclean: I gave the right hon. Prime Minister every opportunity to say that.


The PRIME MINISTER.: But in view of the attitude of the hon. gentleman, and in view of the insulting language he has used towards hon. members of this House, there, is nothing to do but to vote down his amendment.


Mr. HALE.: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise for the purpose of taking any part in this debate, but I wish to correct a statement which has been made, and which has been read from a paper by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), to the effect that the way they discovered who the holders of the stock of this telephone company were was that Mr. Randolph had got into financial difficulties and that the stock was sold. I do not wish this statement to go broadcast through the country in that way, because it is a well known fact in our part of the country, whether it is here or not, that Mr. Randolph was not in financial difficulties, and therefore that the stock could not have been sold for that reason.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I expected that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) would, some time during the present session, read the statement which he has read to-day, because I saw that this story was being quite generally disseminated throughout the country. I have never been In the habit, in the course of my public career, of following up slanderous and defamatory statements as they appear In the newspaper press, because I have felt that I would have very little else to do if a certain class of newspaper men thought they would be likely to receive attention if they published statements that would have a scandalous and defamatory effect. Therefore, I have taken no notice of these things ; but the hon. gentleman, having read what he has read to-day, it is only fair that I should characterize it, as I can characterize It in the main, a tissue of wholly unfounded statements. It is true that I have been the holder of stock in the New Brunswick Telephone Company. If that is a crime, I have been guilty of that crime. It is true that I have been filling, since the organization of that company, a good many years ago and a good many years before I came to Ottawa, the position of president, not that I am receiving any salary from the company, for I have not received a dollar of salary from it. I was asked to take, in an honorary way, the position of president of the company, and when I came to Ottawa I saw no impropriety in my continuing in that position, without having had anything more to do with the management of the business than I had before I came here, or as much.
I have, therefore, to acknowledge that I am open to the accusation of having been connected with the company, and of being the president of that institution. It is also a fact that Mr. Sise, a gentleman known as

Colonel Sjise, in Montreal, bolds stock in that company. But when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) says that I am interested in and connected with the Bell Telephone Company, he states what he cannot have, and has not, the slightest authority for stating. It is absolutely and entirely incorrect. I cannot tell who are all the shareholders of the company. I did at one time know who they were, but I have not seen the share list for some time. But I have known that Colonel Sise is a shareholder, quite a considerable shareholder. He took stock in the company the same as others took stock in the company, so far as I know. But I hold no stock in the Bell Telephone Company, and if, because Colonel Sise is a shareholder in another company in which I have some stock ; if that makes me a party interested financially or otherwise in the Bell Telephone Company, then I can only say that it is a very strange conclusion to draw from a very single and individually distinct fact. Therefore, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean), has no warrant for saying that I have the slightest interest in the Bell Telephone Company any more than he has, perhaps not as much. I have not one dollar of stock in the Bell Telephone Company ; I have never had and never expect to have. So far as their financial interests are concerned, or so far as their interests in any way are concerned, I am as indifferent to them as is the hon. gentleman opposite ; quite as indifferent. The trouble with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) is that he cannot imagine any person can have an opinion upon any question which he raises, or upon any question of public moment, unless he be moved to that opinion through some private or personal interest of his own, or through some private or personal interest of his friends. That is the trouble with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean). He cannot conceive it possible that any man, upon any public question can* have an opinion which is not subordinate to some improper motive, or which is not instigated or suggested by some personal or individual interest.


Mr. CLANCY.: Would the hon. minister permit me to ask him a question ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman think it conceivable that a minister of the Crown, having charge of a Bill ; a government Bill that might trench upon the rights of a telephone company of which he was president; is it not conceivable that he might choose in favour of the company rather than the public interest ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is that ?


James Clancy: Is such a position not conceivable to the public, and a reasonable one ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: From what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) has stated, I do not think that any other telephone company in Canada could have any interest in opposing his motion except it would be the Bell Telephone Company, because the Bell Telephone Company is the company, according to his argument, upon which these monopolistic privileges have been conferred.


James Clancy: It would include all others would it not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: How could it possibly include all others ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) cannot have followed the discussion with any attention, or else he would see that the argument is the other way. Now, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) had been able to show that I was a stockholder, or that I was interested in a financial way in the Bell Telephone Company, he might have some ground for imputing to me the offence with which he has charged me: of being influenced in my view of this question because I was interested in the Bell Telephone Company. But 1 am not interested in the Bell Telephone Company to the extent of a five cent piece, and, therefore, whether the Bell Telephone Company do or do not continue to en.ioy any advantages which they have derived from their contract, is a matter of complete indifference to me so far as that is concerned. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean), in this statement, goes on to say that this company in New Brunswick-I will refer to that because I suppose I might as well meet the imputation now. He says:
When he was Premier of New Brunswick the stock was given to himself and his brother-inlaws. the Hon. Mr. Snowball, and the Hon. Senator Thompson.
I had no stock given to me. I paid for the stock I got; I paid for it the same as other people ; I paid for it out of my own means :
And that they had an exclusive telegraph franchise from the New Brunswick government so that the Bell Telephone Company had to buy them out on coming to that province.
Let me show the utter fallacy of that statement. The Bell Telephone Company was in New Brunswick before the New Brunswick Telephone Company had any existence. Therefore, that statement falls to the ground. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) has been deceived in the representations that have been made to him, and he has caught them up without ascertaining or attempting to ascertain whether there was any foundation for them. But, nevertheless, he comes here and he makes a cold blooded accusation against me as being guilty of a breach of my duty such as would entitle him to demand that I should resign


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: my place In tlie government of the country. He says that this company had an exclusive monopoly in New Brunswick. The company has not any exclusive monopoly at all in New Brunswick. Any other telephone company can be organized, and companies have been organized in New Brunswick. 1 will tell you what they have or what they had, lest it might be said that 1 withhold something. When the company got its charter, a great many years ago, in consideration of its building a long distance telephone, it was allowed the long distance privilege exclusively between certain towns for a term of years. They erected their lines according to the agreement between the government and the legislature and themselves but the exclusive privilege has long since expired, so that that company have no exclusive privilege, and when they had, it did not apply at all to the general telephone system in the province, because it was only a long distance privilege and did not apply to the cities and towns. He says further :
The company's affairs are kept secret, hut the fact became known to a few persons connected with the financial difficulties of Mr. Randolph a few yars ago.
My hon. friend (Mr. Hale) has answered that. So far as Mr. Randolph is concerned, although he happened, while he lived, to be connected with me, and I am connected with the family ; every one in New Brunswick knows that Mr. Randolph had no financial troubles. Neither do I think that he or his family had any stock in the Bell Telephone Company. I am not aware that they had. All this jumbling together of these statements came from some source to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean)-I almost suspect I know who it is. Some person who thought he was going to get some sort of a blow at me which would be injurious to me, has communicated with the hon. gentleman- that is, supposing it is a genuine despatch, and was not made up in the office of the newspaper in which it is published. However, I am willing to admit that it was a genuine despatch. So much for that. I will leave that just where it is. I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) ought, as n member of parliament; I think at all events as a matter of fairness he ought to have, before he disseminates and before he takes the means which will disseminate all over this country accusatory statements of that kind which are calculated to affect a public man unfavourably wherever they are read ; he ought at least to have taken some little pains to verify the correctness of these statements. He told us that he read this very reluctantly and that he would rather not have read it. I did not see very much reluctance on his part. But whether that is so or not, he did not hesitate to publish it, and probably if he felt so very much adverse to disseminating these falsehoods, he would not have been so ready to make 174
them public through the columns of his paper. I do not know whether it has a wide circulation or not, perhaps it has a limited circulation-but at all events he gave it all the circulation he could give it.
Coming now to the question before the committee. The hon. gentleman says that he waited to find out what was going to be done by the government. But the hon. gentleman heard on Saturday last what I had to say about it. I stated my view then, and I have not seen any reason to change that view from listening to the arguments that have been made. I felt that these arguments were not really addressed to the motion which is before the House. They were addressed upon the general proposition which perhaps might be put in such a form as would commend itself to parliament, but the motion in its present form is in such a state that it certainly cannot be accepted and made part of the law of the land. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) seems to be very much incensed at some bantering reference I made to his radicalism and social propensities, but I think the observation was fair enough in view of the attitude which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) has set up in this House upon so many occasions. The legislation he introduces is of such a character that I do not think any one would take the responsibility of fathering it who was a responsible individual. I stated on Saturday that I could not accept the motion introuduced by him, and i thought that was answer enough. I did not see that X was called upon to make any further reply. I stated the reasons why I could not accept it, and I think they are cogent reasons. Xle is not proposing legislation about some country districts ; he is not confining his legislation to out of the way places, but he is making his legislation general. I do not say that it would commend itself very much to my mind, even if it had been limited. He proposed :
That subject to the approval of the railway board a railway company shall grant equal telephone entries to its stations to all individuals or telephone companies asking therefor.
Now the only thing the board has to say is whether or not this law may be applied, whether or not the privilege, whenever applied for, shall be granted. They have nothing to do with the terms or conditions, as to what the telephone company ought to do or not to do in return, but what the board is asked to do is to approve of the proposition, and when they say yes, then the telephone goes in without any terms being provided.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Would not that be a matter within the jurisdiction of the com missioners under that resolution ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What ?


Mr.   CLARICE@: Do not these objections of the minister merely refer to matters of detail ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think so. Does the hon. gentleman ask us to frame an amendment for him that could be accepted ?


Mr. CLARKE.: Under the proposed
amendment the board, having the right to approve or disapprove, would insist on the terms upon which the additional telephone service would be put into the station.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The clause does not say so.


Mr. LANCASTER.: If the board can say, you may or may not do this, does it not follow as a matter of course, that they can also say, you may do it on certain conditions ? Is not that a reasonable proposition ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They could if they were authorized by parliament to say on what conditions that should be done; but the amendment does not say so. It does not say, upon such terms and conditions as the board may deem right to impose.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it not in the discretion of the board to say whether permission shall be given or not ? That being the case, if the board thinks the terms and conditions are unreasonable, they can refuse to allow the telephones to be put in.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no doubt they could refuse, and when they did refuse, that would be the end of it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think the very fact that the hon. member for East York proposes to give the commission discretion, is an evidence that he does not wish to deal harshly with the railway company. I think it is only fair to point that out.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is a matter of judgment. I think he has but one idea in his mind, that it should be imposed by law, subject to the regulation of the board, that any telephone company or any individual should have a right to put a telephone into a railway station and on the same terms. The board has not any discretion to vary the terms. There is a good deal more in this thing than most people imagine. No doubt there is on the part of a number of hon. gentlemen in this committee a feeling that it would be a great convenience in out of the way places if any telephone company doing business there were to be allowed the privilege of using the railway stations. But, after all said and done, these things can only be allowed under fair and reasonable conditions; and what have we to do with many Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
of the things that have been suggested here as reasons for granting the privilege ? One gentleman says, here is a person living ten or twenty miles away, he ought to have the privilege of calling up the agent and finding out what the market reports are. Another gentleman says that a man living at a long distance from the station, instead of being compelled to go to the station, ought to have the privilege of calling up the station agent to find out whether some friends of his whom he expects, have arrived, or when they ought to arrive. Just imagine such a proceeding as compelling the putting up of a telephone in the railway office by anybody who may ask it. I have had some little experience of these telephones on the Intercolonial Railway, and I am bound to say that they are very much of an annoyance and a nuisance. People who know the advantage that is taken of these telephones, and the circumstances under which they are used, will be quite ready to admit that this imperious demand that the railway companies shall allow telephones to be put in their offices for the convenience of everybody, has not so much reason or fairness behind it as at first sight appears. We allowed telephones to be put into some of our offices on the Intercolonial Railway, not because they were of any convenience to us, but because it was claimed that they would be a convenience to the public. What was the result ? There is quite a village and a considerable settlement in the neighbourhood. The result was that the girls and boys, the men and women, were constantly calling up and repeating their inquiries as to when such and such a train was to come in, whether so and so had arrived, whether this, that, or the other thing had happened. After they got an answer, they would call up again, keeping the station agent in the office replying to questions which in nine cases out of ten were purely for curiosity. That is how they work in many country districts. The telephones are simply made a perfect nuisance. They are not used by any means largely for business purposes.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman contend that because things like that occur, which occur with the best managed telephones throughout the country, we should discount the possibility of having legitimate business done over them ? The hon. gentleman has not urged any reason


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have no objection to the hon. gentleman asking me a question, but he is making a speech.


James Clancy: I was going to ask the hon. gentleman this if he thinks that because he has offered simply the trifling reasons, the real and legitimate reasons ought not to be granted ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I say the real and legitimate reasons do not exist to the extent that hon. gentlemen think.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What answer has the hon. minister given to the statement of the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) respecting the condition of things that will be created in his district ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not understand the hon. gentleman to say that anything very serious has occurred in his district.


Frank Oliver: What I said was that there is a system of something over 300 phones, with three exchanges, with radial lines in three directions for about twenty miles each, and another line of about twenty miles under construction. The Bell Company have never been in that part of the country at all, but are now stringing a long distance phone from one end of the country to the other, and just as soon as that reaches Edmonton, that company will have exclusive rights to the Edmonton railway station, and the local system will be cut off if the company enforces its rights under this agreement. I can only say that such a thing would be an outrage, and I hope *that we shall be protected against it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The Canadian Pacific Railway is not the only railway company that is going to be at Edmonton. It is the only one there at present.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The information could not be got from one railway station that could only be obtained from the other.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know about that. It is very possible that any one who wanted to know something about the Canadian Pacific Railway could find it out at the other station. Why should not a railway company have a right to say what telephone it would prefer to use for its own purposes ? And why should it at the same time be compelled to admit other telephones, and to do it on the same terms ? They may be prepared to make fair and reasonable terms with the first telephone company that applies to them, and if another telephone company came along that had not any business connections and that they were not satisfied would serve them as well, why should they be obliged to admit it on exactly the same terms ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: For this very reason, that a great many people who are not patrons of the Bell Telephone Company desire to get information from the railway station ; and if a rural system, such as that referred to by the hon. member for East York and 174}
that referred to by the hon. member for Alberta, is established in these different places, they have a right, I think, to ask the government to afford them facilities at the railway stations. I am satisfied that the more the hon. minister considers this matter, the more he will realize that there is a great deal of foundation for the statement of the hon. member for East York that the public have the impression that they are being discriminated against because they are not subscribers to the Bell Telephone Company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no doubt that the Bell Telephone Company has the advantage, with its extensive lines and its far reaching connections, and it makes it difficult for any other system to exist alongside of it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The telephone system is a monopoly, in its very nature, and the public are forced by the unfair exactions of that telephone company to establish other lines. These lines must be largely local, and a great deal of business done by these local lines would be done in connection with railway matters. I am sure that the hon. minister must see that if the agreement between the railway companies and the Bell Telephone Company is left undisturbed the monopoly which the Bell Telephone Company enjoys will be given a great deal longer life. The proposal is surely a reasonable one, that reasonable facilities should be given to these independent companies.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The case presented by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), is a case which does seem to be somewhat serious in the possibility of its results. But the question, after all, is very much larger than the question of the interest of the people in one locality. We must not shut our eyes to the fact that we cannot under any system of legislation-perhaps we ought not to If we could-advantageously nullify or impair the strength of any company such as the Bell Telephone Company. We hear a great deal about excessive and exorbitant rates ; I do not know that the rates are ; but I do not take a great deal of stock in these complaints. People are apt to think that these things should be done for nothing. But let them put their money into such a concern


William Findlay Maclean: That is exactly what they want to do.


Mr. MacLAREN (Perth).: It is the service we want. So far as the rates are concerned, I for my part, do uot object to them so much, if they will give ns the service.


William Findlay Maclean: Exorbitant rates and bad service go with monopoly.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not heard very much complaint about the Bell service. I thought it was pretty good; it is a good service here.


Alexander Ferguson MacLaren: It may be pretty good here, but so far as the city of Toronto is concerned, it is a very bad service. Every one tells the same story.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I know they have a very up-to-date system here. You often find people coining along promoting companies and promising to do great things for the people. But the object, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, is to be bought out by other companies or to make a little ' pull ' out of the organization.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am satisfied that if the hon. minister will consider the principle involved in the case, in view of the extensive powers given to the commission under the new Railway Act, he will agree that some latitude ought to be given in cases such as are mentioned by the bon. member for East York, to allow the commission to order that facilities be given to other exchanges than the Bell to put instruments into the railway stations. It is not in the public interest that the Bell Telephone Company should be permitted the exclusive privilege of placing instruments in the railway stations.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We do not give them any exclusive franchise. But I am looking at it from a railway point of view. While I am willing to keep the railways under strict control, I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that there is a disposition, and a growing disposition, throughout the country to regard the railway companies as having very slender rights, and to regard them as institutions to be jumped on. People are forgetting that, after all, though the railway companies have been granted these privileges, and even though their charter rights are very extensive, you do not find any of them in this country making a great deal of money.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You find some people in connection with them who appear to be pretty comfortable.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, but they are not the body of the shareholders. There are hundreds of shareholders outside of these people whose return is dependent upon the dividends which these companies pay. There may be some individuals who through some ' pull ' get the special benefits from the railway companies. But the great bodv of shareholders, I think, are fairly entitled to consideration.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then the hon. minister thinks It would impair the prospects of the Mr. MACLEAN.
shareholders of the company to have the proposal of the hon. member for East York carried out ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot think it is fair play even to a railway company that you should say that any other company shall have the right, on demand, to put its telephone into the station and compel the clerks and agents of the railway company to serve those telephones.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I agree with a great deal that the hon. minister has said on that point. But I would, with all due respect to the hon. gentleman, submit to him what was said by the hon. member for East York when the matter was last discussed :
I appeal to the minister to take my suggestion and incorporate in this Bill this clause, or a clause having a similar effect.
That was evidence that the hon. gentleman was not wedded to any particular form of words in which to frame his amendment, but rather wanted to present to the hon. minister a grievance which certainly exists in certain parts of the country, and to appeal to the minister, who has given this matter so much attention and from whom the public expects so much, to take the subject into consideration and frame an amend-, ment which would vest in the commissioners the power which he thinks necessary- and which, I must say seems to me, to be plainly necessary-in cases of emergency, to allow the people to have additional telephonic communication with the railway stations. The hon. gentleman, of course, must have confidence in the proposition, which this House has affirmed on so many occasions, that the appointment of a commission will result in great good to the public.
I think it is generally considered that, if a proper commission be appointed, the public will greatly benefit from its establishment and operations. And when the hon. member for East York proposes that the terms and conditions upon which additional telephonic communication may be allowed with the railway stations shall be left to the judgment of the commissioners, the minister may rest assured, as we are all assured, that not only the public interest, but the interests of the railways, will be served. Under the circumstances, I would most respectfully appeal to the hon. minister to give the matter consideration, and not to come to a decision to-day. Consideration of this Bill cannot be completed in less than two or three more sittings of the committee, and, before it is finished, he will be able to give the matter his attention. On every side there is a rising feeling throughout the country that the Bell Telephone Company ought not to be permitted, as they are permitted, to discriminate against the great body of people who are not their subscribers, by means of their ar-

rangement with the railway companies. These railway companies enjoy great rights and privileges obtained from this parliament and from various provinces and municipalities. Many of these railways have been heavily bonused by the provinces and the municipalities. The people who pay these bonuses have some rights left, we hope. I think we can appeal to the lion minister with confidence in this matter, to give the subject his serious consideration, and, if he does so, he will assuredly arrive at a compromise that will be satisfactory to the hon. member for East York, and will, at the same time, secure to the people the rights they are entitled to.


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) has certainly made a very earnest appeal but he has not a great deal of mercy.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have so much mercy that I would be glad to leave the framing of the amendment in the minister's own hands.
The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS-if he would impose upon me the consideration of questions coming up in this way. Certainly the amendment does not come forward in a form to make it obviously sound and complete. If the hon. gentleman thinks that I can, in the time when I am putting through this Bill, and with all the questions arising in connection with it, find time to consider and frame a proper amendment on new questions, I can hardly feel that he is in sympathy with my efforts or that he is taking a wholly reasonable view* of what ought to be done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister has a draftsman, has he not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have a very able assistant. I do not know whether hon. gentlemen have applied their minds to this whole question or not; I doubt it. But I would feel called upon to apply my mind to it before I would take the responsibility of consenting, so far as I am concerned, to this going into the Bill. I wish to point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) two or three things that I was going on to say when he rose a moment ago. I want to discuss this thing fairly. You are proposing to impose upon the railway company the duty, if it allows one telephone company to put its telephone into the office, of allowing other telephones to be put in upon precisely the same terms.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is the proposition.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Not unless the commissioners think it right.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is a question of yes or no.
The proposition is that the railway company shall have no right to say upon what terms telephones shall be put into their stations unless they allow other telephones in on equally favourable terms. What would be the effect ? I know absolutely from my own knowledge that it is idle to say that a station agent can attend to two or three instruments as well as to one. I believe that is good railroad opinion. I know that some of my own officers hold that opinion. I have discussed the matter with the general manager of the Intercolonial Railway and the chief engineer; and they tell me that to attempt to pay attention and reply to and follow two or three telephones, would, in many instances, be fraught with danger. The station agent's business is to follow his ticker closely; he must not allow his attention to be diverted. He may answer the telephone once in a morning, but to multiply these calls would create a possible danger. That is a thing that must be considered. I think that the passing of a clause such as the hon. member (Mr. Maclean) has proposed would result in this- that the railway company would turn out every telephone, and we should have demands made upon us that they be compelled to admit them to their offices. They serve the great majority of the people, they are a direct convenience.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will that cut out all the telephones ? Do you think the agent would not lose more time answering personal questions that will be asked in consequence ?


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When it comes to a personal application, he would not have one question to forty lie would have to answer otherwise. That would be the result if you were to force the companies to take them in, if you did not recognize ordinary business rules that govern in these transactions. If you try by some statutory enactment to overcome the disadvantages of a departure from ordinary principles, you are sure to laud yourself in difficulty, and sure to fail. Supposing you got two or three instruments into an office, what time is the station agent going to have to attend to them all ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: That would be governed entirely by the regulations.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They have no power to do that, and you could not compel them to answer.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They are not bound to answer now.


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, because it is a voluntary matter with them, it is a business matter, it is not something they have had forced upon them by outside pressure. I feel that while this may appear to be a very easy matter to dispose of, when you come to work it out, it is not so easy. I have no

objection to saying that if I hud the time at my disposal to think the matter over, 1 would see if I can make anything out of jt.
I may, before the Bill is finally disposed of. give it my attention. But if the hon. gentleman presses his amendment to-day I shall have to ask the committee to reject it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think after the suggestion of the minister the hon. member for East York might withdraw his amendment.


William Findlay Maclean: No, let it stand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say a word in regard to some observations made by the Prime Minister. He seemed to recognize that there was perhaps a good deal of merit in the contention, but owing to the way in which the amendment was presented to the House, he did not feel disposed to accept it. I hope, however, that, in his generous nature, and after thinking the matter over further, he will not allow the public interest to suffer because of the unfortunate way in which the amendment was presented.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I told the Minister of Railways that I thought the amendment was worthy of consideration, but as it is drafted, I do not think it should be accepted by the committee. I think it should be now either withdrawn or voted down. But the Minister of Railways is quite willing to consider the idea.


Andrew George Blair: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the Prime Minister any objection to allowing the amendment to stand ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think it had better be withdrawn or voted upon.


Peter Macdonald: I may say that this is not an amendment to the section, it is proposed as a separate section, so that it can be allowed to stand.


William Findlay Maclean: I cannot consent to withdraw my proposal. If the Prime Min-inister insists on a division now and he chooses to defeat it, he has a right to do so. As I have said, I was willing to assist the minister in every way, I invited him to take the suggestion, and if he had been a little conciliatory, things would not have come to the head that they have. I gave the Prime Minister every opportunity. If he thought the idea worthy of consideration, why did he not tell the House there was something ih it 1 But when the last moment arrived and the chairman was just about calling on the committee either to accept the amendment or vote it down, then 1 had to take measures to put the government in a penitential mood, because they are in a penitential mood now in consequence of the rather vigorous way which I had to adopt. I ask the minister and the leader of the House now, in view of all that has been said, to let my proposal stand until a later stage of the Bill. Perhaps it can be modified in some way to meet the objections of the Minister of "Railways.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is clear it cannot stand, because it is not moved in amendment to any section under consideration, it is an independent amendment. What the hon. gentleman can do is to move it as a separate section before we get through with the Bill, and there would be no advantage taken of the fact that it is rejected as an amendment.


Peter Macdonald: An hon. member can withdraw a motion like this and reintroduce it at a future sitting of the committee; or. if the committee is favourable, he can introduce it between any other two sections.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am willing to consider it. I may tell the hon. member for East York (Mr. McLean) that I am willing to try and get an opportunity of thinking it out. I do not think there is much in it that is capable of being worked out, though I may turn out to be wrong.


William Findlay Maclean: I will withdraw it on the understanding that I may introduce it again.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is a free parliament.


William Findlay Maclean: But to bring it to a sense of freedom, you may sometimes have to use tbe sledge hammer.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Withdraw.
Amendment withdrawn.
On section 235,
Every company shall, as soon as possible, and within forty-eight hours at the furthest, after the occurrence upon the railway belonging to such company, of any accident attended with serious personal injury to any person using the same, or whereby any bridge, culvert, viaduct, or tunnel on or of the railway has been broken or so damaged as to be impossible or unfit for immediate use, give notice thereof to the board: and every company which omits to give such notice shall forfeit to His Majesty the sum of two hundred dollars for every day during which the omission to give the same continues.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose to amend by inserting after the word ' which ' the words ' wilfully or negligently.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would ask the minister to abandon that amendment. It is on the same principle that we had up the other day, that is, putting the onus in 1he wrong place. Besides in this case it is not practicable. The minister will remember that the other day we had a similar question up, and after a while he conceded that it was correct to abandon the words. How is a company going to be wilful or negligent ? How can you prove the wilful negligence of the company unless you fasten the Act upon some officer of the company ? The minister will remember that a few sections back we discussed that question with regard to the way the onus was put, and the same thing applies here. * And every company which wilfully and negligently omits to give such notice shall forfeit to His Majesty ' and so on. How can you prove that they have omitted wilfully and negligently ? If you are going to enforce the penalty you ought notf to be obliged to prove? what you will have great difficulty in proving that they have done it wilfully. If the Act is ordered to be done there is negligence if it is not done and it is almost impossible to convict a man of negligently refusing to do a thing if you have to prove that he was guilty of negligence.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster). I think it would be an extremely severe piece of legislation if, where there was no negligence, or wilfulness in the matter, we were to impose such a penalty as this. I must insist upon having these words put in.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The word ' wilfully ' is in the old Act, but the word ' negligently ' is not, and the old Act has not been found to work well.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think this will strengthen the section very materially.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The old Act required that you should prove a malicious omission. That was bad enough, but to say that they shall not be liable unless they do it wilfully or negligently would make it necessary for you to prove some kind of negligence to enable you to enforce the penalty. You could never secure a conviction.


Haughton Lennox: The old section required that they should give notice within 48 hours. The section in the Bill as originally drawn provided that they should do it within 48 hours, but now, under the amendment, they have to do it immediately. There might be some meaning in having the word ' wilfully ' inserted if they had 48 hours in which to give notice, but I do not see how it is possible to contend that the words ' wilfully ' and ' negligently ' properly come into the section as it is now proposed to be amended. If the company is bound immediately after the head officer of the company has received information of the occurrence to give notice to the board, it does not seem to me that the hon. minister has any ground for contending that there is any necessity for introducing such words as ' wilfully ' or ' negligently ' into the section. There is a specified time prescribed for their doing that and if that is thought to be too short give them a longer time, but when we prescribe the time it does not appear to be well that we should introduce words which would create such a vast uncertainty in regard to the matter. As a counsel of such large experience as the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, I need not call his attention particularly to the fact of the amount of litigation that these two words have occasioned. The uncertainty of construction and the great diffi-cultv of determining specific cases from time to time that these two words have caused afford a sufficient reason for being very careful in introducing them except where they are absolutely necessary.
^ection. as amended, agreed to.
On section 236,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved :: That section 236 be amended by inserting after the word ' hoard ' on the first line the words ' may by regulations declare the manner and form in which such information and notice shall be given and the class of such accident to which the last preceding section shall apply and may declare any such information so given to be privileged and the board.'


Edward Frederick Clarke: I wotild like to ask the hon. minister what this will really mean when the section becomes law. As the hon. minister is aware, I have drawn his attention once or twice to the question of the frequency of railway accidents which take

place in this country and which are attended with loss of life, and I have suggested to the hon. minister the advisability of appointing an officer similar to the officers of the board of trade in England whose duty it shall he, in the case of an accident occurring, involving the loss of a human life, to proceed at once to make a thorough and complete investigation of the causes of the accident, to make a report, and if there is any negligence shown on the part of the officers or servants of the company they should forthwith be prosecuted. I think it absolutely necessary that some such provision shall be made in the law, and I would like to ask the hon. minister if this section 236 as amended will provide the necessary machinery. I would suggest that it should not be optional with the board, in case of fatal accident, whether an official shall be sent to inquire into the causes of the accident. The hon. minister lias been good enough to order an investigation into two of the railway accidents which have occurred in this country during the past six or eight months, and I am sure I can speak with confidence when I say that the reports which have been presented by the commissioners have afforded the strongest possible testimony that is required as to the necessity of having some such officer as I have suggested appointed forthwith. I would like to ask the hon. minister if he is going to provide that there shall be such an officer and that he shall act on every occasion when an accident attended with loss of life occurs ? It ought not to within the purview, or within the right, of the commissioners to say when and where an officer shall be appointed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is the intention. I think there should be an investigation into every accident attended with loss of life.
air. CLARKE. I understand from the amendment that the board may send an officer. I fliink it should be mandatory, that it should not be optional with the board, and that provision should be made in this Bill that in every case where loss of life results from a railway accident an official investigation should be held into the cause of the accident and a report made. Provision should also be made for the punishment of those who are derelict in their duty. The hon. - minister knows from the reports he has received from the commissioners that they give the best possible reason why action should be taken in this matter.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) in that. Where an accident occurs attended with loss of life there should be an investigation. That is the intention here.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the section as amended makes provision for an immediate investigation and report into the cause of every rail-Mr. CLARKE.
way accident involving a loss of life, that is all that I can ask for.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is what the section has been framed to ensure. I agree with the hon. gentleman that there ought to be in every case.
On section 238,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move to amend the section by striking out the words * early in July in each year ' and inserting ' in each year before the plants have sufficiently matured to seed.'


William Findlay Maclean: This section mentions thistles and other noxious weeds. The two great pests in the railway districts in Ontario are sweet clover and mustard, and they are travelling along the railways at a rapid rate. I would move that the words ' mustard and sweet clover ' be added after the word ' mustard.'


Haughton Lennox: I do not know anything about the sweet clover, but I know that the wild mustard is getting to be a serious pest in Ontario.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are different noxious weeds in different places, and I do not think that you can cover them all.


Haughton Lennox: Is this sweet clover a weed ?


William Findlay Maclean: It is a very injurious weed. On the Canadian Pacific Railway, east of Toronto, there are miles and miles of it, and it is a perfect pest. I believe it is mentioned in the Ontario Act as a noxious weed. The special pests in our portion of the country are thistles, mustard, and wild clover, and they ought be named iu this section and destroyed by the railway companies.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is undoubtedly a fact that this sweet clover is getting to be an unmitigated nuisance, and it seems to propagate with great rapidity.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Have you any doubt that it is a noxious weed ? If it is a noxious weed it is covered by the section.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A person is sometimes said to be on easy street when he is in clover, but I do not- know whether this clover would be noxious or not.


William Findlay Maclean: The Minister of Agriculture can tell us about that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is a very dangerous weed.


William Findlay Maclean: And the Minister of Agriculture will bear me out in saying that it travels faster along the railway track than anywhere else, for what reason I cannot say.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It must have a pass.


William Findlay Maclean: - I would like to have It uamed in the clause because if it is named the roadmaster will tell his seetionmen to cut it down.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We might strike out the word ' thistles ' and let the section read :	' Ail
noxious weeds.'


Haughton Lennox: I am pleased that the minister lias made an alteration by putting in the words ' before the plants are sufficiently matured, to seed.' I think that is a decided improvement, but if you began to name the noxious weeds I am afraid you will make your law weaker instead of strengthening it. If you say all noxious weeds you will include them all.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: In the seed Bill of the Minister of Agriculture which is supposed to include all noxious weeds he does not mention the sweet clover, and if a question arose as to whether it was a noxious weed or not, that might be taken as an authority. This weed is sweeping widespread over the western part of Ontario and' it certainly is a great nuisance.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Sweet clover may not be classed *as a noxious weed, and therefore it should be mentioned in the clause.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You could strike out the word ' thistle ' and make it read ' all noxious weeds.'


Mr. HENDERSON.: I would not approve of that because the thistle is not commonly called a weed, and if you do not name it I am afraid it would not come under the operation of the clause. The thistle has different characteristics from a weed, and there was no doubt a good reason for inserting it in the clause before. I would be in favour of retaining the word ' thistle ' and also including sweet clover and wild mustard.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would not set my opinion against that of the hon. member (Mr. Henderson) as to whether the thistle is a weed, but I think it is generally regarded as being injurious to land.


William Findlay Maclean: Sweet clover is a very obnoxious weed and while I believe it is not included in the Bill of the Minister of Agriculture, yet it is included I think in the Ontario Act.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: 1 think
it would be very offensive to Scotchmen and their descendants if you were to call the national emblem of their great country a weed. I may say that in our Peoples' Garden, at Halifax, of which we are very proud, as being perhaps the best for its size in the Dominion of Canada, it is cultivated and kept as an ornament; and I feel very much hurt myself that you would place that emblem of that great and glorious country in the class of weeds.


Jabel Robinson: Some thistles are comparatively harmless, such as the Scotch thistle, the Sow thistle, and the Russian thistle. The Canada thistle is the most harmful.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The Sow thistle and the Russian thistle are just about as bad as the Canada thistle.


Mr. HEYD.: In the Minister of Agriculture's Bill regulating the sale of seeds, the Canada thistle is specially mentioned.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think we had better make the clause read :	' Every company shall
cause thistles and all noxious weeds,' &c.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Haughton Lennox: I propose to move the following as subsection 3, of this clause :
Every company shall also, by a sufficient number ot its employees to ensure the safe carrying out of the same, from time to time and as often as occasion therefor arises, and at the season of the year appearing to be the most safe and suitable for carrying out the work, burn or otherwise destroy or dispose of, all dry grass, weeds, decayed and decaying matter of every kind, and all waste material, refuse and rubbish, upon their right of way and lands, so as to prevent as far as possible fire accidentally originating upon and spreading from such right of way or lands, to the prejudice of the owners and occupiers of adjoining lands; and for every day during which the company neglects to comply with the provisions of this subsection, it shall incur a penalty of two dollars, to be recovered with costs in any court of competent jurisdiction, by any interested person suing therefor.
I may say that I am not especially wedded to the particular wording of this clause ; but, from my observation and from what the farmers have told me, I think it is very much needed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are not at present dealing with the fire clauses. If there is any question of cutting out the long dry grass beside the track, there will be discussion of that question on a motion which is to be moved by one of the hon. gentlemen from the west. Perhaps that will be the more appropriate occasion.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
TORONTO AND HAMILTON RAILWAY COM.	PANT.
On the Order being called :
[Stage Direction]


Resuming adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Campbell, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 147) to incorporate the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company.
Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to know if there is to be any arrangement under which we shall receive notice when this Bill is to go on ? I have an amendment to propose. I understand the parties are trying to get together and agree upon some amendments ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understood from what the promoter of the Bill said that the Bill would probably come up on Monday.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: I believe there is a different arrangement. Representatives of the parties interested have been in conference with the member for West York (Mr. Campbell). And I understand that the Bill is not to come up before next Wednesday, and the hon. member for West York will not even then bring it up if the parties are not ready. So, I think my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) may rely upon it not being ready before next Wednesday, and not even then unless the city of Toronto is satisfied.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That will be quite satisfactory, provided we get notice in time to give notice of amendments before the Bill is considered.
Order allowed to stand.



CENTURY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 175) respecting the Century Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Morrison.
On section 3,
Mr. MORRISON.: I find I am not able to go on with this Bill to-night. I, therefore move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House again went into committee on Bill (No. 176) to incorporate the Canadian Transportation and Storage Company.-Mr. German.
On section 2,
William Findlay Maclean: Are there no changes in. this section ? The Minister of Justice held this Bill up the other night explaining that some changes were to be made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This Bill gives the provisional directors the right to act'as though they had been elected directors. I under-Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
stood the hon. Minister of Justice wanted to make some changes.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I must confess that this is not the sort of legislation that I would personally promote or approve of. This Bill was reported by the Committee on Banking and Commerce and we know that they have the advantage of the opinion of an expert in such matters, Mr. Fitzgerald, of the Finance Department. It seems that the Bill was very carefully examined and reported by the committee, that report being based upon the opinion of Mr. Fitzgerald. I do not want to put my opinion against the opinion of the experts, although I am clear in my own mind that such legislation ought not to be approved of.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have so often refused this power, that it seems scarcely right that we should allow it to one company, having refused it to so many others.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am informed that that is exactly the reverse of the case, that similar legislation is going through the House almost every day that such Bills have been allowed to pass for years.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I agree with the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) with regard to this. The object of creating provisional directors is to have some persons to organize the company. But this provides that they may do more.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The section provides that these directors * shall have all the powers which are conferred upon directors of the company elected by the shareholders.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not necessary to grant such powers in order to facilitate the organization of the company.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that in view of the remarks of the hon. Minister of Justice and of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, perhaps the Bill had better be held in committee for further inquires on the point referred to. I do not remember this particular point being brought before the Committee on Banking and Commerce. I think it will be found that this is a copy of a clause in other Bills, if further consideration of the measure is postponed now I will see to it that this point is looked into.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Section 5 of the Bill may possibly help it out, for it provides
So soon as twenty per cent of the amount of the capital stock has been subscribed, and twenty per cent on such subscribed stock paid into one of the chartered banks in Canada, the provisional directors, or a majority of them, shall call a general meeting of the shareholders to be held at the head office of the company,
5558

3T
for the purpose of electing directors of the company, and of transacting any other business which may be done at a shareholders' meeting.
That would seem to minimize the authority of the directors.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But I would call attention to the fact that section 3 provides :-
The capital stock of the company shall he two million dollars, divided into shares of one hundred dollars each, and may be called up by the directors from time to time as they deem necessary.
So, you see, it leaves very large powers in the hands of the provisional directors. However, this is a matter that has been considered in committee, and I do not want to be constantly suggesting changes in these Bills. This was considered in the Banking and Commerce Committee, and,
I understand, under the advice of an expert.


William Findlay Maclean: The Minister of Justice is in an advisory position with regard to this House, and we are entitled to the benefit of his advice. And when he tenders it he is bound to stand to it and see it through.
I am willing to take the advice of the Minister of Finance and leave the matter over to be looked into. If a clause such as is here proposed is wrong, even though it has been passed in other Bills, the Minister of Justice knows that it is an impolitic clause to have, and I hope the members of the government will have it modified in the right direction.	.


Mr. FRASER.: Does the hon. Minister of Justice think that section 3 refers to provisional directors ?


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I would point out that the provisional directors have -all the powers of directors.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is the point.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that perhaps this goes further than the committee intended. So far as I am concerned. I do not recollect any Bill similar to this passing the House.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would like to point out that section 17 provides that sections 18 and 39 of the Companies' Clauses Act shall not apply to the company. Section 18 is the one that provides for the ten per cent being called up. So, if you look the whole Bill over and put the clauses together, there are many things to be carefully considered.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It would be better to let it remain in the committee for the present. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 156). to incorporate the Montreal-Longueuil Bridge Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
On section 8,
William Findlay Maclean: When that Bill was be-for the committee, I urged that the city of Montreal should have some voice in the regulation of the tolls. It is the entrance to the metropolis of Canada. The Bill provides for a roadway for vehicles and individuals, and for all kinds of passenger traffic as well as railway traffic. That being the case, I contend that the city of Montreal ought to have some voice in fixing the tolls that are to be imposed upon the public.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



THE ASS1NIBOINE RIVER WATER POWER.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 192) to enable the city of Winnipeg to utilize the Assiniboine river water power.-Mr. Puttee.
On section 4,
The city or its assignees or appointees as aforesaid may excavate, construct, operate, keep in repair and enlarge a canal (with loeks if necessary) to connect the Assiniboine river with Lake Manitoba.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. When this Bill was discussed in the Private Bills Committee,
I drew attention to one or two clauses of the Bill, and it was by mutual agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) that the Bill was allowed to pass the committee, with the understanding that we would discuss it in the House. These works that are to be undertaken by the city of Winnipeg may, if due precaution is not taken, interfere with navigation. The Board of Trade of Winnipeg has appointed a committee to examine this Bill, and I understand the attention of the government has been called to the probability that these works may interfere with navigation of the river, and .have asked that neither in the construction of bridges nor in the construction of these works, shall the navigation of the Assiniboine river be interfered with. I hold in my hand a telegram signed by C. N. Bell, secretary of the Board of Trade of Winnipeg, in which he says :
Board committee on navigation of the Assiniboine river consider Bill No. 16 of advantage to navigation if lock is provided for.
They therefore insist that in all cases where these works are allowed to be done, locks should be provided in order that the navigation of the river may not be interfered with. The powers asked for by the city of Winnipeg extend to a very long distance from the city. They ask for power to construct a canal between the Assiniboine and Lake Manitoba, which is some
[Stage Direction]
sixty-five or sixty-six miles from the city of Winnipeg. I do not object to giving power to the city of Winnipeg to establish water connection between the Assiniboine and Lake Manitoba, but I would insist that the words between the brackets here shall be so changed as to compel the city to build locks on that canal in order to prevent the overflow of the lake into the Assiniboiue river, and over the whole country between Lake Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg. Section 4 provides :
The city, or its assignees or appointees, as aforesaid, may excavate, construct, operate, keep in repair and enlarge a canal (with locks,
if necessary)-
I want to leave in the words ' with locks ' and strike out the words ' if necessary.'
-to connect the Assiniboine river with Lake Manitoba.
I believe that the city should be compelled to provide locks.
Peter Macdonald: I have explained to the committee several times that no amendment can be made to a private Bill in Committee of the Whole without first giving a full day's notice of the intention to make such an amendment. That of course, refers to an important amendment. The correction of a clerical error or an unimportant amendment could be made, but I think it would be well for all hon. members of the House to remember that particular point. A full day's notice of an important amendment must be given before such an amendment can be made in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I understood that rule and that is the reason why I explained that I allowed the Bill to pass before the committee on the,understanding with the promoter that we would discuss it in the House, but since the rules have to be carried out, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Motion agreed to, and progress reported.



COLUMBIA RIVER IMPROVEMENT COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 150) to incorporate the Columbia River Improvement Company.-Mr. Galliher.
The MINISTER OP JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the promoter of this Bill that certain representations have been made to the government on behalf of the government of British Columbia in respect to the provisions of this Bill, and we would like to have the matter remain over for the purpose of considering a letter received today by the right hon. Prime Minister from the Prime Minister of British Columbia. I beg to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported. Mr. LaRIVIERE.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 197) respecting the Rocky Mountain Railway Company.-Mr. Costigan.
Bill (No. 46) respecting the Kingston and Pembroke Railway Company.-Mr. Harty.
Bill (No. 161) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of the Woolf Valve Gear Company.- Mr. Belcourt.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 21) to amend and consolidate the laws respecting railways.-The Minister of Railways and Canals.
On section 238,
Haughton Lennox: Mr. Chairman, when six o'clock was reached, I had moved that a subsection to be known as subsection 3 should be added to section 23S of the Bill. The reason why I have brought this up without mentioning the matter to the hon. minister before was that until I had a copy of the amendments the hon. minister was introducing, I did not think it would be advisable to draft anything on this line. Subsection 2 points out that if a company fail to comply with the provisions of section 238 they shall ' incur a penalty of $2 for every day during which such company neglects to do anything which it is so required to do.' In drafting subsection 3. as proposed, I have endeavoured to adopt the same principle as laid down in subsection 2, but I have not thought it advisable to include in the subsection I am moving a provision as to a magistrate or justice of the peace who, according to subsection 2 :
May cause all things to he done which the said company is so required to do, and for that purpose may enter by himself, and his assistants or workmen, upon such lands, and may recover the expenses and charges incurred in so doing, and the said penalty with costs in any court of competent jurisdiction.
I have thought that the burning of the dry grass and other accumulations should not be entrusted to anybody but the railway company and their officers. In proposing this subsection, I do so, from my knowledge not only of railways with which I am familiar but also of cases that I have been connected with myself, and cases which I have observed in the courts resulting from the damage caused by fire. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) has introduced a Bill dealing with the question of locomotive engines throwing sparks, and he also intimated the other night that he would probably introduce an amendment to some section of the Bill dealing with the question of locomotive engines by which I believe the onus would be thrown upon the railway to prove that everything that couid be done to guard against fire had been done. In connection with the question of fire ori-

ginating from locomotive engines I think one of the great sources of clanger will be eliminated if something on this line is adopted requiring railway companies, as they do already in many instances, to my knowledge, to clean up their lines of railway by the burning of grass and of such material as is useless. When there is a claim for damage by the party interested the question arises as to whether the fire was caused by any defect in the appliances of the railway company, or whether it originated upon the railway property, or perhaps the property of an adjoining owner.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Amendments in regard to this matter have been suggested by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) the member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) and by my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox). If it be agreeable to the committee I would like to name a day, say Thursday next, when I would invite the gentlemen interested in this subject to be present to discuss it. In the meantime if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) permits me, I will study his motion meanwhile and perhaps a good deal of time could he saved.


Haughton Lennox: I shall be very happy indeed to adopt the suggestion of the minister. I would direct his attention, however, to the manner in which the penalty is to be recovered. The provision is that it should be recovered by suit by any person interested in the matter. There is only a penalty of $2 a day, and while that in one sense might apply to the whole line of railway, ye't I assume that the intention is that each party would be entitled to recover in respect to the section in which he is interested.
I will not be present next Thursday as I have to attend to some law business, and if it would suit the minister I would like to have it deferred until another day.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will not press it on Thursday if the hon. gentleman is not present, but I think we will have to discuss the Bill that day.
On section 240,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is a section in the old Act, section 288, which on first consideration I thought might be left out, but having considered it since, I think I will ask the committee to re-enact that section as it is in the existing Act and we will call it section 241 of this Act.
On section 242,


William Findlay Maclean: All these by-laws of the company are made subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, except such as relate to tolls. I would suggest that the time-tables of the company, with regard to
the arrival and departure of trains, be made subject to the approval of the board, as is the case in England, instead of the Governor in Council. There it is impossible for a railway company arbitrarily to change the time of the arrival and departure of trains, and I think the public should be in a position to appeal to the board of commissioners in a matter of this kind. Sometimes a railway company makes a radical change in its time table without consulting the public or giving the public an opportunity of being heard.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are a good many other matters besides the arrival and departure of trains, and it might be well that the Governor in Council should determine whether or not these by-laws should be finally approved. Under section 245 the board must report upon them to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council cannot act without such report, and you are practically reaching the same end as if you distinctly provided that they should be first submitted to the board.


William Findlay Maclean: It is a round-about way. The practice in Great Britain is for the public to go straight to the board of trade and be heard. There are many parts of this country through which the railways run which at times do not get a sufficient railway service ; many of the trains run through and do not stop. If there were some kind of appeal straight to the commissioners, it would save the Council a lot of trouble, and be of substantial advantage to the publie. In England the railways cannot change their time-tables radically without the municipalities or other parties interested being heard. I merely throw out the suggestion.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The arranging of the time-tables is a very much more serious matter in England, where they carry millions where we only carry thousands.


Haughton Lennox: I wish to call Hie minister's attention to another matter. There was a Bill introduced the other day by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) which might be affected by this provision. The Bill provided that railway companies shall not exempt themselves from liability to their employees on account of accidents by reason of the rules which they may frame. Whether these rules are exclusively rules of the railway company as such, or rules of the insurance branch of the railway company, or partly both, I am not sure.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no legal connection between the insurance company and the railway. company.


Haughton Lennox: I know they are quite distinct. But the company make certain

rules as a railway company, and then there are certain rules of the insurance company. Of course, I should not be right in saying that the railway was an insurance company too. The insurance company is a distinct corporation of the employees of the railway company, and it is contributed to by the railway company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think that as a rule they are voluntary associations.


Haughton Lennox: The railway company got an Act through parliament establishing this as an insurance association. I am not sure whether this section conflicts or not. I do not see the hon. member for South Wellington here, but I am interested in his Bill, although not promoting it, and if the hon. minister says that in case of necessity we may come back to this section, that is all I require.
On section 246,
A printed copy of so much of any by-law, rule or regulation, as affects any person, other than the shareholders, or the officers, servants or employees of the company, shall be openly affixed, and kept affixed, to a conspicuous part of every station belonging to the company, so as to give public notice thereof to the persons interested therein or affected thereby ; and in the province of Quebec, such notice shall te published both in the English and French languages.
There are several sections in the province of Ontario where this provision with regard to the French language is seemingly as necessary as in the province of Quebec. I see that in several stations not far from Ottawa, Smith's Falls, for instance, the rules are printed in both languages. It is not a matter in which I am very much concerned, but the point may be worth considering.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would be difficult to provide that.


Haughton Lennox: I suppose the employees can read both languages.
On section 250,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move to amend that by striking out the word ' or ' between the word ' president ' and the word ' secretary,' and to insert after the word ' secretary,' ' or other executive officer.'


Haughton Lennox: What is the meaning of
' executive officer ' in that case ? That is pretty broad.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The executive officers are known by different names. In the Canadian Pacific Railway there is the chairman of the board, on the Grand Trunk, the general manager. In another company it may be the managing director. These are the executive heads.


Haughton Lennox: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Might I suggest that it should read ' or other officers having control of the seal of the company.' I suppose a by-law, rule or regulation would not be good without the seal of the company. It would be well to have some limit to the officers certifying in these cases, for with a word capable of so wide an interpretation as ' executive officer,' it might be certified by an officer not at all in high executive position. But if he were an officer in charge of the seal of the company, we should probably be right in assuming that he was an executive officer.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But he must have custody of the seal, or he could not seal it. I do not want to limit it to the president and the secretary.
On section 251,
1.	The company or the directors of the company, by by-law, or any such officer or officers of the company as are thereunto authorized by by-law of the company or directors, may from time to time prepare and issue tariffs of the tolls to be charged, as hereinafter provided, for all traffic carried by the company upon the railway, or in vessels, and may specify ihe persons to whom, the place where, and the manner in which, such tolls shall be paid.
2.	All such by-laws shall be submitted to and approved by the board.
3.	The board may approve such by-laws in whole or in part, or may change, alter or vary any of the provisions therein.
4.	No tolls shall be charged by the company until a by-law authorizing the preparation and issue of tariffs of such tolls has been approved by the board, nor until the provisions of this Act have been complied with ; nor shall the company charge, levy or collect any money for any services as a common carrier, except subject to the provisions of this Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move to amend this section by striking out from subsection 4 the words ' nor until the provisions of this Act have been complied with.' It seems necessary to make this change, because, on consideration hon. members will see that these words are very far-reaching. It would be unfair to say that because the company had not cleared up the right of way according to the requirements of the Act or because they had not repaired some small bridge on a branch line-questions having nothing to do with this question of tolls-they shall not be allowed to charge.


William Findlay Maclean: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Haughton Lennox: I am not prepared to say that the hon,. minister is not right in proposing to strike out these words. There is a good deal of 'force in his suggestion. The reference in this section is to sections 223 and 231 of the old Act. It is not easy

to trace them, because there is a good deal of change in the arrangement.
Section 223 begins in this way :
Subject to the provisions and restrictions of this Act in the special Act contained.
Now that is not in any part of this section. Section 251 of this Bill begins :
The company or the directors of the company, by by-law, or any such officer or officers of the company as are thereunto authorized by by-law of the company or directors, may from time to time

It is not made subject to the provisions of this Act we are now passing, or subject to the provisions of the special Act. I submit that both of these ought to be in. I am not sure but that the provisions of this Act may be controlled by what appears down at the end of the section, but so far as the special Act is concerned, I think it ought to be in. Then there is another matter that is not in this section, which I think ought to be referred to in a foot-note, that is section 227, the provision as to the inability of the company to collect tolls. The corresponding provision, I think, is found in section 237, of the old Act, although it is not referred to :
No toll shall be levied or taken until the by-law fixing such tolls has been approved of by the Governor in Council, or until after two weekly publications in the ' Canada Gazette ' of such by-law and Order in Council approving thereof, nor shall any company levy or collect any money for services as a common carrier except subject to the provisions of this Act.
I want the minister to tell us whether he intends to leave out the provision as to the publication in the ' Canada Gazette,' or whether it is controlled by some other section.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman will find that very ample provision has been made for publication. He is now dealing with a portion of the Bill which I regard as one of its cardinal features, and which is based upon a totally different principle from the existing law. What he would have me put in has been left out in accordance with the scheme on which this Bill has been designed. It would be very inappropriate, and would only serve to confuse most men, and lead to misapprehension. If the hon. gentleman will compare this Bill with the old Act, he will see that they are absolutely dissimilar. So far as this class of cases is concerned, there are twenty-five or thirty new sections. The scheme of the present Bill is not, as it is in the old law, that the railway company shall fix and regulate the tolls subject to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. In this Bill all the railway company is authorized to do is to prepare and- issue a tariff. The words 'fixing and regulating tolls' are not to be found in any of the powers vested in the
company, but they are to be found in the powers which are conferred upon the board, subject, of course, to the approval of the Governor in Council.


Haughton Lennox: I think the minister misapprehends what I was aiming at. I was merely asking the minister to explain to us if it was now necessary that the publication should be had as before. I raised a question as to the effect of the special Act on the question of tolls. I think probably that should be made more clear in this Bill. I am not sure that it might not be controlled already by some of these sections. Now suppose that we pass here a special Act in which the western members are interested. They are greatly exercised over the question of tolls, and in granting charters they often raise the question of what the tolls shall be. There have been special provisions as to tolls, and when the Grand Trunk Pacific Act is completed and a guarantee is entered into by the government, then I apprehend there will be a special provision as to tolls incorporated in the Act. So it may happen that there will be a case where a special Act will govern and control the tolls. Well, if the special Act touches that question of tolls in any existing or future charter, then it would be in unfortunate conflict with this section, because it is left absolutely in the power of the board to deal with the question of tolls.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are proposing here, so far as language will do it, that all the powers necessary in order to govern the rates shall be possessed by this board. I would not like to introduce anything that would cast any doubt or suspicion at all on the ample character of the powers of the board in that respect.


Haughton Lennox: The board can revise the tolls either up or down. Now if a railway company had a special Act in which these rates are fixed by charter and these rates were lower than the board proposed to determine, then the special Act would govern. I think I have proposed a proper precaution, and having called the attention of the minister to it, I am willing to leave the point.


Mr. FOWLER.: There should be a notice given to the general public of the intention to issue a new tariff of tolls.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The public may come before the board afterwards.


George William Fowler: After it is crystallized into a tariff it is more difficult to get the board to change it than it would be if the public had an opportunity of assisting the board in the formation of it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The public may appear before

the board, and if they make out a ease the board may make any changes that are necessary.


George William Fowler: Notice should be given that the tariff is going to be published, so that both parties would be heard-the parties interested in having the freight rates as low as possible and the railway companies, for and against-as to the fairness of the tariff proposed. It seems to me that that would be prudent. In that way persons interested would be heard, and would be able to assist the board in making up what would be a fair rate.	,.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The publication in the ' Gazette ' is publication of the official decision at which the board has arrived. The publication throughout the country of notice of the tariff that is proposed to be submitted would impose a most onerous obligation upon the railway company. It would be a tremendous business having people coming from all parts of "Canada to be heard before the board, as well as the railway companies or their representatives, and discussing the question of rates. You must assume that the board will be advised by competent people as to what is a fair and reasonable tariff. It may be, after they have come to a conclusion, that in respect to some portions of the tariff there will be complaints. Well, the number .of people that would have any complaints to make would, ordinarily speaking, be very few. They would make their complaints before the board, and the board would cause them to be Investigated. The board would have their tariff officer make an inquiry, perhaps go to the locality from which the complaint comes, and get all the information to enable the board to say whether there should be any change made in the tariff or not. I would not like to insert a provision in the Bill that notice should be published.


George William Fowler: When the tariff is required to be published in the ' Canada Gazette,' why not publish notice of application for the sanction of the tariff that is proposed also in the ' Canada Gazette ' ? It would not be necessary for every person who is aggrieved or who has a fault to find in connection with the proposed tariff to come to Ottawa, or wherever the board sits, to make his complaint known. We know very well that this is done by committees and by the representatives of the parties complaining, and they could do it as easily on a proposed tariff as on a tariff that had been promulgated by the board. It seems to me that it would be a much more satisfactory way of doing it, and if, after a certain required publication, there were no complaints, the tariff would go into operation as an absolute tariff. This would be done in just the same way as you make up the voters' lists. You Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
publish your preliminary list, which is notice. It is only published in three or four places in each district, but this is notice to the public, complaints are heard, changes are made and the final list is made up and published. So, in this case. Notice of the tariff is published in the official * Gazette,' and if there are no complaints the tariff goes, while if there are complaints, those who complain can appear before the board and have the tariff revised.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose to have control through this board of the rates, but I do not propose to burden unreasonably or unfairly the railway companies of the country. We want to secure that control with the least possible amount of friction.


George William Fowler: What difference would there possibly be in allowing these complaints to be heard before the tariff was finally completed and making them after it was absolutely completed ? You say that you allow the public to go before the board if they have any grievances, and that the board has power to make changes. Why not allow the people to go before the board before the tariff is finally completed, and have their complaints heard ? It would not impose a greater burden on the railways to have that hearing before the final revision rather than to have the people heard afterwards. Would it not, as a matter of fact, be less of a burden, because then there is a certain limit of time during which applications for revision might be made ? All complaints would have to be filed before the board before that time expired.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot see that there is any advantage in adopting the hon. gentleman's suggestion.
On section 252,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move to insert in subsection 4 of section 252 the following :
No company shall, except In accordance with the provisions ot this Act directly or indirectly pool its freights or tolls with any other railway or common carrier, nor divide its earnings nor any portion thereof with any other railway company or common carrier ; nor enter into any contract, arrangement, agreement or combination to affect or which may affect any such result.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you leave subsection 2 as it is, I think it is discriminating against the small shipper in the same line.


Haughton Lennox: The question has occurred to me as to whether there is any conflict between subsection 2 and subsection 3. Subsection 2 provides that the tolls for longer distances may be proportionately less than the tolls for shorter distances if such tolls are under substantially similar circumstances charged equally to all parties; and
5570

subsection 3 provides that no tolls shall bo charged which unjustly discriminate between different localities. Is there any conflict between these two sections in the opinion of the minister ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My view is that there is no conflict between them. The third subclause would not have reference to the idea that for the shorter distance you might charge a less toll proportionately. You cannot on a line 100 miles long impose a toll on freight carried fifty miles of that distance, greater than you charge for hauling it the whole distance.


Mr. BARKER.: It means that you cannot charge for a part more than you charge for' the whole.


Haughton Lennox: Subsection 2 seems only to amount to this :	That if on a certain
part of the line they are carrying freight for say 100 miles, upon another portion of the line they shall charge substantially the same rates both being in the same direction. Take two branches converging towards one point and branch A is 100 miles distant from a common point B, the same, the circumstances being similar, they shall charge the same rate.	.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the conditions are the same and the element of competition is absent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It takes into consideration the quantity as well. If one man ships two carloads of grain and if another ships twenty carloads the man who ships the twenty gets the advantage. It has always been a bone of contention that the large shipper has a substantial advantage over the smaller shipper. I can understand making a reduction for quantities.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no doubt that this is a very controversial question. The business of carrying freight on railroads has taken certain forms and we must need be on our guard lest we disturb the business conditions to a degree that would be injurious. Since the law relating to railways has existed we have had that principle recognized by legislation, and while I can see that some argument can be made against the principle yet when we come to work it out we do not know to what it ultimately might lead. There does seem to be good reason for giving the shipper of a whole train load a lower rate than if he only shipped half a carload.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can understand that if you ship a whole train load of cattle you get a rebate, but no matter how many cars you ship if it is less than a train load you get no rebate.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The difficulty is in arbitrarily saying that you shall not charge any less 175
proportion whether you are carrying a very large quantity or a proportionate quantity less. The special car rates are the rates which are likely to cause most trouble.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You substantially recognize the right of the large shipper to an advantage over the small one. This Bill says that the tolls for larger quantities may be proportionately less than the tolls for smaller quantities.


Samuel Barker: It does not say that they shall be, but that they may be, and the board will consider all this.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When it says may, it practically means shall. That is what we are told by the lawyers.


Mr. GALLIHER.: After all, is that not one of the conditions of trade which we cannot very well govern here ? To my mind, the question for the small shipper is not so much whether the large shipper gets a better rate than he does, but whether he gets a fair rate himself. I claim that it would not be fair to tie any company down to give to a man who gives them hundreds of carloads to ship in a year no better rate than they would give to a man who probably gives them one carload. That do?s not seem a fair proposition, and the root of the matter seems to me to be, does the small shipper get a fair rate for the goods he ships ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is plainly discrimination.


William Alfred Galliher: I do not think it is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you give a better rate to the large shipper than to the small shipper, you discriminate in favour of the large shipper as against the small. I will give you an instance of how it works. A man may be shipping peas. The man who ships them in large quantities gets a lower rate, and is enabled to pay one or two cents more per bushel than another man, and in that way he can destroy" the other's trade, no matter what he does.
An lion. MEMBER. That is all the better for the farmer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, it is not, because he drives the small purchaser out of the market, and then he pays what he likes. There should be no discrimination between the two shippers unless it is in train load lots. It seems to me that the man who fills one car is entitled to the same rate as the man who fills six or seven, unless he makes a full train load, in which case I think he should be allowed some rebate. This was one of the means adopted by the Standard Oil Company to crush out all the smaller dealers until that company had the control of the market, and then they put up the price to suit themselves. It is to avoid



such things that we should have some control over this matter.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Ill the endeavour to exercise what we call a rigid control over the rates, you must be careful that you are not going to disturb unnecessarily or seriously the business conditions of the country. I know not in what form you could better secure the proper measure of control over the adjusting of rates as between the large shipper and the small shipper than you do by saying to the board that they may for so and so charge proportionately less. Who is to judge what may be the proper allowance or proportion of reduction ? It is the board, and their decision is absolute, subject only to an appeal to the Governor in Council. You must apply your mind to the existing facts and circumstances, taking everything into account, and you cannot frame your legislation safely, it seems to me, in any other way than you have it here. I realize as well as the hon. gentleman does what is the nature of the public grievances. There are many complaints, but many of them are very unreasonable. You could not possibly give them the relief they ask unless you were absolutely to destroy the business of the country done by the railway companies. Recognizing that these things are subject to a great deal of complaint. I have been thinking it out as well as I could, with the assistance of persons not at all interested in railways, and I have been unable to see how we could safely say that there should be no less rate charged upon a large quantity than upon a small quantity. I think you would find in practice that that would not work out even to the advantage of the small shipper. It is wholly impossible for you to legislate in such a way as will deprive the man of large means and resources of the advantage which he possesses over the man of small means and small resources.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is because he has it in so many other ways that we desire to prevent him having it here. Parliament has laid down the principle, and the board is expected to apply that principle. 1 know that this complaint is made again and again. The larger purchaser gets special rates over the small purchaser, and in ad* dition to that he gets such an advantage iu the matter of freight rates that the other man is forced out of the market. 1 have heard this complaint over and over again, although it has been repeatedly affirmed by the railway companies that there was no discrimination. This section practically admits the principle, and it would be an instruction to the board to act upon that principle.


Samuel Barker: What the hon. member says is quite correct; this subject has been discussed again and again. It has been dis-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: cussed for a quarter of a century, and if we sat here for a week and heard arguments on one side and on the other, we would not be an inch further advanced towards an agreement. The only result would be that if we passed a law absolutely preventing what this clause permits the board to allow, we would inevitably destroy 'our through business, and there would not be a ship coming to a Canadian port for traffic.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I remind the bon. gentleman that I said distinctly, that I did not ask you to apply it to distance ?


Samuel Barker: It is not merely a question of distance. Every week the large railway companies have got to All ships. Rightly or wrongly the ship must be filled or she would have no ballast, and would have to lie in harbour empty; and the next time you wanted that ship, she would not come to your port. The great shipping business cannot be carried on as the ordinary retail business of the country is carried on. You might as well say that a wholesale merchant should be compelled to charge as much for a hundred tons of goods as the small merchant charges for a small quantity. This subject has been discussed over and over again, and parties will never agree upon it. The only way, it seems to me, is to have a board such as is provided here; let both parties go before that board and argue the case out; get the rules established, and they will be competent to deal with this question, having the opinion of experts on one side and on the other.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is not the combined intelligence of parliament equal to the combined intelligence of a board ?


Samuel Barker: Certainly not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The wisdom of parliament which makes the law which controls the board, ought certainly to be equal to that of the board that is so controlled. The fact that we cannot agree for some time is no reason why we should not try to reach a conclusion. Otherwise, we might as well refuse to consider about three-quarters of the Bills that come before us. In time, and after consultation, sve reach conclusions though at first it seems impossible to do so. I do not see any harm in bringing this matter to the attention of the committee. 1 speak after years of experience in this House, when I say that I have heard it most positively stated in the Railway Committee and on this floor that legally the company could not do that. This has been stated by men who might fairly be regarded as railway experts, eminent lawyers and old parliamentarians. I am only asking to have the principle embodied in the law which I have been told actually rules-that there shall be no discrimination.



JUX'E 26, 1903

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No unjust discrimination.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What the minister may consider unjust I may consider just. But discrimination results always in freezing out the small shipper, buyer or dealer. 1 have heard it so often argued on behalf of the railways that this is not done, that it is a matter of surprise to me to hear it declared not only that it can be done, but that you must change the system in order to avoid it.


George William Fowler: Cases differ so much that it is impossible for the House to lay down a general rule, and so it leaves it for the board to arrange. The board are seized of the circumstances of this case, and can decide each case by itself. If you have a fair board, I do not think there wiil be any difficulty in preventing unjust discrimination. We expect discrimination in favour of the large operator against the small one. That is necessary in trade. The only thing is to prevent unjust discrimination, and that can be prevented by the board considering each individual case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That reasoning does not appeal to me. Suppose there are two men shipping wood from the station of the town in which I live. One has a rate of 32 per cord to Toronto while the other must pay 32.25. The second man simply cannot remain in the trade and compete with the other. The result is to freeze out the small shipper, give the control to one man and then he pays what he likes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The commission would deal with a matter of that kind.


William Ross: It is just like the large fish eating up the small ones-it is the law of the survival of the fittest operating here as in everything else.


Haughton Lennox: I have listened with great attention to the remarks on both sides on this subject. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) is recognized as an expert in these matters, and I am not going to discuss the points that have been raised. But I would like the minister to give me a little information. We are supposed to be improving the law as compared with the old law. Will the hon. minister please point out what those improvements with regard to this matter are ? We are substituting a board for the Railway Committee, and, of course, I recognize that that is supposed to be an improvement. But, apart from that, how do we overcome to any extent, the evil that has been complained of in the past ? I have no doubt there is a great deal to be said on both sides as to a proper remedy, and as to whether discrimination should be allowed in any instance. I assume that the hon. minister, having given 175J
his attention to this matter, has succeeded to a certain extent, at all events, in dealing with the difficulties experienced in the past and that those difficulties will not be so great as they have been.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: One radical change is made in a matter that lies at the bottom of the trouble that has been experienced in the past. 1 am not going to say that we have reached a perfect remedy for existing difficulties, because we know that perfection is not to be looked for, and we know that there is no more complicated problem in the world than the problem of railway tariffs and rates. The existing law is based upon the theory that the railway companies shall fix and regulate tolls subject to approval. All that the Governor in Council can do is to say that the tolls proposed shall not receive approval, and that is an extremely drastic course for any government or for any tribunal to adopt. They have not the power to reduce a toll from say $1.10 per ton to 75 cents a ton between certain points. They cannot make such changes as that. But under this law the board will have the absolute right to fix the toll in all cases, with one exception, which we shall come to later on, and which I shall endeavour to explain.


George William Fowler: Would it not help it out to add to subsection 2, ' provided that there shall not in any case, be any unjust discrimination ' ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is the very basis of these clauses-that there shall not be any unjust or unreasonable discrimination. I refer to section 253. There could hardly be anything broader than that. The words are 'undue or unreasonable preference or advantage' and undue preference is wThat is complained of. The language is that used in the English statutes.


George William Fowler: But when the section forbids undue discrimination in any respect whatever, does that not apply only to things mentioned there ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is not singled out in that clause. The language here is that which is used in the English statute and has been declared by the courts to forbid unjust discrimination, undue preference or advantage in any shape or form, in regard to rates and tolls as well as anything else.


George William Fowler: Then why keep these words ' in any respect whatsoever,' if the same words above apply to everything ? If these words in line thirty are intended to cover every kind of preference or undue discrimination, then why do you repeat them afterwards ? In the first place, you start out to particularize, and then you add a

general statement which is supposed to cover everything that is not mentioned in the particular statement, that is, that the words ' in any respect whatsoever ' do not apply to the interchange of traffic, in receiving, forwarding and delivering traffic, but they apply to every conceivable thing in connection with traffic. Then if they do, I say it is wholly unnecessary to repeat them. But my contention is that these words ' in any respect whatsoever' only apply to affording proper legal facilities for receiving, forwarding and delivering traffic.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not understand what the hon. gentleman is driving at.
Sush tolls may be either for the whole or for any particular portions of the railway ; but all such tolls shall always, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, be charged equally to all persons, and at the same rate, whether by weight, mileage or otherwise. in respect of all traffic of the same description carried in or upon a like kind of cars, passing over the same portion of the line of railway : and no reduction or advance in any such tolls shall be made in favour of or against any particular person.
There is the very first section under the head of discrimination. Now does that or does it not say that there shall not be discrimination ?


George William Fowler: The very thing we are trying to get at is permission of the board to allow discrimination at all. The whole gist of this paragraph is to allow the board to discriminate. The point I want to make is this :	You want to provide, not that
there shall be no discrimination-because it may be right sometimes that there should be discrimination in the interests of trade- but that there shall be no unjust discrimination, which is an entirely different thing. So if you add those words and provide that there shall be no unjust discrimination, you completely cover the ground. The words in section 253 do not supply that sufficiency.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We say that as to this one limited particular, the tolls may be proportionately less for larger than for smaller quantities if the board thinks it would be reasonable and proper to make such allowance.


George William Fowler: But they have power to make unjust discrimination under this Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They may commit' errors, their judgment may be fallible.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 254, subsection 3,
3. In any case in which the toll charged by the company for carriage, partly by rail and partly by water, is expressed in a single sum, the board, for the purpose of determining
George William Fowler: whether a toll charged is discriminatory or contrary in any way to the provisions of this Act, may require the company to declare forthwith to the board, or may determine, what portion of such single sum is charged in respect of the carriage by rail. 61 V., c. 22, s. 2 Am.


George William Fowler: Does it mean that the board may determine without hearing the company ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They would hear the company, I presume, on a question of this kind before they decided it, but if the company did not want to make a declaration the board might determine.


George William Fowler: Why do you not say ' and may determine ' instead of ' or may determine ? '


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think that would make any difference.


George William Fowler: By inserting the word ' and ' you would require the company to make a declaration and if the company did not make a declaration the board would determine.


Mr. RUSSELL.: Is this clause the same as it is in the statute ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, and it was very well understood at the time it was enacted.


Benjamin Russell: It is very unsatisfactory, because you ask the company to declare, and it may make a very preposterous declaration. It is the hoard that should determine.
Mr. FOWLER, Yes ; you say ' and may determine,' even though they get a declaration of the company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Suppose the company do not make a declaration ?


George William Fowler: If you have the word ' or ' in, it seems to me they could determine without a declaration from the company, which might not be fair.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It might be a proper thing to do.


George William Fowler: Yes, but it would prevent any unfairness to the company if the board requires them to make a declaration. By using the word ' and,' the final adjustment of the matter is in the hands of the board, irrespective of what the company may declare.


Haughton Lennox: I want the minister to explain to the committee what the meaning of ' in the interest of the public ' is in subsection 2.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think it will be conceded at

once that It is a very proper consideration for the board as to whether or not the public interests are to be affected favourably or unfavourably by the reduction of the tolls. You project a railway into a district where perhaps some particular class of industry cannot, in its initial stages, pay the same proportionately high rates as are imposed on the same kind of goods on the same railway in other directions. With a little assistance from the railway in the way of a diminution of the tolls, the establishment might be brought up to a paying standard and able to bear the ordinary toll. It seems to me a very proper thing for the board, not to consider the interests of the railway company alone, although it may very well do that, but to consider the public interest and the advantages to the community, and the board might very well be invested with jurisdiction to allow exceptional treatment. That is the idea we had in our minds in using that language.


Haughton Lennox: I see it perfectly clearly now, and I quite concur in the view of the minister.


Samuel Barker: There is another aspect in which that is a reasonable clause. It sometimes happens that there is a large amount of perishable freight on a part of the line, and unless that could be all moved at once and the cars given to that district in preference to another, that freight would be destroyed.
On section 255,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is another instance in which there is a material distinction between the existing law and the present Bill. The existing law provides that the freight classification shall be settled by the railway companies. The Governor in Council now possesses only the negative power to say that they will not approve. Under this Bill it is in the power of the board of railway commissioners to take articles out of one classification and to put them in another. Practical railroad operations show that after all the power to control the freight classification is largely a power which affects the rates, and that power is fully conferred upon the board of railway commissioners by this Bill. I move to add as subsection 4 :
Until the board otherwise orders or directs, the freight classification last approved by the Governor in Council before the passing of this Act shall continue in force ; and any freight classification in use in the United States may, subiect to such order or direction, be used by the company with respect to traffic to or from the United States.
The first portion of this clause will not provoke any comment, but as to the United States, it happens in actual practice that the United States freight classification controls all traffic which is brought from that country into this, or taken from this country into that; both ways. If it came out of the United States and went*through Canada and into the United States, it would be all subject to the control of the United States rates. There are four classes of freight classification in the United States, and the one which obtains in the west is different from the one which obtains in the east, but it would be impossible for our railways to carry any freight unless it meets with the requirements of the United States freight classification. They simply dominate, and there is nothing we can do to prevent that control continuing.


George William Fowler: Does that apply to goods coming from an American point and going to a point within Canada ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It applies in both cases.


George William Fowler: This amendment does not mean that when this present classification will be changed it shall be changed with respect to the United States as well ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Unless the board orders. It is hoped that possibly some modification may be effected at a later date in respect to the action of the United States railroads.


George William Fowler: And you provide that the board may meet that occasion ?


Haughton Lennox: In reference to the wording of the section, I am not quite sure that it bears out what the minister intends, if you should put a narrow construction on it. Narrowly construed, ' to and from the United States ' would mean the boundary line.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think so. I think that refers to all the traffic, even traffic which comes through Canada and enters into the United States again, because it is from or to. A point at the boundary line must be either in one country or in the other.
On section 258,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved that this section be amended by adding thereto, at the end of the section, the following words :-
And in estimating the tolls to be charged in passengers' tariffs, any fraction of five cents less than two and one-half cents, shall be waived by the company, and above two and one-half cents shall be considered as five cents by the company.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On seetiou 261, subsection 3,
3.	Until the company files its standard freight tariff or tariffs as the case may be, with the board, and such tariff or tariffs is, or are, so approved and published, and also published In the manner in section 274 in such case provided. no toll shall be charged by the company.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This would require, under section 274, that the tariff shall be posted in every station. And, if the railway should happen to fail to have the tariff posted in any one of possibly hundreds of offices, they could not recover tolls. They may intend to have it posted, and actually have it posted so far as they know, but the omission to post it in any one office would prevent them from recovering their tolls. I move that this be amended by striking out the words 1 and also published in the manner in section 274 in such case provides.'


George William Fowler: Could it not be provided that they should not be allowed to recover tolls from the particular station in which the tariff was not posted? Section 2 provides that every standard freight tariff, on approval by tiie board shall be published by the company for two consecutive weeks in the ' Canada Gazette.' Here is where, I think, the provision should be made for a preliminary tariff.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS ANI) CANALS. We threshed that out, and I cannot agree with my hon. friend's (Mr. Fowler's) view. *


Haughton Lennox: I suppose there is no use in urging this point further upon the minister. As to the point of publication in the station to which the hon. minister has just referred, I think there is a good deal in what he has said. But I think it is important that there should be a rule, and an almost invariable rule, that the tariff shall be posted in this way. So, while the provisions should be less drastic, there should be some provision on the subject.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Under section 274 they are required to post the tariff, and a penalty is provided in case they fail to do so.


Haughton Lennox: I think that will cover the case. The point is to secure the public.
On section 2C6,


Haughton Lennox: Does the hon. minister propose to sit very late to-night ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think I will not ask the committee to sit beyond twelve o'clock to-night.


Haughton Lennox: I might mention to the hon. minister what is known to most hon. members that there is a circular from the secretary of the Dominion Commercial Travellers Association. I do not know whether the hon. minister has taken that into consideration or not. He speaks of an amendment to section 275.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is that about ?


Haughton Lennox: I will show it to the hon. minister. The writer says there are several Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
things that people do not generally know, and I do not want to read it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Would the hon. gentleman kindly let me see it ?


Haughton Lennox: I will send it over to the hon. minister.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: YTes, I have arranged about that. I have an amendment covering it.
On section 269,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The foreign traffic business is a business which we are bound to encourage, and the amendment suggested in this section has that end in view. Suppose a shipper in Chicago wishes to send a train load of grain to Montreal; the rate in respect to that has got to be made on the minute. The shipper is perhaps applying to a dozen different railways to know what rate they will give and he may go to a Canadian, dompany and. say :	Can you
make me as good a rate as the others have offered, and the Canadian company has to make its rate right away. It would be impossible to insist that he should send his tariff ahead, for it would practically stop all that business. They are obliged to tile that tariff with the board under penalties, but if there is a train going through you ought not to be able to stop it. You must recognize that there may be a relaxation of the strict rule that is maintained with legat'd to the ordinary traffic.


Samuel Barker: That is to say, that the contract would be good but the company might be subject to a penalty.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: 1 agree with every word the minister has said, but what strikes me as preposterous, is that such language should ever have crept into the original section.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are always learning.


Haughton Lennox: This is such an excellent improvement that I think it must have emanated from this side of the House, although I suppose the minister will not give us credit for it.
On section 271,
Mr. SI'ROULE. I think we have done a very good day's work and we ought to finish now.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Very well; I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. [DOT]


Haughton Lennox: During the afternoon it was mentioned in reference to the amend-

ment I moved that it would be referred to on Thursday. Since that time the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) has informed me that the cattle-guard question might possibly be taken up on Thursday. 1 have been paying a good deal of attention to that matter, and I want to be here when it comes up. I would willingly forego the chance of discussing my amendment rather than the chance of discussing the cattle-guard question, and I hope the minister will leave that question over to a later day.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will endeavour to meet the hon. gentleman's views.
Progress reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up on Monday and in what order ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: On Monday, private Bills have precedence. If the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill comes on, private Bills may occupy the day; but if government Orders are reached, we will take up the Bill respecting the Canadian Northern Railway, and perhaps some other Bills on the list. If there be further time, the Minister of Railways and Canals will resume with the Railway Commission Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12 a.m. Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 29, 1903.