1904-07-14

Mr. C. H. PARMELEE moved :: That the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization have leave to>
sit during the sittings of this House.


Mr. T. S. SFROULE.: That question was before the Committee on Agriculture, but it was held in abeyance. There was no recommendation from the committee. We did not recommend that such a thing should be done ; therefore, the House is not likely to consent to it.


Charles Henry Parmelee: I am not aware that there is anything in the rules of the House which prevents us from making this motion directly to the House. It is the permission of the House that is required, and I do not understand that it requires an absolute recommendation from the committee. The necessity of it was recognized in the committee. There was more or less apparent obstruction in the committee this morning, the session is drawing to a close, there is a good deail of work to do yet, and from all appearances that work is going to take a good deal of time. It is simply to gain a day that this motion is made. It is perfectly reasonable and it is not in contravention i of any rule or precedent of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But tlie committee have not asked it, and precedent to the House granting that privilege there has always been a request from the committee. The House have never done it without a request from the committee. The committee have not requested it.


Mr. F. B. WADE.: A resolution to this effect was moved in the committee this morning but before it could be put to the committee some one called out ' eleven o'clock,' and insisted that the committee rise, notwithstanding the earnest protest on the part of several members of the committee that the committee could sit until we heard the call-bell of the House. The committee rose and the chairman did not put the resolution. It is impossible to get through with the business of the Agriculture Committee in a short session from 9.30 to 11 o'clock, because any matter can be debated to such an extent that it will be impossible to arrive at any conclusion as happened this morning* and as happened at the last meeting of the committee.


Mr. JAS. CLANCY.: Mr. Speaker, I think that the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) wall conclude that it is the privilege of the committee to debate any question as they think proper. But, to coma here when there is no recommendation from the committee which should be the judge whether we should extend the hours of sitting or not is quite unprecedented. The right hon. leader of the government knows well that it is always an awkward thing to have eleven o'clock sittings when there remains some unfinished work to be done by the committees. There is an hour and a half, if the chairman desires to call the committee earlier, in which the committee may sit. Until there is a recommendation from the committee itself that we should absent ourselves from the sitting cf this House it seems to me an extraordinary proceeding that any hon. gentleman should propose to have the committee sit during the period that members are obliged to be in their places here. I will not reflect in the least upon the objects that hon. gentlemen have in view in this proceeding, but if 1 were to do so it would not be very complimentary. I hope the right hon. Prime Minister will not, for the purpose of serving any end on one side or the other, permit such an outrage as to compel, without the recommendation of the committee, members to absent themselves for one duty or another by the adoption of the proposed motion now before the House. I think it would be a perfect outrage to make a) departure of that kind.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM.: When the hon. gentleman moved his motion in the committee it was three minutes past eleven, and the committee had no opportunity of discussing whether it would be a proper thing or whether it is really necessary to extend the time
of the Agriculture Committee. Personally I do not think it is really necessary to prolong the time of the committee. I think the committee have arrived at that stage in their work that they will be able to arrange their business within the time allotted. T have never before known that two members could come into this House and ask that a committee's time be prolonged in the absence of the decision of the committee upon the point.


Mr. T. O. DAVIS.: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say as seconder of this motion that, as was stated by my hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade), the committee had no opportunity of passing upon this question at all. The resolution was moved in the committee asking the House to grant power to the committee to sit while the House was in session. The resolution was presented at least a quarter of an hour before the House bell rang.


Andrew B. Ingram: No, three minutes past.


Thomas Osborne Davis: When I came from the committee, down here the Speaker had not yet arrived in the chamber, and it took me some time to come from the committee room to the chamber. We were not allowed to press that motion. My hon. friend from East Eigin (Mr. Ingram) thinks that the work of the committee can be got through without this resolution being passed. If that is the case the resolution will do no harm. If we can get the work through _ bef ore eleven o'clock we will not have to sit after eleven, but if we cannot it is absolutely necessary that we should have this extended time in order that we may get through with the work. The chairman of the committee complained that a large amount of work had accumulated, he said that a report had to be made to the House, that it was getting late in the session- and he appealed to the members to get through with the work. At the last sitting of the committee and at the sitting this forenoon we could get nothing done, and I submit if we do not get this resolution through and have the right to sit during the time the House is in session we will never be able to complete the work, and the House may adjourn without the committee having been able to bring in a report to the House. I do not see that this is an injury to any person. There are enough members who are not interested in the estimates and similar matters to conduct the meetings of the committee. This is not a new suggestion ; I have been in this House for eight years, and nearly every year a resolution of this kind has been passed by the House and committees have sat while the House was in session. The business of the country went on just the same, and in order to facilitate matters and to give an opportunity to complete the labours ol tha, committee I think this resolution should pass.

66S0


Mr. J. M. DOUGLAS.: As chairman o'' the committee, I wish to state to the House as I did to the committee this morning, that a very great deal of business remains to be done by the committee, and the question which at present engages the attention of the committee is one of great importance. The committee has not yet reached that condition of unanimity that would indicate that we shall reach an early conclusion. Personally, as chairman, I am exceedingly anxious that the business of the committee should be got into such shape that we could report to the House at as early a date as possible. This morning I received a motion in the committee, but it was five minutes past eleven, and I had no information from the House that they would not meet until a quarter past eleven, and never decided that X should not press the motion, and so we adjourned at live minutes past eleven. The consequence was that, owing to the obstruction that took place, I was prevented from securing the sanction of the committee in asking for leave to sit while the House was in session.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I would not go so far as to say, as my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) has said, that it would be an outrage if such a motion a* that which is now in your hands, Mr. Speaker, were adopted.


James Clancy: I said ' under the conditions.'


Wilfrid Laurier: Even under the conditions I would not go so far as that, but I must say that, according to my recollection, motions of this kind have always been taken and adopted upon the recommendation of the committee interested. Of course, there may be exceptions to all rules ; I do not say that this condition, ihat they should be privileged reports, should be a condition absolute ; there may be reasons perhaps why such a motion should be entertained without the recommendation of the committee. At present I think I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Douglas) noL to press his motion to-day, in view of what was said by the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) a moment ago that they expect that one more sitting would complete the business and settle the differences in the committee ; and, under those circumstances, I think my hon. triend would be justified in withdrawing his motion, and perhaps to-morrow the committee can settle their difficulties. If they cannot, the House will see what they can do in order to bring peace and harmony up stairs as we have it here.


Hon. WM. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: If one, two or three members of the committee would curtail their long speeches somewhat-


Wilfrid Laurier: I am afraid that is too much to expect.


Thomas Osborne Davis: 


Mr.   WM@: ROSS '(Victoria). The time of the committee is occupied to a great extent by hair-splitting speeches that have no sense or bearing upon the subject under discussion. A sub-committee made a report to the committee, and the whole question now before the committee is whether that report shall be adopted or rejected.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: I might say, in addition to what the hon. member for Victoria, Nova Scotia, has said, that if two or three members who can only find time to come IjO that committee at certain periods when they want to have a little trouble, would refrain from coming to it, the committee would be better off. I belong to that committee, and have always taken a great deal of interest in its proceedings and have invariably attended its meetings. If some of these gentlemen who were so anxious to have the committee sit while the House is in session would contain themselves and confine themselves to the business that is in the interests of the [DOT] committee and not in the interest of their own particular notions, we would be better off. I certainly object to sitting while the House is in session if we can avoid it. It seems to me that if the committee gets together at 9.30 and we have to meet in the House at 11 and sit until after midnight, we are worked quite hard enough, and I hope the Prime Minister will not consent to any sittings of the committee unless the cases are much stronger than the one we have had in the Agricultural Committee for some time. 1 certainly am quite opposed to anything of the kind, and, as I have said, if three or four gentlemen would stay away from the committee it would be better.
Motion withdrawn.



RELIEF OF ANNIE CHRISTMAN.

Mr.  R. F.@: SUTHERLAND moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 155) for the relief of Annie Christman.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Carried.


Mr. LAVERGNE.: On division.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. CLANCY asked :: 1.	What rebate, if any, was paid to distillers in Canada for the fiscal year 1896, on Indian corn imported and used in the manufacture of spirits ?
2.	If so, under what authority was such rebate made ?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Cus toms).: No rebate (or drawback) of customs duty was paid by the Customs Department

to distillers in Canada for the fiscal year ended 30th June, 1896, on Indian corn im ported and used in the manufacture of spirits.


James Clancy: There is another part of the question which the hon. gentleman has not answered, the second part.


William Paterson: As there was none, that is answered.


James Clancy: No authority.


ACETYLENE GAS IN LIGHTHOUSES.
Mr. TAYLOR asked :: 1.	How many lighthouses on the waters between Montreal and Kingston have been changed from oil burners to acetylene gas ?
2.	Have the services of the lightkeepers, where the change has been made, been dispensed with ?
3.	If not all, how many have been notified that their services will not he required after two or three months' notice ?
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :
1.	Fifteen, viz.:
1.	Range lights (2) leading through dredged cut into Ldcliine.
2.	Lachine lightship.
3.	Lake St. Louis lightship.
4.	Chateauguay.
5.	Hamilton's Island light.
6.	Stone House Point light.
7.	St. Francis Middle Ground light.
8.	Range lights (2), St. Regis dike.
9.	Windmill Point light.
10.	Lindoe Island light.
11.	Gananoque Narrows light.
12.	Jackstraw Beacon light.
13.	Spectacle Shoal light.
14.	Red Horse Rock light.
15.	Burnt Island light.
2.	Yes.	.
3.	This question is answered above.



THE MILITIA ACT.

[Stage Direction]
* Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to call the attention of the right hon. the premier to the fact that no order was given the other day for reprinting the Militia Bill before its third reading.
Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that there were very few amendments to the Bill.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: There were a great many.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will see about it; and if it was the intention to have it reprinted, I shall see that it is done.



DISMISSAL OF LORD DUNDONALD-


Mr. E. F. CLARKE.: The hon. Minister of the Interior promised to lay on the table of the House a copy of the communication
transmitted to Mr. W. T. R. Preston with respect to his action in writing to the London press on the Dundonald matter. I would like to know if the hon. gentleman is prepared to lay that letter on the table this morning.


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON.: I will give instructions to have a copy of the letter made, and shall probably be able to lay it on the table of the House this afernoon.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Murray Harbour Branch and Hillsboro' Bridge, $650,000.
['In several special Acts provision is made for an executive committee. That is the case in the special Acts of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern and two or three Acts passed last session. In fact, in the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill there is provision for such a committee. However, I do not want to commit the government on the subject, and I would like to have an opportunity to discuss the matter with my colleagues.\nBill, as amended, reported ; amendments read first and second time.']
Mr. LENNOX.: With reference to the item in connection with the Hillsboro' bridge, I wish to call the attention of the committee to a. letter which appears in the Auditor General's Report. I shall read this letter because not only is it important as regards the particular item, but as regards the position which the government has taken with reference to a great many contracts :
Audit Office, Ottawa, February 12, 1904.
Dear Sir,-My attention has been called recently to the many Orders in Council relieving public works contractors from the' obligation of completing their contracts within the time limit.
From the wording of the orders it. seems that those representing the government in the transactions consider that, while the contractors are accommodated, the government is saved from any loss, because there is not developed by the postponement of the date of completion a means of exacting a heightened charge from the government by the contractor. This seems a manifestly inaccurate conclusion.
When it was determined by the government to have a particular work done, it was concluded that the direct advantage, or the indirect one, or both together, would be at least as great as all the outlay and would, therefore, besides recouping the country for the salaries of the engineers and other servants engaged, reimburse eventually the money paid to contractors, and in the meantime the interest as it would periodically mature.
In the case of a wharf, a bridge, or a railway line, you may have entered into no obligation to provide at a particular time the accommodation to the neighbourhood which the work when completed will afford, but as trustees for the people you came to the conclusion that the completed work would provide to the public an advantage equal in value to the interest on the expenditure-
By the privilege given to the contractor, the country has been deprived of the use of the work for the length of the postponement, while the interest is accumulating each day.
The magnitude of the donations from public funds to contractors will be understood to some extent by considering one of the large works-for instance the Hillsboro' bridge. It was to have been completed on April 8, 1902. The time was first extended to November 30, 1902, later to December 31, 1903, and now to
6G83

December 31, 1904. The following is a statement of the interest in this .case :-
M. J. Haney, Hillsboro' Bridge. Estimates 1-10 (inclusive)
to April 21, 1902, paid..	$243,714 55
Interest on $243,714.55 from April 21, 1902, to Dec.
31, 1904, at 31 p. c..$22,995 95 Estimates 11-18 (inclusive)
to Nov. 30, 1902, paid..	368,319 98
Interest on $368,319.98 from Nov. 30, 1902, to Dec. 31,
1904, at 31 p. c	 26,877 26
Estimates 19-28 (inclusive)
to Dec. 31, 1903, paid..	313,010 79
Interest on $313,010.79 from Dec. 31, 1903, to Dec. 31,
1904, at 31 p. c..	.. 10,955 38
Total payments	 $925,045 32
Total interest as above.$60,828 59 Respectfully yours,
J. L. MeDOUGALL, A.G. Hon. H. R. Emmerson,
Minister of Railways and Canals.
I call the attention of the government to the fact that on this item alone, by the extension of time to the contractor, without any concessions being made in return by him, we paid upwards of $60,000 for nothing. This is not an isolated case. It is one which occurs in many instances, and though the Auditor General called the attention of the government to it, no remedy was applied.


Mr. FIELDING.: The House will agree that this is not the most convenient moment to enter into a discussion of the matter referred to, though the hon. gentleman is quite within his rights. It is very desirable we should proceed with the Supply Bill, and as there will be further opportunity of discussing the matter to which my hon. friend has referred, no doubt It will come up again.


Haughton Lennox: I do not think that the hon. minister has any ground of complaint whatever.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not complaining.


Haughton Lennox: Not only am I within my rights but this is a convenient time, considering the opportunities afforded us, to bring the matter up. We are now asked to concur in this item. I did not notice it when it came before the committee, or else I did not think it well to take the time then to discuss it. The House should be desirous to know what the government is doing and, for that purpose, it is well that attention should be called to the matter. I am of opinion that, that if there is anything that members of parliament on both sides have been conspicuously neglectful of it is in this, that they have not, in the past, given the attention to the various reports of the Auditor General that they should have given. As a young member of the House I have endeavoured to do my duty iu this as in Mr. LENNOX.
other matters. I have failed to do it to the extent that I should like to have done it. But, should this government, by any possibility, remain in power and the Auditor Geueral, by some happy combination of circumstances be induced to remain in the position he occupies, I, for one, shall lose no opportunity to fulfil my duty in this regard.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may remind the Minister of Finance that in this case we are voting the whole sum. and not only a proportion of it, and so, if the item is concurred' in now there will not be an opportunity for discussion. We are within our rights and this is the proper time to bring the matter forward :
Railways and Canals-chargeable to collection of revenue-Railways-
Intercolonial, working expenses.. ..$6,500,000 Rental to Grand Trunk Railway.. ..	140,000
Windsor branch	 30,000
Prince Edward Island Railway working expenses	 330,000


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Certain papers were to have been laid on the table before concurrence in this item was asked. I have no remembrance of those papers having been brought down.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not aware that any papers asked for have not been brought down. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) knows of any, I will call the attention of the minister (Mr. Emmerson), who is not now in his place, to the matter. If it was agreed that the papers could be brought down before concurrence, I have no right to ask the House to concur in this item.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Deputy Speaker tells me that the item ' Rental to the Grand Trunk Railway, $140,000,' was left over to afford an opportunity for discussion on, if desired. But I find that item included in this vote. To concur in the vote would be to shut off discussion.	*


William Stevens Fielding: We might go on with the other items and reserve that for the moment.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to capital -canals-Galops canal-enlargement, $204,300.


Haughton Lennox: I do not think that this item was carried in supply or it may be that the matter I have in mind can be brought up on item 98, Welland canal. It was understood that information would be given by the minister (Mr. Emmerson) and he was about to give it when we arose last night.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I thought I brought down all the information that was asked for. The deputy Mr. Schreiber, told me that he had gone over ' Hansard ' very carefully and had furnished all that had been asked for.


Haughton Lennox: I agree with the minister (Mr. Emmerson) as to the papers being brought down. But I understood that last night the minister was about to read certain information to the House and to deal with the matters involved, but, at the request of some hon. members, and in accordance with what was evidently the feeling of the committee concurred in by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) we did not go on with it.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: I agree that it was something of that kind.


Haughton Lennox: This item should not go through.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I may explain that I laid some of the papers on the table without reading them, as suggested by some hon. member on the other side, I think it was the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). But there was one paper, containing a comparative statement of the,employees along the canal which, perhaps, was not laid on the table. I started to read it. That is the only document that I know of-


Haughton Lennox: I agree with what the minister says. But I understood the conclusion reached to be that the item was not finished last night, but there was to be further discussion and these papers were to be more fully dealt with. I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will agree with my recollections of the matter. I undertsood him to intimate that he was of opinion that the item should not go through.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I understood that the intention was to carry out the agreement that had been entered into with respect to the discussion of items relating to the Cornwall canal. It was the desire of the committee last night that we should not go on after we finished the discussion on the Davis contract. That was agreed upon and I think it was carried out.


Haughton Lennox: I understood the committee to be unanimously of opinion that it was not advisable for the minister to take any other item after finishing the Davis matter.
Mr. I'll ZP AT RICK. It seems to me there was something of that sort.


Haughton Lennox: I remember that the Minister of Justice joined in saying that the committee should rise. The hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) intended to make further remarks upon the matter, and I would not like to have the vote concurred in ait present. He mentioned the matter to me this morning.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We were at item 98, relating to the Welland canal, all the subitems of item 98 having passed except one. I had furnished all the particulars, and proposed to pass the vote pro forma, as it had been very fully discussed at previous meet-213
tags of the committee. But there seems to be some objection to sitting any longer, and in deference to the wishes of the committee, I will not press the matter.


William Stevens Fielding: It had better be understood that if the hon. member wishes to bring the matter up later on an opportunity will be afforded, so that he will not suffer any disadvantage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would only suggest that if we desired to move that the item be struck out entirely for certain reasons, we would be precluded from doing so, because the item would have been already pasesd. I am not saying that is going to be the case : but we desire certain information so that we would be justified in passing it.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite realize that we are only carrying these items to-day so far as we can agree upon them without much discussion ; and if hon. gentlemen desire that an item be not passed, we will not press the matter. We are only carrying through these things by general agreement.
Intercolonial, working expenses, $6,500,000. Mr. FIELDING. I called the attention of the Minister of Railways to the remarks of the hon. gentleman, who expected some information. He is under the impression that everything is brought down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think we first objected to take the item of $140,000 for rental to Grand Trunk Railway, but that was agreed upon. On the item which was for the purpose, I think, of building the Governor General's car it was agreed that the discussion might take place on that.
Some resolutions concurred in.


William Stevens Fielding: I will ask the House at a later stage to facilitate the further advance of the Supply Bill. The clerical work has to be prepared ; so for the present we will resume the ordinary business of the House.



[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 73) to amend the Railway Act of 1903.
Charles Fitzpatrick: This Bill has been amended in committee by consent, and it is now understood t'hat so far as the government at all events is concerned, the Bill in its present form is to be reported by the committee to the House. It deals with insurance.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
.RAILWAY ACT, 1903-AMENDMENT.
House again in committee on Bill (No. 132) to amend the Railway Act of 1903-Mr. Fitzpatrick.



* On section 1,
M'f. MACLEAN. At the suggestion of the Minister of Justice I am going on first with my amendments in connection with this Bill. The amendments I propose have all been before the House and its committees in several ways. The first one is an amendment to the General Railway Act which will make the scope of that Act apply to express companies. When we were discussing this question the other day in another place, the statement was made by a lawyer representing the express companies that they were not owned by the railway companies, that in fact they were separate corporations. I knew that statement was a rather wide one, and I made it my business to look up the records of the companies. That gentleman said he was representing t'he Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Grand Trunk Railway Company and all the other railways in this country, and all the express companies^ and he asked the committee and the public of Canada to believe that these were separate organizations. Now we all know that the case is different. But that is a sample of the way in which the railway companies and the express companies meet our argument, when we propose to regulate t'hem. Now what are the facts about the Dominion Express Company^? I propose to read a line or two from the annual official statement of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, to be found at page 95 of the appendix to the ' Annual Einancial Review ' for February, 1904. Mind you these gentlemen representing the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Dominion Express Company said they were two corporations and that not necessarily were they allied. In this statement marked ' Exhibit B,' being a portion of t'he annual statement of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, we have the following :
Details of balance sheet item ' Miscellaneous securities and advances.'
Contained In the list of securities is the following :
Dominion Express Company stock, $113,750.
(This company's express, the stock of which is all held in the treasury. Amount paid up represents cost of original i equipment and organization.)


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Do you pro-' pose to move your amendments to the first clause ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: This is by agreement.


Mr. MACLEAN.: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: The effect of this amendment will be to make section 3 of the Railway Act as we now have it read as follows :
This Act shall apply to all persons, and express companies and railways (other than government railways) within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, and shall be incorporated and construed, as one Act, with the Special Act, subject as herein provided.
Now if my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) will look at section 2 subsection (w) of the Railway Act, the interpretation clause, he will find that:
The expression ' Special Act ' means any Act under which the company has authority to construct or operate a railway, or which is enacted with special reference to such railway, and include all such Acts.
So that this provision would be absolutely unworkable in the Act as we have it. My hon. friend is quite right when he says that this subject has been already considered. It was considered by the special committee that was appointed to look into the Railway Act when it was introduced into this House last session. At that time Boards of Trade, among others the Board of Trade of the city of Toronto, appeared before the committee and urged upon it the desirability of amending the Act so as to make it applicable to express companies.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I did not catch what my hon. friend said.


Charles Fitzpatrick: When the Railway Bill was introduced last session Mr. Blair, then Minister of Railways and Canals, and myself were appointed a sub-committee to hear reports made by different public bodies in the country. At that time Boards of Trade, and among these Boards of Trade were members of the Toronto Board of Trade, appeared before the committee and urged upon us that we should include express companies in the Act as my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) suggests at the present time. The point was then argued out fully, as appears by the report of the proceedings, and the conclusion arrived at then was that in the first instance it was doubtful as to whether or not we had the power to regulate the charges of the express companies and that in any event if we had the power many of the provisions of this Act would require to be so amended as to make them applicable to express companies and that such an amendment would be necessary as would practically require the changing of a great number of the sections of the Act.
213J
The amendment in its present form would make the Act absolutely unworkable. When my hou. friend introduced his amendment iu this House the Bill containing that amendment was by agreement referred to the Railway Committee of the House. The matter was there discussed and the conclusion arrived &t by the Railway Committee was that this amendment could not be applied to the Railway Act as we now have it. It may be, and I can conceive that under certain conditions it would be, desirable that express companies should be regulated in some respects by the Railway Commission but it is a question-I will not say a settled question so far as I am concerned-whether we have the power to regulate the contracts made by the express companies. It is quite true that we have the power to incorporate these companies but as to regulating the contracts which they make in different parts of the country that is a question which has not been settled, so far as my knowledge goes, either by judicial determination or by any opinion expressed in any quarter, which I have been able to see.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the minister to state briefly on what grounds he feels any difficulty, assuming that we have the right to incorporate ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: We have the right to incorporate but I am expressing my present opinion, with some diffidence because I may say that I have not looked into the matter as fully as I would like to do.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no opinion as I have not considered the matter.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have looked into the ease of Parson and the Citizens' Insurance Company, and I would like to give to the committee the result of my reference to that case. The Citizens' Insurance Company was incorporated by the parliament of Canada exactly as the Dominion Express Company was incorporated here. I am not sure whether or not all the express companies were incorporated by us, but I am quite sure that the Dominion Express Company was. The Citizens' Insurance Company was incorporated by the Canadian parliament and the Ontario legislature passed a statute regulating the conditions of insurance contracts, that is the contracts made by insurance companies in Canada. In their reasons for judgment the Privy Council considered the question of the jurisdiction conferred by the section reserving jurisdiction over property and civil rights in the provinces. I shall now read a section from the judgment which can be found at page 113 :
Construing, therefore, the words ' regulation of trade and commerce ' by the various aids to their interpretation above suggested, their Lordships would include political arrangements in regard to trade requiring the sanction of parliament, regulation of trade in matters of interprovincial concern, and it
0(591

may be that they would include general regulation of trade affecting the whole Dominion. Their Lordships abstained on the present occasion _ from any attempt to define the limits of the authority of the Doftinion parliament in this direction. It is enough for the decision of the present case to say that, in their view, its authority to legislate for the regulation of trade and commerce' does not comprehend the power to regulate by legislation the contracts of a particular business or trade, such as the business of Are insurance in a single province, and therefore that its legislative authority does not in the present case conflict or compete with the power over property and civil rights assigned to the legislature of Ontario by No. 13 of section 92.
Then on the same page :
It was contended in t)he case of the Citizens' Insurance Company of Canada, that the company having been originally incorporated by the parliament of the late province of Canada

 ,
That is the argument of my hon. friend from Grey :
-and having had its incorporation and corporate rights confirmed by the Dominion parliament, could not he affected by an Act of the Ontario legislature. But the latter Act does not assume to interfere with the constitution or status of corporations. It deals with all insurers alike, including corporations and companies, whatever may be their origin, whether incorporated by British authority, as in the case of the Queen Insurance Company, or by foreign or colonial authority, and without touching their status, requires that if they choose to make contracts of insurance in Ontario, relating to property in that province, such contracts shall be subject to certain conditions.
And further at page 117 :
It by no means follows (unless indeed the view of the learned judge is right as to the scope of the words ' the regulation of trade and commerce ') that because the Dominion parliament has alone the right to create a corporation to carry on business throughout the Dominion that it alone has the right to regulate its contracts in each of the provinces.
Now I think that on the whole it would at all events be Imprudent for us for two reasons, first because the Act Is not so plain as to include provisions which would enable us to give effect to this amendment if it were adopted, and, secondly, because there exists sufficient doubt with respect to our rights to regulate contracts in a province to justify my asking the committee to reject the amendment.


Mr. BARKER.: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if he can see any difficulty in this parliament granting to the Board of Railway Commissioners full power to regulate the rates upon all freight carried upon railway trains, whether passenger or freight trains and whether the people who are conducting the business called themselves an express company or by any Mr. FITZPATRICK.
other name. It is the freight that is carried upon a railway that is under the jurisdiction of this Dominion parliament with which we are dealing and it seems to me that no railway company, for example, could escape as to' its freight the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, by leasing some rights to a train to any other company, whether that he an express company or anything else. [DOT]


Charles Fitzpatrick: It does appear to me that it is not the freight of a railway company that we are regulating ; it is the freight carried by the express company and whether that freight is carried by an express company on a railway train or by horse car or by steamer or vessel, the effect would be the same, and I cannot see bow we are to discriminate between that express business which was done on railway trains and the express business done by the ordinary cartage system in the country, or on vessels. Have we any power to regulate the rates charged by the express companies, for instance, on tlie express business done in cities ?


Samuel Barker: Is not the question whether we have power to regulate the charges for freight upon a railway ? Would it be nossible for any Dominion Railway Company to take a particular train or particular class of train and say: We will let this out to some company, call it an express company or anything else you like, and then say : ' This is not our freight but the freight of an express company.' Is it to be conceded that an express company, being something else than a railway company, this parliament cannot control what they are contracting to carry upon a railway, the creature of and controlled by parliament ? It seems to me that the Dominion, having jurisdiction over a railway company and over its railway, can regulate all charges for everything that is carried upon that railway, and I do not see any difficulty in that respect whether the railway company is handling the stuff itself or has put up an intermediary between itself and the public.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Is it the contract between the express company and the railway company that we are asked to regulate or the contract between the express company and the private individual ? That is the distinction. It is with respect to that particular contract between the express company and the individual that I expressed my doubt as to the power to regulate. Would my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) permit me to draw attention to this fact, which I shall illustrate by an example ? Take express freight coming say from Port Arthur to Collingwood, by vessel, then from Collingwood to Toronto by rail and from the railway station in Toronto to the warehouse of the merchants by carts. What part of the express charge which is made upon the freight from Port Arthur to the

merchants' warehouse in Toronto would we be able to regulate ? Can we regulate the express charge from Port Arthur to Oollingwood hy vessels ? Undoubtedly not. Can we regulate the charge for its conveyance in vehicles in the streets of Toronto ? Undoubtedly not. How can we regulate the matter ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where does the power to regulate these charges lie ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: In the provincial legislature.


Samuel Barker: Do we not find every day ordinary freight shipped from Port Arthur to Collingwood by water, thence by rail to Toronto and then delivered by cart in Toronto ? And yet we cap regulate freight charges ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: When the freight is carried by a railway company, that is under our jurisdiction. We say to that company: The charge you make on that freight is determined by us ; you adopt any method you choose to deliver it. But why should a contract made between an express company and an individual be under different jurisdiction from a contract made by any other corporation under provincial jurisdiction ?


Mr. HAGGART.: I will tell you the reason. When we give existence to a company, we can give it on any conditions we like. When we give a company the right to carry parcels by express or otherwise, we can say that it shall only charge for carrying those parcels what the commission says is a right charge. Surely that is within our power. If we have a right to give a company its corporate existence, we can give it that existence on any conditions we like. As to freight canned partly by water and partly by rail, we have taken power under the Railway Act to regulate that. The commission can consider what are the proper proportions of the charge to be apportioned to the water, to the railway, and to carrying by horses in a city. That is one of the conditions of our Railway Act. Whether we have the power or not, it was urged upon us by Mr. Blair, who introduced the Act, that that was an essential in the regulation of rates ; otherwise a railway company could apportion so large a proportion of the charge to the water' carriage as to do away with all regulations in reference to carrying by rail.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: I must say I have not given this question very much study or examination as yet. but I am inclined to support the Minister of Justice. This is a question as to the power of this parliament to regulate the rates of express companies. It seems to me. speaking off-hand, without having given the subject very much consideration. that it is a matter of regulating a contract within the province ; and I really
cannot understand, unless there is some power given to us by the British North America Act, how we can regulate the rates of carriage by express companies any more than we can regulate the rate of carriage by individuals within the different provinces. It is not because this parliament has given existence to a company that it has a right to interfere in the contracts made by that company. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat says that we can impose as a condition of giving the charter the regulation of the rates which are to be charged by the corporation. I must distinguish here. I will not say that if. upon the application of certain parties for incorporation, the charter contained the condition that the rates are to be regulated by the charter itself, this would not be within the authority of the granting power ; but to make a general law applicable to all corporations which are to come into existence hereafter hy charters of the Dominion parliament. and to say that this should apply to contracts made by them, is a broad statement which I am not at present ready to accept, and I cannot go as far as my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Haggart). There is another argument put forward here, which is an argument ab inconvienti. My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) says, if I understand him rightly, that we should have the power of regulating the rates charged by express companies, because we have the power of regulating rates upon railways. I do not think that is a conclusion to be necessarily arrived at. It may be inconvenient. It may be that the law or the constitution is not complete on that point. But the line is drawn. We are given by the constitution the power of regulating rates on railways. If a coTnpany not being a railway company is called into existence, and does a part of the work that generally falls to railway companies, that is not a reason for extending the powers given by the constitution to this House. It may be for the very reason that the power of regulating rates on railways is given to the parliament of Canada by the constitution, that express companies are created so that the rates may not be regulated ; but I do not see the force of the argument of my hon. friend. Now, this is a question of some importance, and it seems to me that a great deal of precaution should be exercised before we enact such a law. For my part, I have not heard of any great agitation in the country calling for such legislation. It may exist in some parts of the country, particularly in that part from which my hon. friend comes; but I do not think the general public has been suffering to such an extent from the rates charged by express companies that we should legislate in a hurry upon this important question.


William Findlay Maclean: I might point out for the information of the hon. gentleman who has junt spoken that the fruit-growers of Ontario feel very severely the charges of the express companies. The shipment of fresh fruit from Ontario to the west is a great and growing business, the people of the west wish to get the fresh fruit of Ontario, and the regulation of these express charges means getting or not getting the market. If what the hon. Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) say is true, it means that the railways can evade the whole Railway Act by turning all their freight business over to the express companies. But all these are merely legal quibbles ; they are dodges to help the express companies, and not to have them regulated. Suppose the argument of the Minister of Justice is true, a declaration of this parliament that the railway companies shall do their own express business would bring them under the Railway Act. That can be done in two lines. They can be prohibited from turning over their express business to other companies. It is all an evasion-an attempt to get away from what hon. gentlemen opposite promised the country. They promised a tribunal which would regulate all charges on freights in this country, which would protect the farmer and the fruit-grower,' and would see that no unfair discrimination was practised in the matter of charges by these common carriers. If my proposal is unconstitutional, it can be made constitutional in one minute. But I do not believe it is unconstitutional. I agree with the opinion of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Haggartl given here to-day. I believe these companies are quite within the jurisdiction of this parliament to-day.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: My hon. friend might substantiate that statement. I have no doubt that his opinion upon a question of constitutional law is as valuable as a great many other opinions which he expresses in this House : but I must say that his ipse dixit on this important question does not satisfy me. I would like him to show. bv quoting the law, that this is the law of the land.
only be regulated in the matter of freight rates, but you shall not contract yourselves out of the jurisdiction of this parliament, j It can be done as easy as rolling off a j log, and the Minister of Justice could find a way of doing it if he wished to realize the intentions of this measure, which is to regulate all freight charges, and protect the farmers against discrimination. The fruit-growers of Ontario are an immense interest, the fish interests of the maritime provinces is another important industry. The further away these people can send their products., the larger will be their receipts ; but if too heavy express rates are imposed, their market is seriously contracted. Business can be increased among the various provinces if we will regulate these express charges. These express companies are making enormous profits. Why, therefore should they not be regulated ? Parliament regulates the charges on packages carried by parcel post.	.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Under the British North America Act.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, and under this Act we can regulate all these express rates. My hon. friend will not deny that.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I will.


William Findlay Maclean: Do you say we cannot prevent the railways from taking themselves out of the jurisdiction of this country ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: No.


William Findlay Maclean: Let the doctrine which the Minister of Justice sets up, namely, that the express companies are not within the jurisdiction of this parliament, be accepted, and all the freight of this country will be turned into the express business. I have seen trains leaving Toronto with four or five express cars made up and some trains made up altogether of express cars. If the railway companies could by this means escape the jurisdiction of this parliament, they would turn over the cream of their business to these express companies which they own. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company owns every share in the Dominion Express Company. Your company7 owns every share


William Findlay Maclean: My authority is the late Minister of Railways and Canals, and I have heard my hon. friend say that there is not a better authority in this country. Indeed, I have heard him called the' chief justice of this country in regard to railway matters : and I cite his opinion in regard to this Railway Act as a good opinion. _ It has not been controverted, and I would ask the hon. member for Montmorency to controvert it. The argument here is rather the argument of the express companies. I say that the express companies can be brought within the Act byr two words, by saying to the railway companies, you shall" not Mr. CASGRAIN.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Whom do you mean by7 ' your.'
( Mr. MACLEAN. Tbe board always addresses its shareholders as * yTour company.' 5 our company owns all these shares. I am not a man of legal quibbles and the people of this country do not want legal quibbles. What they want is the regulation of our common carriers, and that they will get.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether it is his opinion that this parliament, which has the power to create a corporation, has not the power to regulate its business ? It appears to me

common sense that if parliament can create a corporation, it must have power to regulate its rates. There is a great agitation in Ontario, which affect consumers as well as producers, in favour of having these rates regulated. In Eastern Ontario small villages are handicapped by the express charges. They cannot import by the carload and have to get their supplies in by express. People like to get the early fruit from the west and find the express charges very oppressive. The consumer has to pay and not the shipper. because there is no competition. If a man wants a basket of early fruit from the west, he will have to pay the extra freight fiecause of the lack of competition, and it does not seem to me common sense to say that although we have the power to create we have not the power to control rates.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am certainly very firmly of the opinion that we do not get the power to regulate the contracts which a corporation may enter into merely because we create that corporation.


Edward Cochrane: How do you regulate the freight rates on railways ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not prepared 'to say that there may not be some power in parliament to regulate to some extent the rates of express companies, but up to the present I have not been able to find any, either in the shape of judical authority or express statutory enactment. My hon. friend from York (Mr. Maclean) has advanced many ideas which have taken root and grown. Let this idea which he has launched take root and grow, and probably next session we will be able to deal with it with greater knowledge of the conditions.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If you have not the authority now, how are you going to get it before next session ?


William Findlay Maclean: It will grow.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend has evidently not paid the slightest attention to what I said. I always listen to everything he says and I think that he ought to reciprocate.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It does not seem to make any impression on you.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I did not say that there might not be some power in this parliament. but I said there was a great deal of doubt and in view of the cases I have quoted-Citizens and Parsons-my mind leaned *against the view that we had authority. At the same time there may exist some power enabling us to deal with this matter. There are of course some people who can come to a conclusion immediately on the most abstruse questions, but for my part I like to have time to consider, and I would suggest that we should allow the matter to remain until we can consider it more carefully and be in a better position to come to a conclusion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then as a matter of policy the hon. gentleman thinks that my hon. friend from East York should not proceed with his motion now but leave it over twelve months ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think it would be more prudent to leave it over. I would like to add that if it were intended to insert this amendment, it would be necessary to redraft several clauses of the Railway Act so as to give it effect. There is no use putting in amendments to a statute which cannot be given effect to.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is purely a matter for the hon. member for East York to determine whether he will adopt this suggestion or not.
I always give the greatest possible attention to every remark that falls from the lips of the Minister of Justice, but he is so deeply versed in the law that sometimes it is difficult to follow him. His utterances are so profound at times that I must confess my inability to grasp their full meaning, and probably it is because of that inability on my part that I appear to the hon. minister to be so obtuse. I certainly inferred from what the hon. gentleman said that he 5iad very grave doubts whether this parliament ihad power to interfere in these contracts, and I ask him if we would be in a better position to deal with them twelve months from now if we have not the power to deal with them now. It seems to me there would be the same doubts.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What I suggested was that I should be in a better position twelve months hence to express an opinion than I am now, and, if doubts existed. I would be in a better position to suggest how they should be removed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then, I understand that, in effect, the minister says to me : I am not clear what the law is, and I desire time to consider the question. If that is the case. I certainly agree that he ought to give the matter consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We take control of a provincial railway by declaring it to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. And, by that means, we get control over their freight rates which we had not before. Does not that suggest that, when we declare it vested in this parliament we give ourselves the r>ower ? We are told that the reason why we take control of a railway in the province of Ontario for instance is that there may be but one law governing cases arising in any part of the Dominion in connection with our business with that road-For instance, freight is sent from Toronto and may be damaged by a railway wreck in Nova Scotia, and the question arises under what law the case

6"JOO
[DOT] for damages is to be prosecuted, the law of Nova Scotia or the law of Ontario ? If this applies to freight on railways why would it not apply as well to freight hauled on the same railways but under the control of the express companies, companies which, however, their name are really railway companies ?


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose that the distinction, if there is one, is that the railway is either originally or afterwards becomes subject to the exclusive authority of this parliament.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Under the section of the Railway Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Now, apart from that-looking at the suggestions that have been made as to what our jurisdiction is, it is. of course, perfectly true, as the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has suggested, that the power to incorporate at all includes the power to Incorporate subject to conditions or qualifications. It would be quite possible for this parliament to incorporate an express company and declare that it should make no charge at all. In the same way, in incorporating a company, parliament could declare that that company should not exceed certain charges named in Its act of incorporation. That is one thing. But that seems to me to be a different thing from a general law by this parliament fixing the charges for all companies of a particular character. I do not think that it would necessarily follow that we had jurisdiction to pass a general enactment because we had power to grant a charter of incorporation under conditions. Of course a very obvious illustration is this : We pass every day in tills House bills to incorporate loan and trust companies and commercial companies of various kinds. These companies must carry on business in the different provinces of Canada in accordance with the laws of those provinces relating to contracts. But as I say, in incorporating a particular company we can impose conditions, yet that does not give us jurisdiction over all contracts. So far as that particular feature is concerned, I should have doubt as to our jurisdiction. But I would not say we have not jurisdiction upon other considerations which I may mention a little later on.
I rose more particularly for the purpose of saying that, so far as the operations of these compamies in the maritime provinces are concerned, the more immediate difficulty that has arisen there is in connection with the powers which the government is willing to permit them to exercise oil the Intercolonial. The general Railway Act does not apply to the government railway, and, therefore, even if this statute passes, it would not give relief to that portion of the Dominion.


William Findlay Maclean: It would give relief to the western portion of their trade.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Robert Laird Borden: But it would not give relief from the principal difficulty which is found in the maritime provinces in this connection at the present time. For example, I had it pressed upon my attention not very long ago that only one express company is authorized to carry on business on the line between Halifax and Sydney- the Canadian Express Company, I think. I had communicated to me a resolution of the Board of Trade of Halifax urging upon the government the necessity of allowing not only that company but other companies as well to carry on business and thus create competition. The Intercolonial Railway is different from most others in that it has no express company of its own. It is thought desirable, therefore, that, upon that railway, not only the Canadian Express Company, but other companies as well should be allowed to carry on business in order that there may be competition. I bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson). I might have brought it up on the estimates, but it is as well that I should take this opportunity to mention it. I have no doubt he has received a copy of the resolution to which I have referred. I trust that the considerations placed before him by that resolution will not escape his attention and that he will deal with them in the early future.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


William Findlay Maclean: I do uot wish to take up a great deal of time on this amendment, as there are others to come on. But I wish to point out to the Minister of Justice that I think his constitutional contention is merely a legal quibble. I believe ways can be found to bring tbe express companies within the jurisdiction of the'Railway Commission. I have suggested one way, namely, that every company be compelled to do an express business, and be not allowed to contract itself out of its obligations in that matter. That avoids the entire question of law, and ail the question of constitutional interpretation raised by the Minister of Justice. But there is another way-and I am glad to see the Postmaster General is in his place at this time. The other way to regulate express charges in this country is by the government taking over the express business and extending the postal and parcel post system. We on this continent are away behind the continent of Europe in the development of the express business. Let me tell you what they do in Germany. I am reading now an extract from the ' Cosmopolitan Magazine : '
While we (the United States) absolutely refuse to accept a package greater than four pounds in weight, Germany has found it good business to extend the limit to 110 pounds. These 110 pounds will he sent by the German

government from one end of Germany to the other for 30 cents, or about one-fourth of a cent per pound.
But even that is not all. When it arrives at its destination, the 110 pound package is delivered at the home.
And that is not all. For from two to six cents extra, the government insures the package and guarantees its safe delivery.
And again, even this much is not all. If, Instead of to Germany, a merchant in a city of North Germany wishes to ship a package of one hundred and ten pounds to a city in the southernmost prJH of Austria, he may do even this for thirty cents, about one-fourth of a cent a pound-that is, the merchants of Rochester pay six thousand per cent more to the United States government for sending parcels from Rochester to Buffalo, than do the Germans even to the extreme limits of a foreign country.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: Who writes that ?


William Findlay Maclean: John Brisben Walker, editor of the ' Cosmopolitan Magazine,' who has made a great study of this question. The reason, as Mr. Walker points out, why this parcel post system has not been expanded in the United .States is because of the domination and supremacy of the express companies, and I will give my authority for that, namely, Mr. John Wana-maker. recently Postmaster General of the United States. When Mr. Wanamaker was asked why the express system in the United States had not been improved, how it was that the postal department had not been brought up to date with England, with Germany and all these other countries, his reply was as follows :
There are four reasons why we have not a parcel post system like they have in Germany. The first of these is the Adams Express Company ; the second is the American Express Company ; the third, the Wells-Fargo Express Company ; and the fourth, the Southern Express Company.
Now what I charge here is that not only do the express companies seek, and so far successfully, to avoid a control of their rates by some public body, but they are equally powerful in this country as they are in the United States, and to-day they prevent and hinder the expansion of our parcel post system into a system such as they have in England and in Germany. And yet they have been out and out opponents of the parcel post system in the United States, as I believe they are here to-day. At any rate, they are to-day on evidence in our Railway Committee as objecting to a public regulation of their charges. Now my amendment proposes to bring these companies within the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. The Minister of Justice says : Wait till next year. I say, No, don't wait till next year, do it now, put it in the Act now, and let us test the Act. I guarantee that I will bring suit myself ; if the hon. gentleman will give me a chance to show where the power lies, I will undertake an
action, I can get the Board of Trade of Toronto to undertake an action. But the, way to approach the matter is not to put it off until we find out what the law is, the way is to put it on the statute-book now and in that way find out what the law may be. I am not affiad of the result, nor am I afraid of the complications that may ensue in this country by the adoption of this measure at the present time. This is not the first time this question has been raised in the House. The hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), myself, and some others, last session wlieu the Bill first wrent through, fought this matter out, and suggested then that the express companies come within the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. Now I leave the case to the House and to t-he country. You can do what you like with me in this matter. I may be successful in committee, and I may not he. At least, I shall be able to divide the House later on on the third reading. I leave the case with you, but it won't end here. The hon. gentleman says the question is growing. So it is growing, and I am going out to the country to grow with it. There is no better question on which to test the country than this'one. When I speak of the Tost Office Department taking oyer the express business, I do so because I believe in public ownership, and a man who believes in public ownership must also believe in public control of all these companies that exercise great franchises. At'present all I ask is for the public control of a corporation that controls a great franchise, and if that public control cannot be obtained in one way it can in another. If hon. gentlemen cannot find out a way to attain this object. I can, and that is to appeal to the people on this issue, and ask for their endorsation, ask for some kind support that will ensure these gentlemen in parliament finding out a way to bring these companies within the jurisdiction of some public body.


Mr. BLAIN.: I wish to say that I am in favour of the amendment moved by my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean). I think it is only fair to the public that the Railway Commission that has been constituted at a great cost to the people should have a right to investigate and control the express charges all over Canada. In considering this question, the committee must bear in mind that a much larger proportion of goods that Canadian people now consume are sent by express than was the case some year ago. It will be remembered that in Canada at this moment there is a centralization of business. Manufacturers are centralizing their business, merchants are uniting their small businesses into larger ones, and thus trading places are getting further away from the consumer than they were years ago.
Thus I think it is only fair that some effort should be made by the parliament o'

6704 '
Canada to enable the consumers to get cheaper express rates than they have at tills moment. You will bear in mind that the farmers of Canada, particularly the farmers of the older provinces, are engaged almost entirely in a different occupation from that in which they were engaged some years ago. There are many farmers in the province of Ontario and in the province of Quebec-I speak particularly for the province of Ontario-who send their total output of *butter, eggs and poultry to market by express. You will remember also that the creamery industry is largely carried on, and that almost every gallon of cream that is sent to the leading centres is sent by express. I repeat what I said before, that the farmers of the country should get cheaper express rates than they do at the present time. Then the manufacturers are particularly interested in the cheapening of express rates, for the reason that in the summer time, when the farmers are busily engaged with their farming operation, they send a great many of their products, such as binder twine and other manufactured articles to meet the necessities of the farmers, by express. Therefore, the consumers ail over'Canada are interested in the reduction of express rates. The government have thought it to be their duty to appoint a Railway Commission at a very large expense to the people. This expense the people are not condemning, but they are awaiting the results of the work of this commission. and wlien the commission are investigating the rates charged for sending freight at a slow rate of speed through this country by the different lines of railway, I cannot understand why the government should not be williug, if it is possible, and I think it is possible, to make such changes in the law as will enable the Railway Commission to regulate express rates and give the consumers Icheaper rates than those which they have to pay at the present time. I do not wish to go into a detailed statement of the question. That is unnecessary, as my hon. friend from East York (Mr. "Maclean) has pointed out the facts at some length, not only this session, but last year a-s well. The government have had at least one year's notice. I do not complain against the hon. Minister of Justice in saying that another year should pass before this question is dealt with, but if another year passes by and we are no closer to the result than we are this year, after having given notice a year ago, I do not think the case is very strong to show that we should wait for another year. I am of the opinion that at [DOT]this session we should make such a change in the law, either by the adoption or the amendment of my hon. friend from East York, or by the adoption of such a modified amendment as will place the regulation of all express charges on the different lines of railways altogether under the control of the Railway Commission.


Richard Blain: 


Mr. NORTHRUP.: Mr. Speaker, as X am unable to support the amendment moved by my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean), and as I do not care to give a silent vote on it, because it seems to me that there are several amply sufficient reasons why at the present time the amendment should not be carried, I venture to trespass upon the attention of the House for a few moments. I admit that when my hon. friend was speaking on his amendment he gave us some very interesting information and pointed out some things that my hon. friend the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and my hon. friend the Postmaster General tSir William Mulock) might do, but after all the suggestions were something like the Gowers that bloom in the spring-they had nothing to do with the case. I understand that the question before the House is whether or not a certain clause in the Railway Act is to be amended by giving power to the Railway Commission to deal with express companies. Whether or not the hon. Postmaster General should take over this branch of the service is another question altogether, and can be considered at another time. Rut, in the meantime, if, as business men, we apply ourselves to the question before the House, it seems to me there are ample reasons to justify us in declining to support the amendment. Only a year has elapsed since the Railway Act was threshed out to a great extent in this House. In the province of Ontario we have been complaining that there is too much legislation, that a statute is put on the statute-book, and that before the people or the lawyers have had time to understand what has been enacted changes are introduced. X venture to believe that a strong case of necessity should be made out before, the very first year after we have passed an Act to amend the Railway Act and while its provisions are being tried, we should endeavour to change it again. But there is another point. I think it is only fair to remember that in the passing of Bills through this House the Minister of Justice occupies a peculiar position. In one sense he is responsible for all the legislation that passes. If a measure, no matter from what side of the House it may come, is passed by this House and not opposed by the Minister of Justice, who is the head of the legal department in the Honse. and if afterwards that legislation is held to be ultra vires, it is, to a certain extent, a reflection on the Minister of Justice. It does seem to me that, when an amendment such as this is introduced, when the hon. Minister of Justice says that in his judgment it is very doubtful if we have the p-ower to pass such an amendment, and when. I venture to say, there is not one lawyer in the House who would stake his 1 reputation and say with certainty that there are no grounds for the position which the bon. Minister of Justice takes, a very great responsibility would be thrown upon us if


William Findlay Maclean: It would be -a good thing for the lawyers.


William Barton Northrup: If I were as selfish as some people that might appeal to me, but I am speaking as a representative of the people, not as a lawyer or the representative of lawyers, and I think my hon. friend will give me credit at all events for sincerity in occupying that position. It has been said that if this matter is allowed to stand for a year the law will not be changed, it will be the same as it is now at the end of the year, and we will not be any better off. But in the course of a year this matter may be considered. In the course of a year decisions may be given by the courts which will place beyond controversy the question whether we have or have not the power to pass such an amendment as this. In any event, every member of this House will admit, from what we have already seen in the transaction of business by the Railway Commission, that there is ample business, urgent, pressing business, to keep the commission busy
during this year, and it will not be necessary that they should remain idle merely because we decline to throw on them this additional amount of business. The passage of such an amendment as that now proposed would compel the commission to leave undone business which is as important and pressing as that which would thus be put upon them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I correct in the understanding that my hon. friend says that because it is not settled that we have the power, we therefore should not assume that we have the power ? I would ask if that was the usual course followed by Sir Oliver Mowat in his provincial legislation ? Did he not claim, on the other hand, that the proper thing to do was, where there was a semblance of right, to assume that we had the power, then to legislate on these lines and allow the courts to decide if we had or had not the power.


William Barton Northrup: My hon. friend is confusing two things. It is one thing to assume a power, and another thing, -when a piece of legislation is before the House, if the legislature is inclined to think we have not the power, to hold our hands, as we well might do. If the House thought that there was little doubt that we had the power, it would be different.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does my hon. friend remember that when the McCarthy Act was passed in this House with regard to taking the licenses from the control of the provinces, very eminent legal authorities, including I think Hon. Edward Blake, held that we had not the power. But Sir John Macdonald, after obtaining the opinions of very eminent lawyers, including Mr. Betb-une of Toronto, said that wre had the power, and the House proceeded accordingly.


William Mulock: It cost a quarter of a million dollars to find that out.


William Barton Northrup: It was an unfortunate thing for this country that this was done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the principle, not the Act that I am speaking of.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not without sympathy for the hon. gentleman who has moved this amendment. Certainly the proposition is worthy of very serious consideration, and, from a selfish standpoint, any one occupying the position of head of the Department of Railways and Canals would rejoice at the passage of such an amendment as is proposed. It would, however, be a very serious matter indeed if we were to enact this as the law of the laud and be met with the difficulties suggested by the Minister of Justice. I think that on general principles it is unwise to tinker with the Railway Act. except in so far as it is absolutely necessary until such time as that Act, especially in connection with the Railway Commission, has been fairly tried.

Reference has been made by the hop. member for Halifax to the question of express privileges on the Intercolonial Railway. He states that he has receivd resolutions from the Halifax Board of Trade. 1 may say that I have received resolutions, not only from that Board of Trade but from many other Boards of Trade in the maritime provinces and petitions by the score have been submitted to me with a view to having the Intercolonial Railway opened to the Dominion Express Company in regard to all trains. At present the Dominion Express Company 'have express privileges on certain trains of the Intercolonial Railway. The proposition now made is that we should give them privileges co-extensive with the privileges enjoyed by the Canadian Express Company. This is a matter of serious moment to the Intercolonial Railway. I sympathize with the desire of many towns and villages along the line of the Intercolonial Railway, whose merchants would wish to have a certain amount of competition, .but it seems to me that such competition would not bring to them the advantages "which they now anticipate. Those places which have that competition have not enjoyed as fully as they anticipated the advantages of the competition which they have secured and I apprehend that those who are now looking towards the accomplishment of the prayer of the petition would perhaps be quite as much disappointed as the others have been, it involves to the Intercolonial Railway serious consequences both as regards its earnings and also as regards the cost of furnishing privileges for all express companies. I think that the Intercolonial Railway is to-day realizing something above $100,000 annually as their share of the profits of the express privileges from the Canadian Express Company. That is on the basis of the Intercolonial Railway securing over its whole line from Moncton to Montreal a percentage of the express rates. Now if a change is made and the Dominion Express Company, a part and parcel,, as my hon. friend says, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, are granted the privileges of the Intercolonial Railway they can go in and secure their trade without any very great advantage to the people, without any lessening of rates, as I understand it, and they can take that express to St. John and thence over their line to western points. In going the other way, they would take it all to St. John, the Intercolonial Railway would get their quota east of St. . John.	Under the present
arrangement the Intercolonial Railway gets its proportion of the whole rate to Montreal because the Intercolonial Railways goes to Montreal. This amendment would therefore affect very materially the earnings of the Intercolonial Railway in connection with express freight. On the other hand the Intercolonial Railway would necessarily have to provide additional car Mr. EMMERSON.
privileges at greater expense. The probabilities are that they would have to run an additional express car on each express train, and therefore, from the standpoint of dollars and cents, the matter has to be viewed by the Railway Department. I have listened to a number of delegations during the present session who have appeared before me with a view to emphasize the desire of the fruit-growers and fish dealers to have these additional express privileges along the line of the Intercolonial Railway. The matter is under consideration. I appreciate the arguments that have been put forward in favour of the idea but I must not be unmindful of the conditions prevailing on the Intercolonial. I would like to see all the railways in Canada, including the Intercolonial Railway, open to all the express companies, and if this were made general, if the Canadian, the American, the Dominion and all the express companies had equal privileges on all the lines throughout the Dominion, there would be many advantages. But if one company reserves to itself the right to monopolize all the express privileges in one section, they should not have the right to enter other sections and share with others that Which they themselves are not willing to grant in their district.


William Findlay Maclean: Might I ask my bon. friend how long the contract now existing between the government and the Canadian Express Company has to run ?	,


Henry Robert Emmerson: It expired in December.	.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, I hope the Minister of Railways wTill never surrender to the express companies. I trust that when that contract expires in December, he will establish the Canadian express company belonging to the people of Canada, a national express which he will control. Is it not absurd and the height of impudence for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to come to the Canadian government and say, we want you to let us on your line in competition with other companies, and we refuse to let them on our line ? The Dominion Express Company will not allow any other express comjtany to share the cars with them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Will my hon. friend pardon me ? I neglected to say that on the Prince Edward Island Railway, which is part of the government system of railways, the railway carries on its own express business.


William Findlay Maclean: And so I would like to see it over the whole of the Intercolonial. As I said before, the Grand Trunk is on record as having refused to allow a com-netitive express company to have the use of its cars, and it defeated the other company some years ago, although the other company

acted on the advice of the late Dalton McCarthy. The Grand Trunk is so strong that it prevented that competition, and the Canadian Pacific Kailway is so strong that it can prevent any other company getting on is lines. It was not the business men of the maritime provinces who asked for this express business from the Intercolonial so much as it was the secret agents of the Dominion Express Company, who went through all these towns and drafted the resolutions which were put into the hands of the boards of trade.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is no doubt about that.


William Findlay Maclean: These companies are trying to get their fangs on the people's railway. These legal arguments may be made by the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Essex. They say there will be litigation. Let there be litigation. There is not a public wrong for which there is not a legal remedy ; that is a good maxim in law, I believe. If there is some legal objection in the way, let it be removed. What is needed is not men to get up here and erect men of straw-, and say there is this in the way and that in the way. All these objections can be cleared out of the wjay if it is the intention of parliament to regulate these companies ; and when you find them contracting themselves out of their obligations and out of the jurisdiction of this House, it is high time that we compelled the express companies to come within the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. In Ontario this express business is something enormous, and it means everything to the farmers and fruit-growers. In the city of Toronto nearly all the milk and fruit that comes in every day in carloads comes by express. The price of milk to the farmers is altogether regulated by the express charges. I know of twenty teams in my own constituency which are every day bringing milk to the city of Toronto for distances of twenty or thirty miles under a broiling sun, with great loss to the milk, because the express companies force it on the roads. In the district of Niagara there was built some years ago a powerful electric line which handled a great deal of fruit; and by reason of a connection between it and the Canadian Pacific Railway, the fruit of the Niagara district was put into the city of Ottawa and the city of Montreal, and even further east. It got to be a great business, and the Canadian Pacific Railway was good enough to accommodate it and give it reduced rates. But the moment the Grand Trunk saw this, its agents went out. They captured the Hamilton and Beamsville trolley line which they hold to-day. and the fruit-growers are at the mercy of the Grand Trunk. It has cut out the Canadian Pacific Railway, and when the proper time comes it will jump up the
express rates and have control of this trade. If there is any legal obstruction in the way of this parliament controlling these express companies, it can easily be removed. Parliament can by its vote to-day put these companies under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission, and by next year, by testing the matter in the courts, we shall know whether they are under the jurisdiction of this parliament or not.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would say to my hon. friend that in view of the fact that the relation of the express companies to the Intercolonial will have to be determined by the Governor in Council before next session, they might very well at the same time consider the larger question relating to the express companies throughout Canada. There are in my judgment very strong arguments to be advanced in favour of the contention of my hon. friend. I am quite prepared to admit that ; but I do not think it is opportune at this moment to incorporate his amendment into the Railway Act. We might fairly have it stand over until next year, and the whole question could very properly be determined in connection with the proposition relating to the Intercolonial Railway.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. minister ex-* plain to the committee what success has followed the management of the express business of the government road in Prince Edward Island ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not had an opportunity of personally going into the question ; but from what I gather from the general manager, there are difficulties in connection with that, because the jurisdiction of the railway ends at Charlottetown or Summerside, as the case may be, and when the express companies on the mainland send articles over to the island an additional express rate has to be paid on the island. It is like a double freight rate, and it is a pretty large sum for the recipient or the shipper of the article. It is simply adding the charge of one company to the charge of another. From that standpoint it is very objectionable to the people of Prince Edward Island, and it is not completely satisfactory to the managers of the railway.


Mr. HACKETT.: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether there is a system of express under the government administration of the railway in Prince Edward Island ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have stated that there is a system of express freight on the Prince Edward Island Railway, controlled by the railway management.


Edward Hackett: The hon. minister says the matter is controlled by the railway management. With respect to parcels going in

there, has not the Dominion Company as good a right as the Canadian Express ? Do yon pretend to say that you take complete control of this express company on the Prince Edward Island Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are no express companies which have privileges on the Prince Edward Island Railway.


Edward Hackett: I understand then that there are no express companies having special privileges on that railway, and that the railway takes full charge of all express business on the island.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is correct as I understand it.


Mr.   MACDEAN@: Here is another instance where the public get the lean end. The public get the express business in Prince Edward Island, but where that business is profitable it is controlled by private companies. The government has never yet had anything like a fair show. Let the minister take over the whole express business. Let him compel the express companies to give his company as good treatment as they give to each other and there will be a great improvement in the express system in the maritime provinces. We will then have the fish ' of the maritime provinces sent to the west and the fruit of the west taken down to the sea, and there will be a larger building up of trade between the provinces.


Mr. LOGAN.: In my opinion the express companies should be under the control the Railway Commission, which is the only body we have in Canada capable of dealing with their rates and regulations. But while I am in favour of the principle of the motion of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean), I think we should hesitate, in view of the doubts expressed by the hon. Minister of Justice, undertaking the serious obligation which my hon. friend wants us to assume. As the Minister of Justice has pointed out, the adoption of this motion would lead to a revision of the whole Railway Act, and this period of the session, when we are nearing its end, does not seem to me the proper time to take up so important a matter. But in the meantime I would ask the Minister of Justice to refer a case to the Supreme Court so that we might get the opinion of that court as to whether the legislation proposed is ultra vires or within our jurisdiction. The importance of this matter demands that some such reference should be made. I do not agree with some gentlemen who have spoken this afternoon, that because certain legislation might be within our jurisdiction, we ought to pass it and then let those who challenge our jurisdiction make good their claim. That, it seems to me, would be an unwise policy. A mistake on our part might involve the country in serious damages. We have had already to pay hundreds of thous-Mr. HACKETT.
ands of dollars in consequence of legislating beyond our jurisdiction. Before we pass legislation, let us be sure that we have the light to do so, and not force private individuals to contest our right and perhaps be subjected to a defeat in the courts with all the consequences of a defeat of that nature. Just one word with reference to the express business of the Intercolonial. I cannot agree with my hon. friend the Minister of Railways that because the Dominion Express Company has a monopoly in some parts of Canada, we should not allow it to break the monopoly on the Intercolonial. Between certain points of the Intercolonial, for instance between Levis and Moncton, the Canadian Express Company has a monopoly. Between Truro and Sydney in the eastern part of Nova Scotia, on the island of Cape Breton, the Canadian Express Company also enjoys a monopoly, and it has likewise a monopoly on the short line between Oxford and Pictou. In view of the demands made by the people for better regulations and rates, it seems to me the Minister of Railways should seriously consider the giving to the Dominion Express Company equal rights on the government railways with the Canadian Express Company. As regards the question of government ownership of express companies, it is one which we should take considerable time to consider. There are difficulties that at once suggest themselves. It would necessitate the government becoming the owner of horses, carriages, harness and the general equipment of an express company.


William Findlay Maclean: How does the government handle the mails ?


Hance James Logan: By tender and contract, and you could not very well handle the express business in that way. However, I have not given the question sufficient study and consideration to be in a position to express a decided opinion, but considering the facts, I can see no objection to granting to the Dominion Express Company, equal privileges on the government roads with the Canadian Express Company, especially as that would be nothing more than fair to the people of the maritime provinces. In the meantime I trust my hon. friend the Minister of Justice will see his way clear to have the question of jurisdiction referred to the Supreme Court for an opinion.


Mr. WRIGHT.: Has the hon. gentleman any documentary evidence to show that we are nearing the end of the session ? If so, will he kindly lay it on the table ?
SMr. GOURLEY. I want to say to the hon. Minister of Railways that I believe public opinion in the maritime provinces is in favour of free trade in express companies. The legal difficulty I know nothing about at present, but there should be some way of getting around it. We want active competi-

tion in express companies on the Intercolonial, and there is a feeling among the people that they are unjustly treated by having one company given vested rights in the government railway to the exclusion of others. The people of course have to suffer the consequences of want of competition. I would support my hon. friend the Minister of Railways in any fair measure ip which he would give free trade to express companies.
Amendment (Mr. Maclean) negatived on division.
Mr. MACLEAN moved to amend the Bill by'adding a section which will read as follows :
Section io of the said Act is amended by striking out the words ' and his opinion on any question which, in the opinion of the commissioners, is a question of law shall prevail.
He said : This is to remove a difficulty which has arisen in connection with the Railway Commission and which came to the front not long ago. The towns of Port Arthur and Port William have a municipal telephone service. After a great deal of trouble a year ago we got a clause put in the Railway Act to the effect that every railway company is bound, on the order of the Railway Commission, to give access to any municipal or incorporated telephone system that seeks admission to the stations of any railway company. I secured that amendment by repeated argument last session and pointing out that the Canadian Pacific Railway had refused access to its station to independent companies on the plea that it had made a contract-this old nlea of a contract-with the Bell Telephone Company allowing that company and no other telephone company to have connection with their station. Parliament was good enough after a severe fight to put a clause in the Act to this effect:
Whenever any municipality or corporation has authority to construct, operate and maintain a telephonic system in any district, and is desirous of obtaining telephonic connection or communication with or within any station or premises of the company, in such district and cannot .agreej with thei company with respect thereto, such municipality or corporation may apply to the board for leave therefor, and the board may order the company to provide for such connection or communication upon such terms as to compensation as the board deems just and expedient, and may order and direct how, when, where, by whom and upon what terms and conditions such telephonic connection or communication shall be constructed, operated and maintained.
Hon. Mr. Blair, who was then Minister of Railways and Canals and who piloted this Bill through parliament, told the House that this Bill is to meet the emergency which' I have stated and to remove the grievances of the people who own independent telephone lines, the grievances of Locust Hill,
Port Arthur, Fort William, and other places. With that understanding I accepted that amendment. Time passed and the commission was organized. Hon. Mr. Blair became chairman of the commission. These people of Port Arthur and Fort William, Locust Hill and other places appeared before the commission and asked that the railway should be compelled to allow them telephonic access to the station. The case was argued and the, permission given. The majority of the commission of three members -Hon. Mr. Blair, ex-Minister of Railways ; Hon. Mr. Bernier, ex-Minister of Inland Revenue, and Professor Mills, who - had been selected on account of his business capacity, I believe-ruled that under this clause these local telephone companies had the right of access to these stations under the provisions of the Act. But the chairman of the commission, Mr. Blair, said : You may be in favour of giving these telephone companies access to the station, but there is another clause in the Act which makes this a legal issue and so brings it wholly and solely within my jurisdiction.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Section 10.


William Findlay Maclean: That is section 10, which reads as follows :
Not less than two commissioners shall attend at the hearing of every case, and the chief commissioner, when present, shall preside, and his opinion upon any question, which in the opinion of the commissioners is a question of law, shall prevail.
Now, if there was any justification for the Bill passed last session establishing a railway commission it was that the people of Canada were at last to have a tribunal that would control these railway companies and regulate their charges, and this would be done by business men in a business way, without the long-drawn-out system of the courts. It is on that ground that hon. gentlemen opposite are justifying the Railway Act before the public. They make it their boast that at last they have established a tribunal that will deal with these questions speedily. But," instead of having such a tribunal it now turns out that it is to all intents and purposes a court of law, and that the chief justice of that court is supreme and can override his two colleagues. And to show that I do not go outside the record, let me read a few lines from what Mr. Blair said. This is in a despatch dated Ottawa, March 22nd, and gives an account of the speech made by Mr. Blair at the opening of the Railway Commission :
I think I can say for the board-I certainly say it for myself as being responsible for the legal conclusions that may be arrived at.
So, he has the right to say what is the legal issue and to tell his colleagues to sit aside. . Never was such a lecture delivered in any legal tribunal before as that given by Mr. Blair to his colleagues. In effect he


GT15 COMMONS 671G
[Stage Direction]
said :	Now, you two get off the bench ; I
will occupy it myself : this is a question of law and I will decide it.
Charles Fitzpatrick: From what section of the law is that quoted ?


William Findlay Maclean: That is the substance of what Mr. Blair told these good little boys who had been sent to accompany him. He told them to sit down and he would interpret the law. And his interpretation is to the effect that the people of Port Arthur and Fort William, and the farmers of Locust Hill, and the local companies in Quebec and the Northwest, who want telephonic connection with these stations, can only have it by paying enormous damages to the Bell Telephone Company. That is the sum and substance of his decision. That is the barren verdict given the people by the chairman of the Railway Commission. But we propose that this Samson shall be shorn of his locks, that he shall be made only co-equal with his colleagues and that all three members of the commission shall be judges of the law as they are judges of the facts. I do not believe in putting the great commercial interests of this country absolutely in the hands of a lawyer. In many cases under our law we summoiT a jury and the jury becomes the judge of both law and fact. That is the system that should be followed in this case. The business men and farmers of this country do not want to be left at the mercy of a lawyer at the head of this court.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is the right to appeal, is there not ?


William Findlay Maclean: He says there is the right to appeal to the Privy Council and the Supreme Court, and these people have been sent there. They came down the other day to make some motion in regard to it and they were told that the commission was going west and it would take a long w7hile to get into the Supreme Court. And the chairman of the commission is on record as saying in effect : You had better not go to the Privy Council. He warned them not to go.
Some bon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


Mr. GOURLEY.: Mr. Blair is a good lawyer, and


William Findlay Maclean: This is what he said :
I think that an appeal to the Governor in Council would, not be desirable in that case. It is a question of law purely and simply so far as it now stands. And-I say it with all respect-the Governor in Council is not a tribunal to determine questions of law.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: When the hon. gentleman speaks of the Privy Council he does not refer to the judicial committee of the Privy Council ?


William Findlay Maclean: No. This is the position taken by this new Czar. He says, in Mr. MACLEAN.
effect :	My colleagues' opinion does not
count when it is a matter of law7, and I do not think that you litigants should go to the Privy Council, though you have a right to go. The people of this country do not ivant law, they want service, they want the simple, common right to put their telephone lines into the station of these great railway corporations that they have created. And, as I said before, who are the people who ask for this accommodation-it can be called accommodation-for the railways ? " They are the clients of the railway companies. All that they want access to the railway station for is to be able to ask if their freight has arrived, if the train is on time, when they should send goods to the station for shipment, and so on. They are all anxious to do business with these railways and they find that this Bell Telephone Company, by a contract, has got between them and' the railways and they cannot get into .these railway stations.
It,is the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada to whom w7e are giving $150,000,000 to build a transcontinental railway that we propose to empower to enslave the'people ; it is the Canadian Pacific Railway to whom we have given millions and millions of dollars, and to whom we propose further to give power to enslave the people by preventing them from having telephone access to railway stations. I believe that the contract by which this railway company contracted to keep rival companies out of their stations is bad in law', I believe it is against the public interest, and would so be declared by the courts if appealed to. Therefore under these circumstances I come here with this little amendment asking parliament to change the law so that the supreme jurisdiction now vested in the Chairman of the Railway Commission may be taken awTay, and that the questions w'hich come before him may be tried, both as questions of business and as questions of law7, by some other men, by tw7o lawyers if you will. You may not have two, but don't make monkeys of the colleagues of the chairman. Both of these men were seized of this case, both of them gave excellent judgments. I have asked the Minister of Justice to read the judgments that were given by the Hon. Mr.. Bernier and Professor Mills. They are both sound, practical judgments that appeal to every one. They said : These people are entitled to go into these railway stations under this Act, and we make the order forthwith. But the Czar stands up and says : You shall not do so, this is a question of law7, and I take it out of your hands. So the people are denied this privilege of going into railway stations.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The commissioners must agree that it is a question of law, then the chairman has power to decide.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not find the word ' Czar ' defined in the Act.


JFT.Y 14, 1904
William Findlay Maclean: No, but here is what he does find. In a statement given out by the Chairman of the Committee on March 22 last, Mr. Blair, the Chairman, said : ' I certainly say it as being responsible for the legal conclusions that may be arrived at.'


Fletcher Bath Wade: But we have section 10 of the statute and here is what it says :
Not less than two commissioners shall attend at the hearing of every case, and the chief commissioner, when present, shall preside, and his opinion upon any question, which in the opinion of the commissioners is a question of law, shall prevail.


William Findlay Maclean: I know that is the case, find it was on the strength of this that he immediately acts without these two men. But of course they should have stood out and asserted themselves. The defence that will be offered here to-day will probably be that there should be no such clause as that in the Act. Take that out and let us make these two men co-equal. Do that, and I believe that the business men, the farmers of this country will have some confidence in these men who will proceed to grant relief in many cases.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not a fact that about seven-tenths of all the cases that come before that commission involve questions of law ? A man's right is generally determined by his legal right. It is true that he may have a moral right, but if a man has a legal right and one that can be fairly defended in law, it gives him a different status from that he would otherwise occupy. In nearly all these cases there is a question of law involved, and if questions of law can be decided by the chairman, surely the other two commissioners might as well stay at home. We know that when the Railway Commission was contemplated at first, it was contended strongly that it should consist of three men, one a lawyer, one a railway expert, and one a man who should be a man of common sense, a man who would be versed generally in matters of trade and commerce. It was set forth that it was essentially requisite to have a commission composed in that way so that they might bring their varied intelligences to bear on the different questions that would come before them. It was never contended that the legal mind on that commission should control the others on any question, whether of law or of fact.


Mr. GALLIHER.: I think the position is this : This commission must necessarily have a lawyer among its members. Whatever government appoints these commissioners will endeavour to get the best men obtainable. The salaries paid them are probably based on that principle. I do not think any one will dispute the ability of the present Chairman of the Commission, as a lawyer. It was to be expected that we should find such a section as section 10 in 214


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
this Act. Necessarily, as my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has pointed out, questions of law enter into nearly every dispute that will come before the commission. Now a layman, be he ever so clever, be he ever so good a business man, be he ever so well versed in railway matters, is not as competent to judge of the legal effect of an argument, or of an existing condition, as is a trained legal mind. Therefore, it is only reasonable to expect that when the commission has to decide upon a question where a legal point is involved, the decision on that legal point belongs and should be vested in that member of the commission who is a legal gentleman, in the present case in the chairman. Now they have got to agree, and it is by virtue of section 10 that they have first to agree that there is a legal point involved. Then which of the members of that commission, the trained legal mind on the one hand, or the member who may have no legal knowledge whatever, is the better judge of the question of law, or the better able to decide what law should apply to the point in dispute ? That is altogether outside the numerous questions or circumstances that may arise that are not of a legal character.
William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon. gentleman pardon me a moment ? Are not these colleagues of the chairman who are constantly engaged in construing the various clauses in the Act, by that fact qualified to engage in the business of interpreting the law ?


William Alfred Galliher: That does not affect my argument at all ; they may or may not be so. The other two commissioners, no matter how able they may be in every respect from a business point of view, in their commercial knowledge, in their technical railway knowledge, or in their general intelligence, are not as capable of construing a legal point as is a trained legal mind. But we do not rest there. There is an appeal. The Hon. Mr. Blair, Chairman of the Commission, in the case mentioned, says there is an appeal, if I remember correctly, even to the Privy Council. These parties have their right of appeal, first it is to the government. Then there is a section which specially provides that either party to a dispute may, on his own motion, and upon giving such security as directed by statute, ask for the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada upon any question which, in the opinion of the board, is a question of law. A reference can be made at the request of the Governor in Council. Either party may do so, or the board may do so. Surely that is all the protection any one wants. You may say that the board won't do it because they won't stultify themselves. Then it is open to you, the privilege is granted to you. But at all events, I think that meets one of the objections raised by my hon. friend. It: is not as if the Chairman of the Railway


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Commission was the Czar in the matter, and his decision was final in all cases, because it is not.
Robert Laird Borden: As far as all matters which do not involve some question of -law are concerned, the majority of the board must determine them. As far as questions of Jaw are concerned, they will eventually have to be decided by some person. If the board should proceed without regard to the statute under which it is acting, and by which it is controlled, of course there would be a remedy outside, because its acts would be beyond its jurisdiction and inoperative, and would be so declared by the courts. If the chairman of the Railway Commission could himself decide that a particular matter is a question of law, and therefore arrogate to himself everything that came before the board, there would be good ground for making some alteration in the law, but the point that has been more particularly urged by my hon. friend from East York is that the other two members of the board were rather weak in yielding when they should not have yielded. That is not due to a defect in the law, but it is due to a defect in the constitution of the board.


William Findlay Maclean: No ; it is due to the bulldosing of the chief, who says :	I am responsible for the legal conclusion.


Robert Laird Borden: In the ultimate view if would be due to the weakness of the -gentlemen who did not assert themselves as members of the commission in the way they were entitled to do under the law. I think this court ought to be a speedy court, but at the same time when the court has to consider legal questions, it must have regard to legal principles, and it must be bound by the terms of the statute which it has to consider and by the law under which it is acting. Under these circumstances, it would appear to me to be a little dangerous to remove this provision from the statute until we have had a little more experience and until we have found some real injustice resulting from it, because the injustice which is said to have resulted does not seem to be due to anything in the Act, but rather to the fault of the two junior members of the board, who did not take the position which they should have taken.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to ask my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and also my hon. friend the Minister of Rail ways and 'Canals whether they know of any other court in the world so constituted ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: What court ?


Mr. R. D. BORDEN.: In the ordinary courts of the country, where the jury determines questions of fact, -the judge always determines questions of law. The jury are the absolute judges of the facts. They can determine the question of fact against the Mr. GALLIHER.
charge of the judge, but when it comes to a question of law, the judge must determine that, subject to the same appeal as that which is created by this statute.


William Findlay Maclean: The case is not apposite. What I want to know is where you will find a court in which the chairman of the court says to his colleagues : This is a question for me to determine, not you. Take the case of the Interstate Commerce Commission in the United States, which is dealing with similar matters, and which was appointed for the very same purpose ; do you mean to tell me that the chairman of that commission has any more power than his colleagues have ? We all know about the judge and jury, and 1 admitted that some time ago, but here is a commission appointed by parliament at the request of the people of this country, of the merchants and the farmers, to deal with these ques tions and to deal with them speedily. Now we are told that these questions are practically all questions of law, and the Chairman arrogates to himself the decision of these questions of law. We are getting back to the old thing. Everybody who is a lawyer in this House is getting up and saying that there is a legal obstruction in the way. It is always -a case of contract. Somebody must interpret contracts, and now we have the railway companies contracting themselves out in connection with express companies, we have the railway companies contracting themselves out in connection with the telephone companies, and when the people come here for relief we find the lawyers one after another getting up and saying : This is a question of law, it has to be taken into the courts and there has to be litigation.
Mr. iSCOTT. Would passenger rates be a question of law ?


William Findlay Maclean: No ; of justice.


Mr. SCOTT.: But you have no confidence in the commission now.
Mr. MAC-LEAN. I will come to that. I want to tell my hon. friend that there are a good many people in the Northwest Territories who want to -have telephone communication with the railway stations there. The farmers want to have it, and the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver),, if he were in his place, as he ought to be, to back up what he said the other day, would be helping me to -fight this battle against this -frightful monopoly of the Bell Telephone Company -and that great railway company cut there, who are trying to perpetrate an injustice upon the people. The people of the Northwest -are pretty tired of the present conditions, they want telephone communication with the railway stations in the west, and, while, they are anxious to secure it, the Bell Telephone Company are busy every day building lines, getting into possession and placing themselves in a position to prevent any independent company from

gaining access to the railway stations. Down in the province of Quebec, according to the statement of a gentleman who came to see me the other evening, they are building hundreds of miles of independent lines, but the one thing that blocks them is the contract between the Bell Telephone Company and the railway companies, and the one thing that justifies this contract is the clause in the Railway Act which allows the chairman of the commission to take the position he is taking, when he claims that this is a matter of law and that his colleagues are not judges of the law. After his colleagues had considered this case and had said that these independent telephone companies were entitled to enter these stations, they turned around, for what reason 1 do not know, and allowed the chairman of the commission to arrogate to himself the decision of the case. If there had been a genuine farmer on the commission, as the right lion. Prime Minister promised there would be, he would not have consented to have had it interpreted as a question of law. But the chairman of the commission said that it was a question of law, and there it remains. It is now in the courts ; go there ; go to this court; go to some other court ; make it a legal question ; talk about contracts ; talk about the constitution, but all the time humbug the people and give no relief ! It is relief that is wanted. This commission is one that should afford relief. If there is a grievance, and this country has a fair grievance in this matter, there should be a tribunal to remedy that grievance, and in the old days the public men found a remedy for public grievances. They had that remedy in the voting of supplies, but in some way things have changed now, all kinds of public grievances are permitted, and the duty devolves upon two or three men to make the fight in this parliament for public rights. Sometimes I have to carry it on, sometimes other men have to carry it on, and it is carried on as well as it can be, but it has come to this that supplies are voted while these public grievances continue. 'Hon. gentlemen in this House pledged themselves on the platform all over the country that, as Liberals, they were the friends of the people, and that they believed in constitutional progress, but they forget that constitutional progress in Canada has consisted in the remedy of the grievances of the people. I am sorry to say there is no effort being made now to remedy these grievances in connection with the voting of supplies. We are voting supplies, we are paying salaries to this commission, $10,000 to one and $8,000 to two others, with a company of clerks and servitors of one kind and another added, and they are doing nothing to remedy these grievances but giving the public a lawsuit. Go to another court ' We did not create this court, we did not put this country to this great expense, we did not find these places 214$
for public servants, to be told,' when we bring a grievance before it, that it is a matter of law, and that we must go from one court to another. If that is to be the answer, all well and good ; the public have to be met, and the public have to be met by hon. gentlemen who sit in this House. The public will be seized of this question, they are being seized of it, and they expect different answers from legal quibbles and contentions to the effect that you must go from court to court, and that no remedy is to be given.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) is not quite consistent in the argument which he makes. If I understand his amendment rightly, it is only an amendment to section 10 of the Railway Act, which says that when, in the opinion of the chairman of the commission, it is a question of law, the decision of that question must be left to the chairman-of the commission.


Charles Fitzpatrick: ' When in the opinion of the board.'


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Of the commissioners, yes. My hon. friend says that you should not force people who go before this court to go before another court, but his amendment does not go far enough to secure that end. What does he want ? He wants this commission to decide on questions of law, he wants this commission, which is composed of one lawyer and as the case is now, one notary public, and another gentleman of no legal attainments to decide between railway companies and persons who go before this commission, sometimes in cases involving questions of liability and enormous amounts of money without any appeal to a higher court. I would put this question to any reasonable man and would be willing to discuss it before an assembly of reasonable men and ask them if they would submit to the danger of being judged in the last resort by this commission.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not propose to refuse an appeal.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: If my hon. friend does not propose to abolish the appeal granted in section 43, his amendment falls short of the argument he has just given. The whole argument of my hon. friend was that you must give the people of this country a tribunal of last resort before which they can go and not send litigants from one court to the other. His amendment then falls short of this argument ; he does not propose to amend section 43 which gives the right of appeal. Now, I ask. what will be the ultimate result of the amendment which he proposes ? Supposing that the majority of the commissioners decide a question of law. Does my hon. friend think that even if two commissioners were of the opinion that

they should reverse the opinion of the chief commissioner on a question of law that the railway company interested or the other party iitigating, if it was an important case, would not go further and take an appeal V Does my hon. friend think that for a moment ?


William Findlay Maclean: No.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Then I say his amendment does not go far enough if lie is really sincere in his desire to attain this object. He should go a step further but if he goes that step further he is trying to legislate not. only against the interests of the railway companies who have to go before the Railway Commission, but also against the interests of any litigant whose case comes before the gentlemen for adjudication. It is no use making speeches to the effect that this is a cheap tribunal before which the people can go. a tribunal which would decide in the last resort so that they would not have to go from court to court. Unless he proposes also to abrogate section 43 of the Railway Act, which gives the right of appeal. I again repeat that even if two commissioners were of a different opinion on a question of law from the chief commissioner, an appeal would still be taken, and the public would not have the cheap court of which my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) speaks.


Mr FITZPATRICK.: To supplement what my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) has said I would like to draw the attention of the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment. (Mr. Maclean) to the fact that the system we have here is the same as that which prevails in England. My hon. friend is aware that in England there are live railway commissioners, two appointed and three ex officio. There is one ex officio member for England one for Ireland and one for Scotland. Three commissioners constitute a quorum of the five, but one ex officio commissioner must always sit and he must always be a judge appointed by, the Chancellor in England or the Chief Justice in Ireland, or the Chief Legal Authority in Scotland and the chairman we have here is, as in England, always a judge.


William Findlay Maclean: In the definition of his jurisdiction is it set forth that he is the judge of the law ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That goes as a mere matter of common sense. There you have three commissioners two of whom are laymen and one a judge. Invariably in a commission of that kind the judge's opinion would prevail on a question of law.


William Findlay Maclean: Not necessarily.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend is too good a logician not to see that it would be absurd that on a question of law two laymen would decide as against a trained legal gentleman put there practically to


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: decide legal questions. My hon. friend sees how absurd that would be.


William Findlay Maclean: No he does not ; he sees the quibble.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: This discussion is valuable as giving to us some idea of the Railway Act. The difficulty which I think my learned friend-


William Findlay Maclean: Pardon me, I do not want the honour.
Mr. GOURLEY-that the hon. member for East York has is with these two farmer members of the commission. He asks that we should have at least three farmers but the difficulty is that with the two farmers they would first have to agree that it was a question of law before the legal man has any right to say a word. Therefore it shows me that farmers are very poor men to put upon a court.


William Findlay Maclean: But there is no farmer on it.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: You are speaking of farmers' decisions and I assume that these two gentlemen who are not lawyers would give farmers' decisions. The remedy for my hon. friend's difficulty is to have two other lawyers, and I would suggest that he move that the two farmers be struck off and two more lawyers be put on.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not agree there.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: And then you would get justice.


Edward Cochrane: You would get plenty of law.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am bound to say after considerable experience, and the committee will agree with me that I do not promote the interests of my trade very much,' that three lawyers on a commission would give more justice in half an hour, than a dozen farmers would in a thousand years.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not object, provided the three are co-equal.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: A lawyer goes at a thing right ; he looks at it from all sides, he sums up and does justice. I am surprised that we have not three trained men on this commission, because the commissioners are constantly dealing, under this Act. with vested interests, with rights of property, and I cannot imagine how a man would protect these rights of property unless he had legal training.


Mr. HEYD.: Do you think that with more than one legal gentleman on the board they would ever agree ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: They would never disagree. They might start to disagree in the morning but they would agree at noon, or if they did not agree at noon, they would

agree at night. A good lawyer has no pride of opinion. I may have a strong opinion now, hut I may change it at once and within the next hour' I may change it again. The only thing about which a lawyer is anxious is that the sun shall not go down upon him having a wrong opinion. He may change his opinion a thousand times a day. but will never let the sun go down upon him holding a wrong opinion if he can help it. A layman on the other hand may have a wrong opinion in the morning but through pride, conceit and personal bullheadedness will hold to that opinion be he right or wrong.


Charles Fitzpatrick: He does not care about the sun going down.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: He does not care about the sun going down upon his wrong opinion. With regard to Mr. Blair I may say that when I first entered this House I was rather prejudiced against him, coming from the maritime provinces, being a Tory and not having personal acquaintance with him ; but after being here for two or three years I learned to have for him a great admiration. He was strong and clear, always understood the facts and had a firm grip of the whole circumstances of any case under consideration. If there is any man in Canada who should have the right of settling these matters and should have the confidence of the people in doing so, he is that man. I have a kind of sympathy for my hon. friend here (Mr. Maclean). There should be three farmers on this commission, or three lawyers. The great thing is not to mix up good material like a lawyer with alloy like farmers. You will always have a base metal when you mix gold with bronze ; you will always have difficulties with a mixed tribunal. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) should amend his Bill so as to have either three lawyers or three farmers.
Mr. WILLIAM ROSS (Yictoriai. I am sorry that the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) has such a poor opinion of laymen generally.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: No, I have a very high 'opinion.


William Ross: Of farmers. It is not long since I heard him saying that every elector in Colchester was equal, if not superior to everybody in this House.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: More than equal, I say.


William Ross: I did not al-togther agree with him at that time, and I do not agree with him now. I think there are plenty of farmers in the country who are quite as capable of judging the merits of n case if it does not become a question of law as any lawyer in this House. I do not want to discredit the ability of lawyers in their
profession, and it is almost charming to see how they a'gree in this instance, because the Act gives them greater power than they had before. They always want to climb up and get more influence by Act of parliament than they had before. That is generally the aim of lawyers. I have expressed my opinion in this House of the chairman of that committee before, and I have not changed it since. I am not going to repeat it now ; but I would not withdraw to-day a single word that I said about that gentleman at the time he tendered his resignation:


Mr. PUTTEE.: I am sorry to see that the weight of legal argument this afternoon is so strongly against the hon. member for East York, because behind all this there is this fact, that the intention of parliament as expressed last year has been absolutely frustrated, in conpection with giving rights to independent telephone companies to connect with railway stations. When the Bill was up here last year, and even before, the towns of Fort William and Port Arthur were very prominently before the members of the House and the country with their grievance against the Bell Telephone Company. They had a municipal system of telephones, which was refused connection with the railway stations in those two towns. While we were discussing the matter, the mayor and councils of those two towns came down here and put their position before the Railway Committee. The Minister of Railways was altogether opposed to the Bell Telephone Company being interfere^ with in their monopoly in the railway stations of the country. After the matter had been thoroughly discussed both here and in the Railway Committee, the minister became aware that the opinion on both sides of the House was overwhelmingly against him, and he finally brought in an amendment to meet their wishes. The amendment was thought by the minister himself and the members of the House to give independent companies the right to put their instruments in the stations of the railway companies, and the clause passed in that way. We did not know then that the Minister of Railways of last session was to be the chairman of the Railway Com mission, this year ; but so it happened, and this very clause was the first important one to come before the commission. The result, whether right or wrong, was to completely frustrate the intention of the majority of the members of this House last year. Now. something should be done to put us in the position which we thought we occupied. Perhaps the hon. piember for East York is wrong in proposing to strike out this part of this section. Perhaps he ought to have taken another section. At all events, some proposition should be brought forward under this Bill to put us in the position which -we thought we were in with respect to independent telephones last year.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: Just a word. I understood that this Railway Commission was to decide all questions between the railway companies, the farmers, the travelling public, and every one concerned. I had no idea that we were to have a one-man power on that commission ; but it seems that is what it is down to. Then we might as well save the expense of the other two, and allow the one-man, if he must have a legally trained mind, to decide all questions. The other two men might as well be dispensed with. The first thing we want to know in regard to this matter is, what is law ? I, always understood law was common sense. Some of the greatest minds in Britain that the world ever saw knew nothing about law ; they were not trained in law. Men may have great minds and never study law. I do not think we are obliged to fall back on a man who has been to college and studied and learned to quibble on words-because that is what lawyers generally do. What we want are facts-whatever is true and right. Whom do we find getting up and defending the Czar of the commission ? Every lawyer in the House, while the farmers are ignored. If the amendment of the hon. member for East York is not made, we shall have trouble of this kind every year. We had better settle it now for all time, that whatever that committee decides to do shall be the law in this matter.


William Findlay Maclean: I regret that there has been only a farmer on this side of the House to take the side of the farmers in this issue. The farmers all over this country are asking for this relief. They are simply asking that these railway companies, who are enjoying immense subsidies of the people's money, shall allow the people's telephone lines, which are struggling against a great monopoly, to have access to these railway stations to do business with them.
J believe that under the common law of this country, that contract is against the public * interest of this country, and is illegal ; I believe these railway companies could be compelled, irrespective of the railway commission to give that access; but as it is they are denying it. The farmers are refused this relief, and there is not a farmer on the other side of the House to get up and say a word for them. The Postmaster General, who used to make my own province ring with the complaint that in this matter the farmers were being bled white, is not in his place ; hon. gentlemen who represent the farmers have not a word to say in their interest; and the men from the Northwest who are threatened with this Bell monopoly, have not a word to say, although if a decision were given in the Port Arthur case, the matter would be settled in all parts of the country.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: 
William Findlay Maclean: The decision was given on March 22. Representatives of the town of Port Arthur came to Toronto. I had an interview with the mayor and several representatives of the two towns. They said they were on their way to Ottawa, and they had incurred great expense to have the case argued, but they did not want more litigation. They wanted relief first of all. If we cannot get it in this way, I have another amendment to meet the case which may command the support of my hon. friend from Montmorency. They sent an agent here the other day to get an appointment for them, and they were told the old story, that the commissioners were going to the coast, that they would be back some time in September, and that they would then make a reference to the Supreme Court.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Between the month of March and now there must have been time for them to have lodged an appeal. If the decision was really not right and there was an injustice done, they surely would have had time to put in an appeal and have it decided.


William Findlay Maclean: And the matter would have gone to the Supreme Court. The chairman of the commission was good enough to say he would make a reference to the Supreme Court. That court would probably construe it to be a question of law, and these farmers would have had to pay enormous damages to the Bell Telephone Company in order to have this telephone connection.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Supposing section 10 did not exist at all and the chief commissioner would not have the decision on a question of law, and suppose the three commissioners decided against the telephone company, does the hon. gentleman not think that, under section 43, there would have been an appeal by the company against that decision ?


William Findlay Maclean: I grant that.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Then your amendment does not meet the case.


William Findlay Maclean: It is a bastard court which gives one man more power than his colleagues.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Findlay Maclean: That is a good English word.


Mr. BLANCHET.: But not used in good English society.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, I am not using it in any wrong sense. It is a very fitting word to describe a court in which one judge decides everything and tells the others to

sit down. The jurisdiction should be coequal. I am willing to accept the suggestion made that the three judges should be lawyers, but at any rate they should have equal powers. The questions that come before them are almost altogether questions of fact. They are such questions as ordinary business men can decide just as we decide them in this House. Why' must the judge of necessity be a lawyer if the man who makes the law is not a lawyer ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: That makes the necessity greater.


William Findlay Maclean: An ordinary man has the right to assist in making the law, but once it is made, we are told that it must be interpreted by legal men. I object to that. The ordinary business men of the country could very well decide these questions. Such men to decide them across the line, where they have an Interstate Commission, and where substantial relief is given the public by the decisions of that commission.


Richard Blain: I wish to express myself in favour of some change in the law so that the different telephone companies in Canada shall have the right to connect with the larger corporations. I had a conversation with a leading business man of the town of Port Arthur the other day, and he told me that the telephone system between Port Arthur and Fort William was a perfect success. The business men of both places were well, satisfied with the local service, but they had a strong complaint that they were unable to get outside connections with the Bell Telephone. I do not think that parliament should pass any legislation which would interfere with the rights of the Bell Telephone Company. That company has done very much for the people. It has done good service in many cases.


Edward Cochrane: They make you pay for it.


Richard Blain: I do not think this constitutes any very great grievance, but I do not think it is in the interests of the people that one or more than one very large corporation should have the monopoly of sending messages to different parts of Canada. If a local company -s established in any locality, it should have the right to connect with the long distance telephone service, 'so long as it is willing to pay. I am in favour of legislation which will allow the different local companies to connect with the larger telephone companies and thus have the privilege of sending messages to different parts of Canada. We must bear in mind that the telephone is an increasing business. Men who years ago never went near a telephone office are now its daily visitors, and a considerable portion of the business of the country is transacted by telephone. This is the case, not only with banking and commercial institutions, but with farmers. Parliament should therefore provide such legislation as will give local telephone companies access to the long distance service, provided they are willing to pay a reasonable rate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have always held the view that when we incorporate a railway company we bring it under the Railway Act, and that the Act contemplates that every part of the public should have equal rights in doing business with the railways.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In this case a patron of the Bell Telephone Company has the advantage of enjoying conveniences which are denied other men who want to do business with it. That is not equal rights to all. It is discrimination in favour of one as against another, and the law does not contemplate any such discrimination. We are told over and over again that when we give railway corporations the right to build railways, they become common carriers and must treat all alike, but the Bell Telephone Company are doing just the opposite and we are supporting them. It should be the duty of parliament to break down that injustice and put all on an equal footing. If a railway company is to be allowed to give the Bell Telephone Company a monopoly in its stations, all those who are not patrons of that company are discriminated against. It may be that the law as it stands would justify the Bell Company, but that certainly never was the intention of parliament. Parliament has declared over and over again that its intention was that railway corporations shall* treat all alike ; and if the law enables them to avoid that obligation, this parliament should amend it, and if parliament fails to do its duty, the people will have a just complaint against the government of the day and those members who refused to secure to the public equal rights. If this be allowed, you can take any part of the country you like, and for one who will enjoy the privilege you will find fifteen or twenty denied it. That is not meting out equal treatment to all.


Robert Laird Borden: Lest I should be misunderstood in anything I have said, I desire to explain that the amendment I was considering was simply this-to strike out from this section the words ' and his opinion on any question which, in the opinion of the commissioners, is a question of law, should prevail.' The point which has been discussed by the last two hon. gentlemen who have spoken is one which arises more particularly on the next amendment. I was expressing no opinion on that. The only thing I desire to point out is that the question of law must be decided by a tribunal

of some kind which is supposed to possess the knowledge requisite for the construing of statutes. My hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) argues that the chief commissioner should not have that power, being a lawyer. Of course, I am disposed to give every possible weight to everything the hon. gentleman urges in that regard. But the case that has been brought forward as an illustration is one which, whatever might be done with this amendment, would, in the end, be decided by the Supreme Court, it seems to me. Under the law as it stands, the chief commissioner has decided a point of law. An appeal lies to the Supreme Court. If it were otherwise, if the two gentlemen not members of the legal profession had decided this case in the opposite way and had overruled the opinion of the legal member of the board, undoubtedly the board as a whole would permit an appeal to the Supreme Court. So, in the end the Supreme Court would decide the question of law. That is altogether apart from the merits of the question whether or not the decision of the chief commissioner was right. If it was right the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) proposes to so alter the law that the decisions hereafter shall be otherwise. In that connection we must consider the justice of the decision pronounced by the chief commissioner. Upon this amendment. I am not expressing any opinion upon the desirability of altering that law in that regard. When we come to consider that amendment I shall be prepared to express an opinion. I desire to make it clear that I have not said anything that can be construed as opposed to the amendment which we shall be called upon to discuss ^In a little while.


Charles Fitzpatrick: When we do come to the discussion of the next amendment of which my hon. friend Air. Maclean) has given notice, I shall have an opportunity to show that the statement made as to the effect of the judgment rendered in the Port Arthur case is incorrect. Because, one commissioner did not overrule two. The hon. gentleman will see, if he considers the effect of the judgment, that the chief commissioner and Hon. Mr. Bernier are, in effect agreed, and that the dissent is on the part of Mr. Mills. However, we will deal with that on the next question.


Mr. MAC UFA  X.@: My position is that when a court is established its members should have equal jurisdiction, power and weight ; that one ought not to be superior to the others. And I still stick to that. I propose to do away with all distinctions in the court In this respect. All I want is a court constituted of men of authority in deciding all matters that come before them. I think that is a good rule and it has never been departed from in auy case that I know of. Certainly no instance put forward here todays shows a tribunal composed of men of 1 Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
unequal power, one being given the authority to overrule the others.
Amendment negatived on division.


William Findlay Maclean: Section 193 of the said Act is amended by adding the following words :-' And such compensation shall be limited to the direct and immediate local damages actually suffered by reason of such construction, operation and maintenance by the railway company at such station or premises, and not from any cause, matter or business extending beyond the same.'
He said :	This amendment is to meet
the case of Port Arthur and Fort William. The object is to provide that independent telephone companies shall have the right of access to these stations and that the only damage they shall pay is the actual damage incurred by the intrusion-that they shall not pay any damage that the Bell Telephone Company or the railway company may plead that they have sustained under any contract. The clause was drawn by some legal gentlemen who are interested in the Port Arthur decision. If the point were made clear, as I believe it will * be by this amendment, there could be no such decision


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) has the decision, would he be good enough to explain it for the benefit of some of us who are not as familiar with the case as he is ?


William Findlay Maclean: I am sorry to say that I have mislaid the decision. But the substance of it, as I understand it, was that these independent companies would have to go to court to have it decided whether they should not pay large damages to both the telephone and the railway company. The Canadian Pacific Railway and Bell Telephone Company pleaded before the Railway Commission that this right of access meant hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to them.


Robert Laird Borden: How could they plead that ?


William Findlay Maclean: The contract between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Bell Telephone Company provides that, in consideration of the Bell Telephone Company being granted a monopoly in the Canadian Pacific Railway stations, the Canadian Pacific Railway shall be supplied free with all the telephone instruments needed in connection with their business. I have read the contract in this House, and it is on record in ' Hansard.' The Grand Trunk has a similar contract with the Bell Telephone Company. Hon. gentlemen ought to read the equipment called for even in the city of Montreal in the way of free telephones. There can be no doubt that, if independent telephone companies were allowed access to the railway stations, the loss to these other

concerns would be very considerable. But to avoid that being cminted as damages against the independent companies, this amendment has been drawn. Under it these companies can plead only the actual damages incurred by the intrusion of the wires into the railway station.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It might be of some use to the committee for me to state the circumstances of the reference to the Railway Commissioners arising out of the Port Arthur and Fort William case. These two municipalities, the town of Port Arthur and the town of Fort William, owned and operated a telephone system within the limits of the two towns. They applied to the board of Railway Commissioners, under section 193 of the Railway Act, for an order as follows :
Directing the railway company to allow the installation of telephone instruments In the railway stations of the Canadian Pacific Railway and for leave to connect the same with their telephone system.
That is to say, for leave to connect the station with the telephone system with the town of Port Arthur with the telephone system of the company. Now prior to the enactment of this section 193


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Has the Canadian Pacific a telephone system in connection with their railway ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: A telephone system in the station.


William Findlay Maclean: But it is only to connect with that system, it is only to get access to the station.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Prior to the enactment of section 193, in May, 1902. an agreement was made between the railway and the Bell Telephone whereby the latter company for valuable consideration, had granted for a period of ten years, the exclusive privilege of placing telephone instruments, apparatus and wires in the several stations, offices and premises of the railway in Canada where the telephone company had, or might during the continuation of the agreement, establish telephone exchanges. That agreement was then in existence, under which the Bell Telephone Company had an exclusive right to the Canadian Pacific Railway stations, limiting it to these particular stations. When application was made to the Railway Commission, the Railway Commissioners, that is to say Mr. Blair, held that they were entitled to access. The only question in dispute was as to whether this exclusive contract was a valid contract, that is to say, the exclusive contract between the telephone company and the railway company ; and whether or not, it being an exclusive contract,

the compensation provided for by this section had to be considered from the standpoint of that exclusive contract-whether or not they were
obliged to pay compensation for damages that might result to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as a result of the violation of that exclusive contract. Now, Mr. Blair held that that contract was not a contract in restraint of trade, that it was a good contract, and that if the municipalities of Port Arthur and Fort William desired to get access, in estimating the compensation, the damage resulting from the violation of that contract would have to be taken into account. The right of access was not denied, the only dispute was as to the question of compensation.


William Findlay Maclean: In the light of this clause.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In the light of that clause. Now it might be well to quote the words of the judgments of the commissioners. Mr. Blair held :
That the said agreement was valid and not void or voidable as being in restraint of trade or against public policy, and that an order made under section 193 should provide for payment of compensation upon just terms for all lawful rights and interests injuriously affected thereby.
Mr. Bernier held :
While the agreement is valid, and compensation should therefore he allowed, the question of compensation should be reserved for future .consideration, and determined after hearing any case that might be presented by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or any other railway company in support of damages.
' After hearing any case.' Mr. Bernier and Mr. Blair decided the railway had a right of access. As to the right of access there is no dispute. But they both held that this exclusive contract is to be taken into account in estimating the damage. Mr. Mills held :
That the agreement is in restraint of trade and against public policy, and that compensation should be awarded only for the use of the premises occupied by the applicants' telephones and the expense of operating them.
So you see what the result of this judgment is, merely that two commissioners held this agreement good and an other held it had. and that the two commissioners who held the agreement good and as not being in restraint of trade, say that that agreement must be taken into account in estimating the damages. That is all that is decided in that case, and nothing more.


William Findlay Maclean: Then will the Minister of Justice say whether he will accept my amendment ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot accept the amendment, I do not see why I should. I do not think my hon. friend's amendments, if accepted, would carry him very much further. If the object he has in view is, as I presume it is, to enable the telephone com-1 pany to obtain access to the railway station

in violation of an existing agreement and without compensation. I am opposed to such legislation as that. If there is a legal contract that is to be violated as a result of the enforcement of section 193 in regard to these rights, any damage that may result in violation of that contract must be admitted. If that is what he has in view I am opposed to it.


William Findlay Maclean: Cannot this House declare what is in restraint of trade ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think that would be rather a dangerous thing to .do, in view of the fact that our courts have been engaged for the past twently-five or thirty years in construing contracts made in restraint of trade.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Surely the telephone company did not want access without paying damages.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is what my hon. friend from East York wants.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: But the telephone company itself would not want that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It wanted access on agreeing to pay compensation for locating their telephone system, but without regard to the violation of this contract.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I think there must be some misunderstanding.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Let the hon. gentleman read the judgments.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am sure they would make an offer to pay damages.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Could not the commission have made an order allowing access upon the payment of damages ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The order has gone, the question of compensation being left open to be determined.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: What is the telephone company complaining about ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I don't know.


Mr. OLIVER.: I cannot agree with the argument that this agreement between the railway company and the telephone company is a good agreement, that it should be respected, that it should be considered, in view of this condition, which is a general condition-general at least in my part of the country-that the Bell Company has no telephone in the railway station, but that it has a right under that agreement to have a telephone there and to prevent anybody else from having a telephone there. The argument means that when a local telephone company wishes to connect with the Canadian Pacific Railway stations this local company would have to pay damages because of the violation of an agreement between the railway company and ti\e Bell Telephone Mr. FITZPATRICK.
Company, when the Bell Telephone Company had not done anything under that agreement and had suffered no injury whatever.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: If there was no injury there would be no damage.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Exactly.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: And if it were not installed I can see the damages would be merely nominal.


Frank Oliver: I maintain there should be no admission of any damages in such a case, and if the argument is that there are damages in such a case, then I for one say that the law should be amended, and that no such a thing should be permitted ; that where the public interest or the public use requires the entry of the telephone system which is established in that part of the country, into the railway station, no agreement between the telephone company and the railway company should be held good which would prevent that free access.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: You would not want us to steal your property would you ? Neither must you ask us to steal other people's property.


Frank Oliver: Whose property is being stolen ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: By the Bell Telephone ?


Frank Oliver: Not at all, they have no property. If the argument is that the railway company's property is being stolen or being taken or used without their consent, I can understand it, but that is not the claim. The telephone company is prepared to pay for the use of the railway company's property, or for any inconvenience to which the railway company may be put. The question is as to the Bell Telephone Company's property, and I say that the telephone company has no property in such a case, even though they have an agreement, or if that agreement is good in. law, the law should be changed so that it shall not be good.


William Findlay Maclean: And the hon. Minister of Justice by a single amendment could introduce into this House a declaration that a railway company enfranchised! by this parliament, given all these powers and subsidies shall not discriminate against any of its patrons or the public in the use of its station^ for Bthe furtherance of the trade and commerce of this country. We could pass that law in two seconds here, we could reach that grievance, we could declare that these railway companies shall not do that, but instead of that we allow them to do anything they like, we allow them to entrench themselves behind these contracts and when an effort is made to get some kind of remedy for the people these contracts made by companies enfranchised by this parliament against the public interest are pleaded. We have

given enormous subsidies to these companies, we have given them land and money and for every one million dollars represented a third of it came out of the pockets of the people, not to mention the lands ; yet these companies have the effrontery to make this agreement and when the public ask under the law to have telephonic communication with the stations they say to them : You must do your business through the Bell Telephone Company, another monopoly allied with us in keeping our yoke upon the necks of the people. This is an infamous contract. It should never be allowed in any country and the people ask that it be rescinded. The Liberal party should rise up and declare that any contract that is against the public interest, is against the advancement of trade, is against the welfare of the people but instead of that it is pleaded : Contract, contract, go to the courts ; no remedy can be bad here. If we have any vestige of regard for the duty for which we have been sent here, let us approach this problem earnestly. We are not here to get through with our duties so that we may get away on our holidays ; we are here to try and cure this grievance and I appeal to the government, if they have no remedy to suggest. Will they not say to these creatures that we have created, to these railway companies :	You
must treat the people fairly ? if yon let one section of the community into your railway station y$u must let them all in. You must give the same privilege to all these telephone companies arid you must give an interchange of traffic with the Bell Telephone Company provided they pay you a. reasonable compensation. A year or two ago the bon Minister of Justice promised the people that he would bring down a general law dealing with all these telephone companies. The telephone is the greatest public convenience to-day. The people want to use it. We want to extend its use to every one, to increase the comfort of all by extending this line to levery man, to every farmer ; but, while this should be our desire, the use of tbe telephone is almost prohibited by reason of the infamous and unfair agreement which is at present existing between these great railway corporations and the Bell Telephone Company. The Grand Trunk Railway to which we have given a credit to the value of $150,000,000 are parties to this agreement. If we had had any of the instinct in us of the men who have fought the people's battles in former days we would have said to this Grand Trunk Railway Company : Not one dollar of public money shall be given you; not one piece of legislation shall we give to you until you cancel that infamous agreement. Sir Thos. Sbaughnessy, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, has practically confessed in public that if he were forced to do it he would withdraw this agreement. If the right hon. Prime Minister would sit down in his private cabinet and say :	My dear Shaughnessy, the contract which exists between you and the Bell Telephone Company is against the public interest, it is a tyranny, it is a matter of slavery as far as the people are concerned and if you do not cancel it we will have to introduce legislation declaring it to be against the public interest. The remedy would be found. But, nothing of that kind is being done. No remedy is granted. It is the old story of pleading contracts, pleading vested rights, and telling the people to go to the courts. They have created this court at an enormous expense, they have provided situations for all these men, the farmers and the people generally are taxed to pay the salaries of these men and I would call 'the attention of my hon. friend the Postmaster General to the fact -I do not want him to turn away from me now-that the people are paying these taxes are providing these salaries, are granting these subsidies, are giving these railway companies franchises, are giving them lands, are giving thetn money and are giving them further powers to borrow money, making them greater and stronger than they are today, allowing them to pay immense dividends as the Bell Telephone Company is, while we have not the courage to tell these corporations that they must treat the people fairly, and that they must deal out equal justice to all. What does my hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd) say about it ? The people of Brantford have decided on a municipal telephone system of their own. (Brantford is a great city. It is one of the finest cities in Canada, a city the export trade of which is next to and almost exceeds the export trade of the city of Toronto. It is a city composed of enterprising men, factories are built, fine houses are being erected, great business houses are being put up and all that the men of Brantford say is ? Let us have access to the railway station for our municipal telephone system. The answer to that is : You cannot put your municipal telephone system into the Grand Trunk office ; you cannot put it into the Canadian Pacific Railway office. It is a regrettable fact that tbe late Minister of Railways and Canals, having given his solemn pledge to this House that the clause now under discussion would practically meet the grievance that I have raised, when he came to interpret it as the judge in the case, should place upon it an interpretation differing from that which he led me and others to think would be the result of the amendment. But, I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite. I appeal to this House. I do not want to make an issue of politics out of it, but I do appeal to this House to sit down and see if we cannot find a remedy for this grievance by which we can compel these companies not to do anything wrong, not to lose any money, but to treat the people fairly and to give them justice. These companies are our creatures.

k
They are not greater than parliament, and above all things they are just as much committed to treat the public justly as any one else. We want justice for all-fair treatment, no discrimination. We want this section so changed as to permit access to the railway station by every section of the community. If one telephone company can get in. all telephone companies should be permitted to get in. We have passed a law pi'o-viding that every railway company shall grant equal express facilities to all companies. Why is this provision not extended to telephone companies? I leave my case there. ,1 put it before the House. Personally, it is a very small consideration to me, but it is a very great consideration to the hon. Postmaster General who proposes shortly to appeal to the voters of Markham whom I have the honour to represent and it does mean something to my hon. friend from Brantford.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: You asked me what I say. I say that the agreement between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Bell Telephone Company is in restraint of trade.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear. I am very glad to hear the hon. gentleman say that and probably some good is coming out of this discussion. I believe it is in restraint of trade and I believe it is the duty of the House forthwith to declare that the agreement is in the restraint of trade. It is not our duty to send it to the courts. Why send everything to the courts ? What is this parliament for ? Is a parliament not for the remedy of grievances ? I have said in this House before and I say it again, that the whole history of British constitutional progress is made up of the rectification of all kinds of grievances by parliament, not through courts so much as by the acts of parliament, a .change in the law, a violation of contracts that may have been entered into and an interference with vested rights. The men who had the monopolies in the time of Queen Bess all claimed that they had these monopolies under their franchises but the public interest was declared to override these rights and one after the other the monopolies were removed. This was the course of British constitutional progress. But we in this parliament say now that there must be an end in the way of legislation ; it must be a question for the courts to interpret, and any such thing as special relief must not be afforded. Let us stop that. We have the facts, these towns have the grievances. It is the old case of the citizens, the burgesses, coming to parliament for relief, asking in this case simply that their own municipal system, which they bought with their own money, shall be allowed to have access to the Canadian Pacific Railway station. Is the Grand Trunk Railway, which we are creating, to turn against the people of Canada too ? Is Mr. Mr. MACLEAN.
Hays's new Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Transportation system which is to be built with $150,000,000 of the credit of the people of this country to close its stations to any kind of access to municipal telephone systems ? What would happen to-morrow if the Postmaster General decided to nationalize the telegraph and telephone systems of this country ? Would he for one moment allow that contract of the Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway to stand ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: He could not help himself.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes he could help himself, he could declare that contract at an end, taking the line that it was against the public interest and he would force these roads to let him into their stations. They could not bar him out, and the whole people of Canada would support him. I say it is a matter of negotiation. We have these companies at our mercy. The Bell Telephone Company are here every day seeking legislation and we could say to them : You must abandon this iniquitous contract and must treat every one fairly, equitably and without discrimination. There are a dozen ways of getting at that; what is wanted is the determination to do it, to rectify the grievance. I leave my case as I have tried to present it. Perhaps I have presented it with some heat but I have tried to present it in the interests of the public and without doing any injustice to these companies. I do not propose to do any injustice to them. They are making money and they can afford to treat the people that created them, fairly, equitably and without discriminating against one in favour of the other. No harm is done by making them play fair.
Fair play is bonnie play.
You can do it by legislation or in a dozen other ways, but in some way immediate relief ought to be granted.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I quite agree with my hon. friend who has just taken his seat that fair play is bonnie play, but fair play means fair play to all parties.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.	,


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not that the strong man should take the weaker man by the throat. But let us see now what my hon. friend wants. What he calls fair play is for parliament to authorize a railway company, the Canadian Pacific Railway-to deal with the specific case under discussion-to violate its contract and to violate it with impunity, in spite of the fact that that contract has been declared by this court, the Board of Railway Commissioners, a valid and legal contract. He wants us to do that and calls it fair play.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no fair play in giving authority, to one party to a contract to violate it. That is not legislation which this House would sanction; no body of men would sanction such legislation. My suggestion is this : It is important first of all to see to it that all telephone companies in this country have equal facilities on equal terms with respect to access to all railway stations. That is important undoubtedly. Now the Canadian Pacific Railway have an exclusive contract with the Bell Telephone Company by virtue of which the Bell Telephone Company have arrangements with this company which practically gives them a monopoly, and as a result other telephone companies are excluded from the Canadian Pacific Railway stations. If the judgment of the Railway Commission is a good judgment, that is the present condition of affairs. As I said before when this question was up that judgment, as I understood, was being appealed from to the Supreme Court. Some doubts have been expressed on that point and having made inquiries I find that it is not at all certain that steps have been taken to that end.' I would advise, subject of course to conference with my colleagues, that the question should first be settled, whether or not, under the existing agreement of the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk Railway with the Bell Telephone Company, that company have an exclusive right to the use of these railway stations. They have not that exclusive right if that exclusive contract is not a good contract, and if it is so declared by the Supreme Court the matter ends, because the legislation we now have is quite sufficient to give all the facilities required to any telephone company. If, on the contrary, the Supreme Court decides that the contract is a good contract, that a violation of that contract would mean that one of the parties to it would be placed in the invidious position of having the right by statute to violate its contract, I say that we should take pains to carefully take what steps are necessary. I admit that that would be serious, but not so serious or intricate that this parliament could not deal with it. We could find a remedy for such a condition, but let us find out first where we stand. Let us find out if it be true that this Bell Company have an exclusive monopoly of access to these stations. If the municipality has not taken an appeal from the judgment of the Board of Railway Commissioners let the government undertake to do it, and have the question settled once and for all. After all there is not very much out of the way in this course because this is the only contract of the sort in existence in this country, and it is of importance, I admit, that at this present time equal facilities should be given to all telephone companies, to all express companies, in fact to the whole general public in the use of our great means of transportation. All of our
railway facilities must be put at the disposal of tfll persons and corporations on the same terms. That is a correct principle and to that extent I go with my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean). There is no necessity in the assertion of a correct principle to do an injustice, and it would be doing an injustice to give one party to a contract, a statutory right to violate that contract to the detriment of the other party and to such legislation as that I cannot give my consent.


William Findlay Maclean: It has been done : bad contracts have been declared bad contracts.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Let this contract be declared a bad contract, but not by parliament. My hon. friend will not get any thinking man in this House to sanction any undertaking to substitute parliament for the courts in the construction of contracts.


William Findlay Maclean: But this parliament will declare that it is a wrong contract.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is a vicious principle.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that the Minister of Justice has not quite given my hon. friend from York (Mr. Maclean) credit for the way in which he approaches this subject. I do not think that my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) desires to interfere with the sanctity of contracts. I do not understand his position to be exactly that. I understand his position to be neither this, that these two companies, which may be said to exercise to a certain ^xtent monopolies, with regard to transportation of passengers and freight on the one hand, and with regard to the transmission of intelligence on the other hand, should not be allowed to make a contract between themselves so as to impose an undue restriction, virtually a tax, upon access to the station of the railway company. That is a position which commends itself to some of us in the House. We must respect the sanctity of contracts ; but with regard to these virtual monopolies, we interfere so far with their unrestricted rights to make contracts that we do not allow a railway company to charge more than a certain amount, and, so far as telephone companies are concerned, we require their tariffs of tolls to be approved by the Governor in Council. While we must respect the sanctity of contracts, we at the same time say that no arrangement ought to be made between two corporations possessing these monopolies by which the people through independent companies are restricted from that means of communication with the railway stations throughout the country which is so desirable in the public interest. For my part, I am very sorry that the towns of Port Arthur and Fort William did not go on and have the
<5743

Railway Commission determine what compensation is really payable. It strikes me that if I were sitting on that commission, I should not fix the amount of compensation at any very large figure. I have looked over the report which the Minister of Justice has been good enough to hand me, and I find the following claims put in by the counsel of one of the companies :
The results to the benefit of Canadian Pacific Railway :
Passes and franks over Bell Company's long distance lines, valued
at	$18,297 00
Exchange service, 774 instruments free to railway company, valued at	 22,652 00

On the other side of the account we have:
To the benefit of the Bell Company :
Trips, annual and periodical passes over Canadian Pacific Railway,
valued at	$22,258 00
Refunds	?	 200 00

It seems to be on such a statement as this that the idea of large compensation was based before the commission. I do not myself see how access by the two municipal corporations to that railway station would interfere very much with the condition of things that prevailed between these two companies, and I would be inclined to think that if the railway commission came to fix the amount of damages, it would have to be merely nominal. I agree Avith the idea put forward by my hon. friend from Toronto and with what has Jjeen said by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice as well. I agree absolutely that we must abide by the sanctity of contracts; but when we come to deal with great corporations exercising what are virtually monopolies, we must at the same time ip the public interest restrain these corporations from making contracts which are not in the public interest. On the one hand, they get very great privileges from parliament, and on the other hand, they must be content to have those privileges so controlled as to give the public its full rights in every respect.


Frank Oliver: f.ystem cannot have access to the railway stations, it is practically useless. When the Question was up before, I drew attention to these facts. Since then the Bell Telephone Company have strung a wire from Cardston to Edmonton along that 300 miles of railway, and I presume are in a position of entrenched monopoly in every railway station. If those fourteen towns now existing and fourteen more rapidly growing wish to have a local telephone system, they will find themselves in this difficulty, that they will be debarred from access to the railway stations. The question thus comes closely home to the people. We are simply in the hands of the Bell Telephone Company, and that company has the monopoly in the district of Alberta from end to end. There is no doubt that the people there could estab lish a local service which would give very much cheaper rates than can any company which looks to a profit; and to prevent their getting access to the railway stations is to prevent their spending their own money In providing their own telephone accommodation. It is evident, therefore, that the agreement between the Bell Telephone and the railway companies is a trespass on the rights of the people, and ibis parliament will be doing less than its duty if it does not take measures to relieve the people from that injustice.
As regards precedents, let me call attention to the fact that not many years ago the whole grain trade of the Northwest was in the hands of a ring of elevator owners because of an agreement between them and the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway refused to handle any grain except through these elevators. They refused to give sites at railway stations except to elevators of a certain capacity, and the result was that the people were robbed of hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. When that question was brought up in this House I remember that those of us who demanded the free right of shipping grain were denounced as socialists ; but to-day there is a law on the statute-book which enables every farmer to obtain shipping of his grain at any railway station in his turn.


William Findlay Maclean: And that was brought about by an Act of parliament, and not by a decision of the courts.


Frank Oliver: There was no decision of the courts annulling the agreement between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the elevators. There was no change in the conditions, but parliament, in its wisdom, decided that that agreement was a trespass on the rights of the people and annulled it.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I desire to say a word or two, as I did not have the opportunity of fully explaining my position. I have said that in my opinion the agreement between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Bell Telephone Company is an agreement: in restraint of trade. I am quite willing to take my
law from the Minister of Justice ; but whet', it comes to determining what is right as between man and man, I propose to exercise my own intelligence. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Bell Telephone Company have the legal power to make the agreement they have entered into, and there is nothing to prevent the Bell Telephone Company making just such an agreement with every other railway in the country. But if that is legally right, it is morally wrong ; and if anything else of the kind be attempted, I shall vote against it; and if any proposition be made to declare that this agreement, no matter what the law may be, is in restraint of trade and injurious to the general public, I shall certainly support it.


Jabel Robinson: If the contention put forth by some lion, members be correct, then there is, no use of parliament meeting at all. If these contracts entered into by different corporations are sacred and cannot be touched, no matter how much they may conflict with the interests of the people, then there is no use in parliament sitting and we had better disband at once. But I contend that parliament is not helpless in this matter. When the people are suffering from an injustice, parliament has a perfect right to apply the remedy. Here is a grievance brought before us by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean). It is a grievance of which we all have knowledge. Yet we are told that the courts are the only one to decide, and that parliament is helpless. If that be the case, what is the use of bringing the representatives of the people together every year ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I want to put myself right. I sympathize thoroughly with my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean i in his zeal, and likewise with the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Heyd). If there is a wrong, we must endeavour to correct it, and correct it in the proper way. It would be very strange indeed if in the attempt to remedy one wrong we should commit another and a greater one. The hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) need not think that this discussion has not been useful. It has been of value, because it has brought before the members the facts


Jabel Robinson: I did not say the discussion was of no use.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: My hon. friend seemed to think that because we all did not agree on a solution of the difficulty therefore our discussion was of no value. But I think that although we do not all agree on the remedy proposed by the hon. member for East York, it is well that the facts should be brought before us, because in my opinion there is sufficient ability in the House to arrive at a conclusion within the four corners of the law which will do justice to everybody. The Minister of Justice, I think, appealed to the sound sense of every

man when he said that parliament should not be asked to violate contracts. I agree with the hon. minister in this : Parliament, Sir, should he the preserver of contracts. We must set an example to the whole of Canada by preserving contracts and doing the right. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) said that he was willing to compensate the Canadian Pacific Railway. But, the trouble is, that the Canadian Pacific Railway have assigned their rights to the Bell Telephone Company, as I understand the matter, and so, compensation must be made to the Bell Company. I will meet the difficulties as I come to them but I am free to say this that it would be an awful thing if we had no control over these corporations. We have control over them, and we will master them, every one of them ; but we must do it according to the principles of right and justice.


Edward Cochrane: How ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The thing is as clear as daylight. But we must go at it intelligently. To ask parliament to strike down contracts is revolutionary. We ought not to be permitted to sit for twenty-four hours, if we do that. Recollect, the Bell Telephone Company have acquired property from the Canadian Pacific Railway, and for that property they have given value. Are we to steal that property ? Why, I would as soon break into a bank to-night, as agree to a proposition of that kind. If I were to agree to such a proposition, I would be a public thief-neither more or less. But there is a way to do it and that way has been pointed out. I admire the zeal of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean).


William Findlay Maclean: But you say I am a pirate.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: No, I will restrain my hon. friend from being a pirate. He is too good a man to be a pirate.


Edward Cochrane: Tell us how to control the corporations.	.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I will. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) has pointed out the way. It is perfectly simple. The court has decided that this is a legal contract. My hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd) says it is not. Well, let them appeal the decision. If the court decides that this is a contract in restraint of trade, then, it will be void and the whole thing will be settled at once. But, if the courts say that this is a valid and legal contract, would you propose to steal the property of the Bell Telephone Company ? For, that is what you would be doing, just as much as if I were to ask parliament to take away my hon. friend's (Mr. Maclean's) property in ' The World ' newspaper and give it to me, and parliament were to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gourley) one question ? If a Mr. GOURLEY.
man were to steal a horse and sell it to another, would' the sanctity of contract allow the purchaser to hold the property ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: That will not do ; give me a parallel case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is a parallel case to this. The Canadian Pacific Railway have stolen the rights of others and sold them to the Bell Telephone Company.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: If that is so, the Supreme Court of Canada will decide, at once, that this contract is against public policy, and, therefore, void. If the hon. gentleman is right in his facts the court is the place for him.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Eecess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Before dinner I was endeavouring to show why we ought not to adopt the remedy that is proposed here, and ns I was closing some of my friends on this side asked me. Well, what is the remedy ? I think it is very simple. Here is a judgment, declaring that the Bell Telephone Company have a vested interest in this contract. Then how do you deal with vested interests ? The case is not different from that of a man owning land by title deed ; be is not in a better position than if he owned property under contract. Supposing this judgment stands, you must face the position that this company holds property under a contract. If you want the property and must pay compensation, and the compensation is too heavy for the private corporations, of the towns of Port Arthur and T ort William to bear, then you come to parliament and say :	Here is a case arising
under a contract under which the damages have become so heavy that it is improper to ask a private corporation to bear them. Declare tnat these contracts are void, but declare them void in the same manner as you would if you wanted land of any other property for the public use ; say that while you rescind that contract it must be done upon compensation, the same as if you were taking any other man's property. That is one way. If you do not appeal from this judgment you must take that position. But I think the member for Halifax hit the mark pretty well when he said : Why did not these gentlemen have the damages assessed ? It is true that the telephone company put in an extravagant bill before the commission for damages. But you know how these things are trumped up. If these damages had to be assessed, the commission might have introduced a measure of damages that would in the end make the amount very small, they might have given the telephone company very small damages for an abridgment of their rights under that eon-

tract. Therefore I think what the company should have done, what the town should have done, would have been to go before the Railway Commission and have the damages assessed. Then the company would have been in a very good position, and small damages would have been paid them. But if the damages were large and onerous, or if it were likely that this same principle or measure of damagp would extend to all the towns in the commnu.ty, then you would (have an excellent ground upon which to come to parliament and say : Owing to the legislation of this parliament, owing to the fact that you have created companies in this country and given them rights which interfere with tlie public weal, therefore this parliament must deal with them, and this parliament must rescind those contracts, but do it by giving them compensation.
That would be one position to take, and my bon. friend would be right in taking it. But I am sorry to differ with him, because he is so anxious for the public welfare, and on this occasion he made a strong appeal to my sympathy and I would be glad to support him in almost any 'scheme. But I could not support him in a scheme that would lead to a breach of all that was right and proper. Now then if you appealed, I think that would be a proper course to pursue. Some hon. gentlemen have alleged that it would be too onerous to compel these towns to carry on heavy lawsuits. That will be a good ground for asking the Minister of Justice in a case of this jkind to assume the work of settlement, and have the appeal borne by the Crown. I think the Minister of Justice would accede to that if he thought it would be too onerous, for these towns to carry on these appeals. Let the minister appeal and have the principle settled whether that contract is sound, whether it confers rights or whether. as one hon. member has snid, it is against public policy and should be forfeited. If it is settled that the contract is void, then all our difficulties are over. If on the other hand it is settled that the contract confers rights of property, we would have to deal with it again, and these people would have to come to parliament. If the appeal is taken, they should first go before the commission in order to get the damages settled so that both the question of damages and the principle should be settled on the appeal. Then if the damages were held to be of a serious character, and I understand this difficulty extends over the whole country, that would be an excellent ground on which to come to parliament and say : Asa result of your legislation private rights are being sacrificed, and no private individual should be called upon to suffer loss, therefore, come to our aid with a Bill of indemnity. But if. as I have said, the case were appealed and the expense borne by the Crown, we would know what the meas-215	[DOT]
ure of damages were and whether the contract was a good one. If the contract was void, there would be an end of the matter. If the damages were trifling, the town could pay them. If the court sustained a measure of damages that was likely to lead to serious consequences that would be a ground upon which gentlemen could come to parliament and say :	Owing to the legislation
of this parliament, private corporations have thrown upon towns in this country, a burden too onerous for them to bear. In that ease I would gladly vote with my hon friend to take such a course as the wisdom of parliament would seem just to the town as well as to Hie corporations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We hear a good deal in this House about vested rights and very little about vested wrongs. It does not matter what wrong is perpetrated on the public by a corporation. As soon as they acquire a foothold then vested rights begin. Now if a man goes and squats on your property, what will you do ? You will eject him at the earliest opportunity. If a corporation does the same thing, and acquires or becomes improperly vested in what belongs to you, have you not a right to resort to the same remedy ? Is there any justifiable reason why you should pay money for a right that has been improperly acquired ? You might as well tell me that if a man steals your horse and goes and sells it to another man, you have no right to go and demand it back. It would be as reasonable to say that you must pay for that horse as to say that the Bell Telephone Company must be paid for the rights which they improperly secured and which, according to the policy and intention of parliament, it was never intended they should have. The clear policy and intention of parliament has always been, so far as I have understood, that a corporation such as a railway corporation, must give equal rights and equal facilities to all doing business with that corporation. We give it a franchise, we give it great power, we give it a subsidy and many other valuable considerations for the purpose of enabling it to serve the public. But it must serve them all alike, and each one is entitled to the same consideration in doing their business with that corporation. These railway companies become common carriers, and every member of the community who does any business with them has a right to equal treatment. All who travel over their railway or who send freight over it, have a right to be dealt with in the same manner. We have over and over again provided by law, and by amendments to laws, that there shall be no discrimination in favour of one as against another, in favour of one locality as against another locality. That principle is so well understood in parliament that it is almost waste of time to talk about it. It has been adopted over and over again by



both parties. To-day, we are dealing with a railway company that is not giving every individual in the community tlie same chances to do their business over that line. That railway corporation we create, and according to our policy, and according to the intention of parliament, that railway corporation is required to deal equitably with all and extend the same rights and the same privileges to all.
They have sold rights belonging to one portion of the community to another portion of the community for consideration. Then you ask those who have been precluded from the enjoyment of these rights to buy out the individual to whom the railway company have improperly sold them. These are the vested rights which they claim and these are the damages which the railway company must be paid. To whom ? Not to the railway company for the privilege of putting the telephone line into their station but to the Bell Telephone Company which have improperly become possessed of rights that belong to every other member of the community. Suppose there were one hundred people living along the line of the Bell Telephone Company. Every one of these individuals enjoys the advantage of being able to communicate with the railway station for the purpose of doing business, inquiring about the trains, inquiring about trade and inquiring about many other things, but there are hundreds who have not the advantage of being on that line. The other line upon which they are located runs right to the railway station, but they are deprived of putting the -telephone into the station because this other corporation have been sold the sole right to do it. Those who' use the new line are deprived of the privilege that parliament intended they should enjoy, they are deliberately discriminated against and then to add insult to injury they are asked before they shall be allowed to put their telephone into the station to pay damages ? To whom? Not to the railway company who might be expected to grant some consideration but to the other corporation who have taken away the rights that properly belongs to them. Is that fair or reasonable ? Was that what this parliament gave that charter to this and other railway companies for ? Was that what parliament intended when it gave the right to the Bell Telephone Company to plant lines all over the country ? It was not. Parliament reserved to itself the right to control their rates for fear that they might be unreasonable. They have a limit up to which they may go, but they cannot go beyond that. So it is with the railway company. We control both of them, but now we are asked, when they have stolen rights belonging to the community, to turn around and pay for the goods which have been stolen from us. Is parliament prepared to sanction or support that ? I do not think so. As I said before if our Mr. SPROULE.
efforts were as much directed towards the redress of vested wrongs as they are towards the protection of what are called vested rights, but which are in reality vested wrongs we would be more appropriately doing our duty to the great mass of people. The Bell Telephone Company have become a very great monopoly to-day and a very onerous one. They have been acting of late years as if there were no authority in the land to control them and almost-I- was going to say-in an insolent way as if they felt that they were masters of the situation. They are strengthening themselves in every direction, and if they continue in the future for a reasonable length of time at the same rate that they have been progressing in the past in the direction of infringing upon the rights of the people, they will soon be an uncontrollable monopoly which will respect no person's rights or interests in the country. To give an idea of what they are aiming at, I wish to draw the attention of the committee for a short time to an item which appears in to-day's papers. I have the Toronto 1 World ' before me, and it contains the following :-
Independent Companies warned they must sell out or he driven to the wall.
The threat is thrown out.
Chicago, July 13.-A gigantic $20,000,000 telephone trust is being organized by the Bell Telephone Company to control lines in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio.
And I presume elsewhere because they are not going to stop at these states.
Independent telephone companies operating within the district will be bought up or driven to the wall.
They have their opinion as to which alternative to accept.
The Indiana Independent Telephone Company at Laporte, representing the telephone systems in operation in Indiana and Michigan, received a private report to-day apprising the officers of the plans for the formation of the trust and warning them that the blow is directed against that and all other companies.
It is said on good authority that the sum of $20,000,000 has been placed at the disposal of the men Interested in forming the trust and that more can be secured by them if necessary.
The Bell Telephone Company, it is alleged, is determined to drive out of existence in one way or another every competing company in the states that interferes with its monopoly.
What they are doing in the United States to-day, they are doing in Canada as well. Their plans are being laid. They are operating along the same lines; they are throwing out their lines in every direction. They are becoming possessed of one right ber.e and another right there, and the greater

tlie value of tlie rights which they become possessed of the more difficult it will be to dislodge them in the future. Will parliament now be equal to the occasion when the rights of the citizens are invaded by this gigantic monopoly and stop them when they are on the threshold of their operations ? This is the time to do it. If we do not do it now it will be found that delays are dangerous. We are told to take this matter to this court or to that court, to take to the Supreme. Court and if the Supreme Court does not decide according to our wish, to to take it to the Privy Council. That is just what they want. Delay from month to month suits their purpose. If it passed over for another year they have secured the advantages to be gained in that time. They are strengthening their hands in the meantime, they are making more difficult the task that we have to perform at some time. My hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Gour-lcy) said :	They should be compensated.
We want the damages assessed. What damages ? Damages for that which they stole from the people, damages for stolen rights ? That is what they want. These rights belong to all of the people. The Canadian Pacific Railway have no right to dispose of the privileges which parliament said all the people should enjoy, not a portion of the people but the whole people, not the parties enjoying the advantages of the Bell Telephone Company's service, but every one who utilizes the services of the railway company. Then, we shall assess the damages in the interest of whom ? In the interest of the parties who are in possession of the stolen property to-day ? We must pay them for that which they have got froffi us. It is a strange principle to advocate. It is not a view that will commend itself to the common sense of the people of this country. I say that we have no reason to respect these rights. This measure is not a confiscation, it does not interfere or take away any private vested right because there are no vested rights that they should, enjoy or be paid for. It is said that if you take away a man's land in the work of building a railway you have to pay him for it. Yes, but that man got his land honestly when he bought it from the Crown or from some one else. He bought it in a proper and legitimate way, he gave value for it and he has the right that the state concedes to him m any part of the country. But this is a corporation right of an entirely different character. This corporation have become possessed of rights that belong to other members of the community and that parliament has declared to belong to other members of the community. Yet we are asked to buy them back. Why should we buy them back? I say the country cannot understand that. As long as we tamper with it, as long as we allow this corporation to feloniously take possession of our rights, so long will we be held as slaves in the matter. There is a growing feeling against cor-2153
porations in this country because of their infringements upon the rights of individuals and of the impossibility of getting any redress. It is said that there are the courts in the country, but the individual is too weak to fight them. It is impossible for him to carry this fight from court to court. He cannot employ lawyers that charge large fees and he has to suffer under the wrong inflicted upon him if the state will not come to his assistance.
The state has the right to come to his assistance. It is for that purpose that parliament is convened ; that is one of the duties of parliament and if parliament fails to do its duty then the great tribunal of the country must be appealed and the education of the people will go on until such a sentiment is reached in the country that no parliament can withstand it, or if they attempt to go they will be driven out so quickly that they will not know what has happened to them. I hold that when the Act was passed we did an improper thing in inserting that clause which gave that colourable right which *they enjoy to-day and which prevented that commission from taking away that right. Now we are told that under that clause of the Act we have not the right to interfere. The country thought that we were to enjoy that right under that Act. Parliament said that we were to enjoy that right yet we find now by the interpretation of lawyers and of the courts that we do not enjoy it. Then I say it is our duty to amend the Act so as to give to the people of the country the enjoyment of that right which parliament intended they should enjoy and this I submit ought to be the policy of both parties in this House at all times.


William Findlay Maclean: During recess, I went to the library to see if I could find an authority in regard to the jurisdiction of parliament in this matter. I found this most excellent authority which I shall x'ead to the House :
The principles of parliamentary government are such that we are bound to believe that the people through their representatives will deal with every grievance ; and the attempt to get behind the people's representatives, to create some other tribunal, to take the place of parliament, especially in matters of money, and to give that body power independent of the government and parliament, to deal with these matters, is a step in the wrong direction ; and we on this side of the House are not prepared to take it.
That is excellent doctrine ; that doctrine was declared in this House yesterday and it is the doctrine of the Minister of Finance. Yesterday this House was told that parliament was the instrument to remedy the grievances of the people, that we did not want these grievances sent to Exchequer courts but that they were to be settled in this House. Only yesterday was that doctrine laid down here ; it is good doctrine and I adhere to it.


William Stevens Fielding: Did you vote for it .yesterday ?


William Findlay Maclean: And so on. There is the agreement and le substance of it is that the Bell Te e-hone Company give certain services to the tilway company in return for certain n'vices Now if we declare, as we ou0ht ^ declare, that that contract is against ublic interest, no harm will be done. We

will be interfering only with two companies which we have created. We will be doing nothing prejudicial to the public; we simply say to these two creatures of parliament: In the exercise of the powers which we gave you, you have done something contrary to the public interest and we declare that what you have done in that connection is illegal and is null and void. No damage is done to the companies ; instead of exchanging services they give money to one another. The cheques cancel one another and no injustice is done. That is a reasonable proposition. But instead of that, we have all this lecturing about sacred rights and the sanctity of contracts, and men who stand up for the public rights are charged with being pirates and robbers. When hon. gentlemen talk about the sanctity of contracts,
I ask them, what about the sanctity of public rights, which is above the sanctity of contracts any day. There is another way out of the difficulty, and that is by negotiation. These two railway companies and this telephone company are suppliants for legislation of some kind or another at every session of this parliament. The Grand Trunk is a petitioner here to-day ; the Canadian Pacific Railway is here every session as a suitor, and so is the Bell Telephone Company. They are all getting something, and the government can do with them what it . did in the case of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company came and asked for a franchise and a subsidy, and the government said to them : When we give you these, you must abandon a certain right in regard to your rates which you claim to have to-day ; we will give you the franchise and the subsidy on that condition. And the Canadian Pacific Railway Company did it at once. The government is in a position to say to the Cf^nadian Pacific Railway, and the Bell Telephone Company: You must abandon that contract ; and there is a saving clause in it by which they can effect a settlement and remedy the grievance. As the Minister of Finance said last night : Parliament is the place to remedy the grievances of the people, and not the Exchequer Court or any other court. What is happening in Toronto to-day ? There is a company there with a charter which the Attorney General considers'is doing something against the public interest, and he is moving to cancel that charter. The company is pleading vested rights, and a judge of the High Court of Ontario gave judgment yesterday that the Crown as represented by the Attorney General had a perfect right to cancel a charter which it had given to a company because that company was doing something against the public interest. And the Crown, as represented by the Minister of Justice, could send for Sir Thomas Shaughnessy of the Canadian Pacific Railway and Senator McKay of the Bell Telephone Company, and say to them : Gentlemen, you are doing
something against the public interest, and if you do not rescind those contracts, I shall have to cancel your charter ; and he would be well within his right if he did so. If we only cancelled one of these charters in this country, you would see a much more humble attitude assumed by the companies than they assume to-day. They would realize that the people are more their masters than they thought they were. Now, I am through with the discussion, and what is to be done must be left to the judgment of the committee. I must tell my hon. friends that later on, when we come to the third reading,
I shall have to divide the House on the issue.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I do not think we are advancing our cause by abusing the Bell Telephone Company, accusing them of exercising stolen rights, and all that. We ought to look at this question from a business standpoint. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Bell Telephone Company have both been chartered by this parliament, and I think parliament is able to control them. If they do what is wrong, or exceed their powers, this parliament will be able to take care of itself, and will see that that is done. As for the fear that they are going to spread out and control all the other telephone companies throughout the country,
I do not think there is any danger of that. This question has arisen quite recently, and I think there is a good deal in the contention of the hon. member for East York that there is a grievance. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Bell Telephone Company have entered into an arrangement that is mutually satisfactory to themselves. They both concede rights to each other. The arangement has also been of great advantage to the public by enabling them to have the use of telephones in the railway stations all over the land. The Bell Telephone Company has done a great deal of good for the people of this country. If it were wiped out of existence to-morrow, we would find ourselves in a very bad mess indeed. But within the last year or two new conditions have arisen. New companies have started up. controlled largely by municipalities and private citizens, who have invested their money in them, and they desire access to the railway stations. Under these circumstances, it" is for us to consider what is best to be done. In my opinion, so far as the agreement between the Bell Telephone Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is concerned, it is nothing to us, so long as it does not interfere with the rights and privileges of the people. But the interests of the great public must be paramount over all others ; and this parliament is here, above everything else, to protect and guard and defend the rights of the people as a whole. These new companies are branching out in all directions ; they are becoming quite numerous. They are serv-I ing people who have not been served by the

other telephone companies, and it is in the interest of the public that they should have access to the stations not only of the Grand Trunk but of the Canadian Pacific Railway. This agreement stands in the way. Under the arrangement made between the two companies, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company cannot give these new companies access to its stations. Now, let us look at the facts. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company have made this agreement, which I think runs for six or seven years yet. Suppose it is renewed at the end of that time for eight or ten years longer. The vested rights of these companies continue ; and so it goes on, and the people are prevented from exercising their privileges and from getting the benefits they ought to have. I think therefore that the time has come when we should declare that, this agreement is not in the public interest. The hon member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) suggested as a remedy that we should appeal this case to the Supreme Court for a decision. That would perhaps be the best course to pursue just now ; but I do not see that that is going to end the difficulty. Suppose the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Railway Commission. If so, we would be just where we are to-day, and legislation would have to take effect after that. It seems to me that we might as well face the difficulty now as to wait for one or two or three years longer. There is no question but that the public will demand that this parliament grant these concessions which the public interest requires ; and it seems to me that instead of referring this matter to the Supreme Court the government should take immediate action and amend the law so as to enable all telephone companies to have the right of access to railway stations.


Jean Baptiste Blanchet: If I understood well what has been said this afternoon on both sides, the whole discussion may be summed up in a few words. We all admit that if this contract is legal, the Act must be amended. As my hon. friend from East York [Mr. Maclean) says, the contract is legal or it is not. But my hon. friend asks this House to decide that it is legal and take immediate action. Why, he asks, should we wait the decision of the Supreme Court ? Why not amend the Act at once ? That is a very practical way of putting the question. It is the way employed by the Yankees when they hang a man without giving him the benefit of a trial. But the Minister of Justice says that the proper means to take to decide whether the contract is legal or not is to refer the question to the Supreme Court. And he asks us to wait the decision of the Supreme Court before acting. That seems to be perfectly reasonable. Should the Supreme Court decide that the contract is not legal, then there will be no need to amend the law, because the law is suflicient


Archibald Campbell: as it is. Should that court decide that the contract is legal, then we can proceed to amend the Act. And, as I have always stood by the law, as I have always had that respect for the law which every good citizen, and particularly every member of the legal profession, should have, I propose to stand by it now, and wait for the decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, I shall vote against the amendment.


Frank Oliver: I cannot at all agree with the position taken by so many legal men of this House, that the case as between parliament and these companies is the same as it would be if between a private individual and these companies. Parliament, I submit, occupies an entirely different position. If there is a dispute between a private individual and these companies, if the towns of Port Arthur and Fort William have'a grievance against the Bell Telephone and the Canadian Pacific Railway companies, they must go to the courts. They did go to the Railway Commission and got judgment, from which judgment I presume the>
are entitled to appeal. But that has nothing whatever to do with our action, nor should it govern our action in any degree. We are responsible for the law under which that decision was rendered and under which the decision in appeal will be rendered. And if that law, for which we are responsible, does not give justice, the time and place to deal with the question is here and now. Plenty of evidence has been placed before [his parliament to-day to show that injustice has been and is being done and may be continued interminably. As to the charge that all those who desire to see justice done the public are law-breakers, or wish in any way to contravene the law, or infringe in any degree on the rights of any one, that charge is utterly unfounded. I am not a lawyer, but I will venture to state a first principle of law which will not be denied by any legal gentleman in this House, and which entirely covers this case. It is this, that a contract between any two parties entered into against the interests of a third party cannot be binding on that third party.
I would like any of the legal gentlemen to say whether that is a correct statement of a correct principle or not. In this case these two parties have entered into a contract which is subversive of the interests of a third party, namely, the public. I say that no such contract is good in law ; and when we demand that it shall not be recognized, we are not infringing in any degree on the legal or moral rights of any one. There is no necessity for a reference to any court for a decision on such a point. There are cases of right and wrong which are so plain that the duty of parliament is clear, no matter whether by one quibble of law or another it be possible to carry the case to the courts. This parliament Is here to make the law, to establish courts and, above all, to see that justice is done.
076 L


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice says the law is on the statute and the proper thing to do, is not to question it, but let the courts determine whether it is legal or not. But is it not very common for us to say that the law is and always has been so and so, and that that is what the law was intended to be ? When we have made a law and we find that, in the carrying out of that law, an interpretatioh is put upon it which is not according to the intention of parliament, parliament very often steps in and explains that Act, and says that the law was intended to be so and so, and is so and so. That is what we could do without doing any injustice to the people, c(r parliament, or vested rights.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) has drawn attention to something that may be called a grievance with respect to the telephone question. But the remedy for that grievance will not be fqund in the usurpation by parliament of functions which do not belong to it. There are some 'gentlemen in this House who, when they discuss a question of this sort, call it legal quibbling to speak about the sanctity of contracts. Well, my hon. friends may call it what they like, so far as I am concerned-and I believe so far as the great majority of thinking people are concerned-one of the fundamental principles of parliamentary government is that we must hold sacred by our covenants and see that other people do likewise. I think that a scheme may be devised, before this Bill is disposed of, by which we may arrange that, with respect to the future, no contract such as the one now at issue between the municipalities of Port Arthur and Fort William and the Canadian Pacific Railway and Bell Telephone companies can be made which will be binding on the outside public. But with respect to the contract already in existence, I will be no party to the violation of that contract or to the protection of any party who desires to break his engagements.


William Findlay Maclean: But the Minister of Finance said last night that parliament was the proper place.


Charles Fitzpatrick: which owns the Michigan Central-the old Canadian Southern-would have to give the people the two-cent rate. Under this amendment, the Grand Trunk Railway would have to give a rate of two and a half cents per mile ; and, in a very few years, judging by the increase of its traffic, it would have to come down to a two-cent rate. Those portions of the Canadian Pacific Railway that are outside of the original agreement between the syndicate ancf the government would have to give the public the same rate by reason of the law of competition. The supreme reason I give for this amendment is this: That all these roads, the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific and the Michigan Central, are to-day carrying all the traffic that originates in the United States and passes over their lines, whether east or w'est, at a rate of two cents per mile or less, and yet they charge Canadians riding in the same cars three cents per mile and over. I say this is most Iniquitous conduct on the part of these great railroads that have been so heavily subsidized by the Canadian people. X have already laid all these considerations before parliament. The House is seized of the facts. So also are the public, who, I believe will insist on this reform being carried out.
Furthermore, it has been proven-and the facts can easily be given-that wherever there has been a reduction of railway rates the earnings of the railways have been increased. No company in the United States that has passed under the regulations of these laws governing rates can show that it has suffered in the least; on the contrary the facts all go to prove what the experts, especially those connected with the Interstate Commerce Commission, declare, that the results are favourable to the railway. The same principle has been established in connection with the post office ; it has been established in connection with the telegraph system of various countries, it has been established above all, in connection with the railway systems of Europe-that if you reduce the cost, the public use the service so extensively that the earnings are actually increased. It is clear, therefore, that parliament would be doing no injustice by compelling these roads to reduce their passenger rates. As I have said, all I ask is to define the standard passenger tariff for which provision has alfeady been made in the statute. If the government think well to make a four-cent rate for the roads that earn very little money, I shall have no objection. This law will have the effect of reducing the rates upon those great roads that have plenty of traffic. If there is any company doing a good business in this country, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific are doing a good business in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Their trains are crowded, and they are constantly Mr. MACLEAN.
increasing the number of their trains. They did an immense business when they reduced the rates some time ago by reason of competition, and the same result will follow if the rates are reduced by statute. We have already carried out this system in connection with the Intercolonial. To-day the people's railway gives the people a two-cent rate. And, in the province of Manitoba the people have a three-eent rate. Yet, in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec the Grand Trunk is actually charging from three and a quarter cents to three and a half cents per mile for a considerable proportion ot the travel. The Canadian Pacific Railway is charging four cents per mile between here and the St. Lawrence on one of its branches. Surely the time has come when the standard passenger rate should be fixed. I have produced a great deal of evidence before the House and before the Committee on Railways and Canals in support of this amendment. I have not, so far, met with anything that seems to me to justify a change in the opinion I hold on the subject. It seems clear to me that no injustice would be done to the railways if we compelled them to reduce their passenger rates. I therefore submit this amendment in the hope that parliament will adopt it and that the Minister of Railways will assist me in defining the maximum passenger rate of this country.


Frank Oliver: I think the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) is entitled to a great deal of credit for having brought this question before parliament so persistently, both in this and previous sessions. I think it must be generally agreed that if passengers can be carried profitably at a two-cent rate under similar conditions in the states, it is a fair proposition that they might be carried at the same rate in Canada. There is no doubt that in Canada we are entitled to all the benefits that come from the operation of railroads which exist very largely by reason of public moneys paid them by the people of the country. At the same time I think it would be fair to consider that last year parliament established a Railway Commission empowered to deal with the question of railway passenger rates, and given almost unlimited powers in this matter. I think it would be well to wait and see w'hat the Railway Commission will clo in this matter before parliament takes action directly. While I have no doubt that the hon. member for East York lias gone very carefully into this subject of railway rates and is probably satisfied in his own mind of the correctness of his contention, a large majority of us have not done so. At any rate, it must be admitted that the members of the Railway Commission are in a position, and it is part of their duty, to inform themselves on this subject, while many in this House have not been able so to inform themselves ; and I am
6765	JULY 14, 1904	6766
prepared to say that if the Railway Commission does not in good time take action on this question it will he necessary then for the House to take action. Certainly circumstances look in that direction. At the same time, the danger of taking drastic action without due consideration is evidenced in some degree by the results on the Intercolonial. We have a two-cent rate on the Intercolonial, and we have a deficit of half a million dollars on the Intercolonial. Therefore I think the rate on the Intercolonial is rather an argument against the proposition of the hon. gentleman than in favour of it.
Another point worthy of consideration is that there are different classes of rates, there is the first-class rate and the second-class rate. I do not know how the reduction of the first-class rate to two cents might affect the second-class rate. At the present time people who can afford it pay the high rate, those who cannot afford to pay the high rate pay a lower rate. I do not think it would be right that those who could afford the higher rate should be permitted to travel at the lower rate, and those who get the benefit of the still lower rate at the present time be compelled to pay a higher rate than they do now. That is, however, a question that could be dealt with by the commission, and it is one that I do not consider myself in a position at the present time to deal with to the extent of endorsing the hon. gentleman's proposition. Another thing that inspires me with doubt in regard to this matter was the remark made by the hon. member that if proportionate reductions were made on roads of heavy travel he would not object to a corresponding increase of the rates on roads where the travel was proportionately light. Representing a part of the country where settlement is sparse and where the travel on newly constructed roads is likely to be light for a few years, I am afraid I could hardly follow him in that jiroposition.


William Findlay Maclean: Don't you pay four cents there now ?


Frank Oliver: We used to pay five cents, but it is reduced to four, and in Manitoba it is three cents. At the same time, if the rate is fixed according to traffic, it is perfectly clear that a new road through a lightly settled country would possibly have to charge a much higher price.


William Findlay Maclean: Not if it is owned by the same corporation.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid that the basis is perhaps hardly fair when you work it out to a conclusion and apply it under all conditions all over the country. Therefore, I cannot for the present take the responsibility of voting for the amendment of the hon. member, although I think he is entitled to a great deal of credit in his effort ; and if a remedy is not found by the Railway Commission in due time it will be necessary for parliament to take even the direct action he has suggested, even perhaps without as full information as is desirable. But we must all agree, in line with the discussion we have had, that a public grievance requires a public remedy.
Mr SPROTJiLE When the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) introduced this subject some time ago and proposed to make a general two-cent rate all over the country, I refused to support him on the ground that in my judgment the railways in sparsely settled parts of the country where the earnings are small, could scarcely be expected to give a two-cent rate. At that time the suggestion was made that provided the railroads east of Port Arthur gave a two-cent rate, west of that, which was a new country, where the traffic was comparatively light, they might charge whatever rates the law allowed them to charge. But I was always of the opinion that it would be an injustice to the railways to make them carry passengers for two cents a mile when the earnings were small and the passenger traffic was light. The experience of railways in the United States, and the experience 'of the American people in compelling railways, especially in Michigan and the west, a country similar to Canada, to carry passengers at two cents a mile when their earnings were $3,000 a mile or over, has been fairly successful, and it has wrought no great injustice to the railways and has been a concession to the people. When this subject was discussed in the Railway Committee some time ago, we had representatives of the railway companies before us, and I did not understand from any of them that they seriously complained because the roads were compelled to carry passengers at two cents a mile where they were earning $3,000 a mile. But their contention was that the member for East York had misrepresented the facts that really existed in the eastern states, or in the state* of Michigan, because he had said that all the railways there carried passengers for two cents a mile. They contended that that was not the case, and they gave us a list of those railways that did carry passengers at two cents a mile and those that did not. The railways that did carry passengers at that rate were compelled to do so by virtue of the Michigan law, but they did not contend that the law was doing a great injustice to the railways. Now, if the experience in Michigan, a country similar to eastern Canada, is that passengers can be carried at two cents a mile when the earnings reach $3,000 a mile, it can be no great injustice or hardship to ask railway companies to do the same here, because, we have given a great deal more money to assist in building railways than the Michigan people have done. We tax them lighter in ordinary municipal taxation, and we give

them many concessions that the American people do not. Now, the hon. member for East York proposes a graded tariff, and I think no great injustice would be done to the railways provided parliament adopted that proposition.
The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) says that the Intercolonial Railway gives a two cent rate per mile, and as a consequence it has a deficit of nearly half a million dollars last year. If I could reach the conclusion that the deficit was due to carrying passengers at two cents a mile it would be to me an argument, but there are many elements in the situation that effect it, and which help to make a deficit of half a million other than the carrying of passengers at two cents a mile. In my judgment it is other elements in the situation that have brought about this deficit in the earnings of the road and not the carrying passengers at [DOT]two cents a mile. I do not think that seriously affects it in any sense. But then we are asked to wait for the action of the Railway Commission. The Railway Commission have extensive powers. I assume that the Railway Commission are not likely to ask the railway companies to carry passengers jat a very much lower rate than that which they are charging to-day. It may be said that it is generally conceded that three cents a mile is a fair charge and that they are {not likely to ask them to carry passengers for very much less than that. I do not think we would be doing very much injustice to the Railway Commission, or that we would be curtailing their powers in any way or interfering with their functions if we laid down the salutary principle which has been found fairly satisfactory in Michigan and asked the railway companies, when their earnings reached a maximum of $3,000 a mile as the case may be, to carry passengers at a graded rate in proportion to their earnings. If we did that I think we would be doing them no injustice and therefore I am inclined to support the amendment of my hon. friend from East York.


Charles Fitzpatrick: As this matter has been very fully discussed both in this House and in the Railway Committee I do not think the time of the committee can be very usefully taken up with a lengthy discussion of the subject. But I would like to direct attention to section 26-1 of the Railway Act which says that the Railway Commissioners shall adopt a standard passenger tariff for the whole of Canada. No passenger rates can be collected by any railway company in Canada which comes under the operation of this Act except under the standard passenger tariff which has been fixed by (he Railway Commission. Let us give the Railway Commission that was established under the statute passed last session, time to do something under the provisions of that Act before we proceed liere to determine what Mr. SPROULE.
they are to do. It seems to me that having created this Railway Commission for the purpose of regulating this question we should give them an opoprtunity to do it. I think it is not only important to draw attention to that feature of the law as we have it today, but it is also important to disabuse the public mind of the impression that exists that a two cent rate is now in force in the state of Michigan and in tbe state of New York. That is not correct. I will state the law as it is in Michigan and as it is in New York and I will show that the law in the state of Michigan does not apply to more than one-third of the railways in Michigan.


William Findlay Maclean: And to how much of the traffic ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Allow me. On the Michigan Central a two cent rate applies only to the main line between Detroit and the Indiana state line, a distance of 221 miles, on the Toledo division between Toledo and the Ohio state line, a distance of 46 miles and on the Grand Rapids division between Jackson and Grand Rapids a distance of 95 miles, or altogether a total of 362 miles out of 1,137 miles in the state. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that under the terms of filie statute which I read to him when this matter was before the Railway Committee the law is only applicable to those railways which are within the limits of the southern portion of the state of Michigan. It does not apply to the railways in the northern part of the state of Michigan. The railways there operate to a large extent under tlie same conditions as those which exist in Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why does it not apply to Alpena or the Peninsula ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot say why, because it is for the legislature that passed the law to say and not for me. They have found it proper not to apply the law Jo the northern part of the state.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The representative of the railway company said before fihe committee that it was because their earnings did not come up to $3,000 a mile.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not know what was said before the Railway Committee. I am stating what the law is in the state of Michigan. That law applies simply to the railways in the southern part of the state, which I have mentioned. In respect to the state of New York there is no general statute fixing the two cent rate but a two cent maximum rate was fixed on that portion of the road between Albany and Buffalo and that rate was fixed forty years ago for the purpose of impeding the construction of the New York Central which at that time was competing for business with the Erie canal, the Erie Canal being owned by the state. As a mattter of fact the general rate in force in the New York state is 3 cents a mile.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the hon. gentleman state that ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: I say he is misinformed.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I endeavour as far as posible not to make reckless statements here. I say now to my hon. friend that the two cent rate was fixed by the statute forty years ago, that statute can be found in the consolidation statutes of the state of New York, and I repeat that that rate is only applicable to the line between Albany and Buffalo.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is only applicable to the line between Albany and Buffalo. There is no general rate of two cents a mile in the state of New York.


William Findlay Maclean: Not under the law but in the practice of the companies.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am talking of something we are sure of, something we can control. We cannot control statements as to what the practice is in reference to these roads. I do not wish to say that my hon. friend would lead us astray, but we have to take the statements of those who are interested in the management of the traffic on these roads and as these statements are not at all times accurate my Iron, friend may be under a wrong impression. In respect to the state of New York, there is no law fixing a two cent rate except that which I have mentioned and it is only applicable to the portion of the line .between Albany and Buffalo. I heard it suggested this afternoon by some one that we were obstructing our own legislation on this side of the House and to avoid following the bad example that has been given I will not say anything further.


William Findlay Maclean: I am only going to say two or three words in answer to the hon. Minister of Justice. I repeated to-day and I repeat again now that under the legislation that exists in the state of Michigan ninety per cent of the passenger traffic is carried for two cents and less than two cents, a mile and that the result of the legislation in New York state is that more than ninety per cent of the traffic in New York state not only on the New York Central but on the Erie, the Lehigh Valley and a portion of the Pennsylvania system is carried at two cents a mile. My contention is that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, when they give to the people of Michigan a rate of two cents a mile, ought to do the same thing in Canada because we have here a country of a similar character. The New York Central Railway Company are carrying people in Michigan for two cents a mile and I contend that they ought to carry them in Ontario for two cents
a mile. In the province of Manitoba they have a three cent rate over the whole of that province. Why ? Because the Canadian Northern have to give that rate by reason of a little agreement that they have with the government of Manitoba. Then, we are asked to wait until we see what this commission do. What are the facts ? Until I put a question on the order paper the other day asking what railways had complied with this law which ordered them to file their standard passenger tariffs, not one road had done it, and to-day not one road has done it and they have had to go to the commission, by reason of the agitation that I have carried on, and to ask an extension of time until November to enable them to file their passenger tariffs. That is what we will get if we leave it to the Railway Commission. There will be no standard passenger tariffs filed, the commission will say that they are too busily engaged with other things and nothing at all will be done. I accept what the hon. Minister of Justice has said and I close the discussion as far as I am concerned, but on Tuesday next I propose to divide the House on this very issue of a regulated and reduced passenger rate.


Mr. HENDERSON.: It has been asserted, as an argument in favour of a two-cent rate, that with a rate of two cents a mile for passenger traffic the railways would earn a great deal more money than with a three-cent rate. It is a sux*prise to me that men like Sir Rivers-Wilson, C. M. Hays, Sir Thomas Shaughnessy and other great railway men never discovered that fact. I think if they really believed that this was the case, they would no doubt at once offer the people of this country a lower rate for passenger traffic. My position is this. I have voted for a two-cent rate in this House perhaps almost before the hon. member for East York came into parliament, at any rate, before he became as prominent in railway legislation as he is now, so that this is not a new question to me. My desire is to see the people of this country gel the cheapest possible railway travel, and I desire to proceed along that line which wifi secure a reduction in railway rates at the earliest possible date. Whichever plan is likely to succeed the better and to bring about a modification in the direction of cheaper rates at the earlier date I am prepared to adopt. If the hon, member for East York can show me that the plan proposed by his amendment is likely to give us better rates in the near future than we can possibly get through the Railway Commission, to whom this matter is to be submitted, then I would fall in line with the suggestion made by him ; but if I realized that through the Railway Commission a reduction in rates could be secured at an earlier date than under the system proposed by this amendment, then I would be willing to wait

and see what the Railway Commission would do.
I find that the Canadian Pacific Railway, in 1896, earned only $766 per mile by passenger traffic on their entire system. In 1903 their earnings from this source amounted to $1,460, an increase in round numbers of $700 in seven years, or at the rare of $100 per year. At the same rate of increase it would still require fifteen years for the Canadian Pacific Railway to reach the $3,000 per mile mark. That is a long time to wait for a good many of us. If the Canadian Pacific Railway earnings do not increase more rapidly during the next period of seven years, or the two next succeeding periods of seven years, than they have been increasing in the past, then we cannot at all expect that we will arrive at the goal of $3,000 per mile inside of fifteen years. Have we any reason to anticipate that the Canadian Pacific Railway earnings for passenger travel will increase more rapidly in the next fifteen years, or in the next seven years, than they have done in the past seven years'? We have had seven years of what the Finance Minister calls unprecedented prosperity in this country. We have had a prosperous seven years. Is it likely that the same condition will continue during the next seven years ? Periods of prosperity and adversity usually come in cycles. Some years ago the Finance Minister told us that we were on the crest of the wave and that we must prepare for adversity. All the arguments we have heard in speeches from various sources would lead us to assume that we must not expect a continuance of the same prosperity in this country during the next fifteen years as we have had during the past seven years. We have often been reminded that in the United States, whilst a wave of prosperity has been felt over the whole world, a period of adversity has even now set in there, so that the United States railways would not reasonably expect, under conditions of that kind, to earn as much money, because they share in the prosperity or adversity of the country ; they make more money during prosperous times than during times that are not prosperous. The same thing would apply to Canadian railways. During prosperous times people would travel more and the earnings of our railways would be greater than in times of hardship. Therefore, I say we have no reason whatever to hope that the earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway will be greater per annum during the next seven years than they have been in the past seven years, and at the rate of increase that they have had during the last seven years, it would take fifteen years to reach the goal of $3,000 per mile.
So much then for the Canadian Pacific Railway ; let us take the other great railway system in Canada, the Grand Trunk Railway. In 1896 their earnings were $1,600 per mile. In 1903, after a period of seven Mr. HENDERSON.
years of prosperity in Canada, when, no doubt, the Grand Trunk Railway earned every additional dollar that the prosperous times would bring to them, their earnings were $2,200 per mile, an increase of $600, not as large an increase as that of the Canadian Pacific Railway, an increase of only about $85 per year. Now, the railway would have to continue to increase its passenger earnings until it reached the goal of $3,000 per mile before the general public would have the convenience of a two-cent rate, and at the same rate of increase it would take about nine years to reach the $3,000 per mile so as to give the public the two-cent rate. Even nine years is a considerable time to wait, but we have to consider the fact that we have had seven years of prosperous times, with the possibility that the next seven years, or the next nine years will not be so productive of results as the past seven years have been. Therefore, instead of being nine years it might possibly be ten or twelve years. We have no guarantee that it will be brought about in nine years. Now, let us look at the two positions. Shall we legislate along the lines indicated by the hon. member for East York, or along some other line that would compel the railways to give transportation at a reduced rate, and fix that rate if we thought fit to do so? Having committed the whole of this matter within the past twelve months to a Railway Commission, who would have power to deal with the matter, to look into all the circumstances and decide as to whether the railways were entitled to give cheaper transportation or not, should we leave it to that commission ? Two plans are before us, and it is for us now to decide which of these two plans is the more likely to bring about the result we desire at the earlier day. I have no hesitation in saying to-night that I think we have reason to expect that through the Railway Commission we will get relief at an earlier date than we would by adopting a measure that would postpone the reduction to a period so very remote. That is my impression, and I would be very sorry to place on the statute-books of this country a law which would establish a rate that could not come into operation for ten or fifteen years, when I have hopes that through the Railway Commission better results would be obtained in a much shorter period of time. Nothing is to be lost by allowing the Railway Commission to deal with the matter during the next year or two, and see how they can work out this whole matter. The proposition of the hon. member for East York-and he has put his case forcibly and intelligently before the public-cannot come into operation for from ten to fifteen years.


William Findlay Maclean: It would come into operation to-morrow in connection with the Michigan Central and the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway.


David Henderson: Not with regard to the two-cent rate.


William Findlay Maclean: The two and a halt cent rate is my proposition.


David Henderson: There is no great hardship at present on that account, because any man can travel on the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific Railway for two and a half cents a mile by purchasing a return ticket. It may' be said that that compels a man to return by the same route. Well,
I have no doubt that ninety per cent of the people who go from home on a journey come back again. So that there is not so much to be gained by the hon. gentleman's proposition for a two and a half cent rate as perhaps the general public might think without looking fairly into the matter. If a man has a great deal of travel to do as a commercial traveller, he can do so at two and a quarter cents a mile ; or any men or woman w*ho has considerable travelling to do in this country can travel at two and a half cents a mile on the Canadian Pacific Railway and I think on the Grand Trunk Railway by purchasing a thousand-mile ticket for twenty-five dollars. It would not take very much travelling to use that up, perhaps only from Toronto to Quebec and return. But suppose a man were travelling around the country on some business that necessitated his going one way and returning another, he could travel at two and a half cents a mile by purchasing a thousand-mile ticket for twenty-five dollars, and he is allowed twelve months in which to use it up. In all probability he would use it up in that time, and perhaps a good deal more. Even in the state of Michigan, I understand that for a short distance, even where the rate is fixed at two cents a mile, the actual rate is three cents. However, that is not a matter of very great importance. I trust I have made myself plain to the House. I am prepared to adopt whatever plan is most likely to bring about the desired result at the earliest period. If I did not believe that through the Railway Commission we could realize the goal of two cents a mile or a reduced rate at an earlier date than we could by placing this amendment on the statute-book. I would fall into line readily with some such plan as that suggested by the hon. member for East York. But I realize that we can lose nothing by waiting for a year or two for the result of the Railway Commission's investigation, before we take action of this kind; because, even if we passed a Bill this week fixing a rate of two cents a mile on railways earning .$3,000 a mile, it would not come into operation on the great railways of this country for a considerable number of years. I have an impression that under the Railway
Act the Railway Commision have power to give a reduced rate in certain parts of the country where railway passenger traffic is very much greater, while not reducing it in other sections of the country where the pasenger traffic is more moderate.


William Findlay Maclean: Under what clause is that ?


David Henderson: Under clause 263. I would like to have the opinion of the Minister of Justice on that clause read in connection with clause 264. It does seem to me that the words are broad enough to give the Railway Commission power to take all the circumstances into consideration, and in a thickly settled portion of the province to give a reduced rate, while allowing the rate to remain as it is, or fixing a higher rate, in other and more sparsely settled portions of the province. Knowing that through the county I have the honour to represent there is about as much passenger travel as through any other county in Ontario,. I would be sony to fix the lower rate at a figure- that would not come into operation for ten or fifteen years. I have hopes that the Railway Commission inside of a year or two will give us relief that we could not obtain in the other wav except by waiting a very long time. These are the views I hold. The hon. member says be will divide the House on the question. I hope to be here when the House is divided upon it. It is a question which I have no fear to meet, and I am going to vote upon it in accordance with the views whiCh I have expressed and for what seems to me to afford a most reasonable hope or securing a lower rate, and securing it at the earliest possible time.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: My views on this question are so well known that it will not be necessary for me to repeat them. But I desire to draw the attention of the House to the unsound business principle that underlies the resolution. This reduction of the railway rate to two cents a mile is supposed to apply to railways earning $3,000 a mile. The only railway in the country that is earning $3,000 a mile is the railway that is the least able to reduce its passenger rate. On an invested capital of $35,000,000 in the Canadian Southern Railway, the actual net earnings last year amounted to $111,000 or less than one-third of one per cent.
The presumption that where a railway is earning $3,000 per mile, it is in a position to reduce its rates, is entirely fallacious. It does not follow that because a railway company is earning $3,000 or $2,500 a mile, it is more able to reduce its rates than a company which is earning less than one-half that amount. The largest earner in the country per mile is the Canada Southern, vet the actual amount of its net earnings was $111,000 or less than one-third of one

per cent. Take the Grand Trunk Railway, the only one to which the two and a half per cent would apply, and we find that on an invested capital of $335,000,000, the actual net earnings are $8,000,000 or less than three per cent. Although apparently a wealthy railway company, it is not able to reduce its passenger rates, because its net earnings give less than three per cent on the capital invested. It does not follow that because railways are large money earners, they are better able to reduce their passenger rates to two cents per mile than other railways which earn less. Therefore the very foundation of the hon. member's resolution disappears because the railways to which it would apply are those least able to stand a reduction.
Amendment (Mr. Maclean) negatived.
On section 1,
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Railway Act, 1903, the Governor in Council shall have, and shall be deemed to have had since the date upon which the said Act came into force, power, authority and jurisdiction to sanction, confirm, rescind, change or vary, or to take other action upon, any report, order or decision of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council made before the said date under the Railway Act of 1888, or any Act in amendment thereof, in as full and ample a manner as if the Railway Act, 1903, had not been passed, or had not come into force, and as if the said Railway Act of 1888 and the said Acts in amendment thereof had not been repealed ; and any order or decision so sanctioned or confirmed shall have the same validity, force and effect as if the said order or decision had been so sanctioned or confirmed prior to the issue thereof.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are we not proposing to do what very eminent authorities on that side have said we should not do. and that is attempt to say what the law was intended to be and what it is ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Nothing of the sort.


Samuel Barker: I want to draw the attention^ to the fifth line. I understand that the object of the section is to enable certain orders of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council to be confirmed. Owing to the change made by the Act last year, there are some orders of the old Privy Council Committee which have not been confirmed and which the Governor General in Council cannot now confirm without a new Act. But I do not see why the minister should take power to the Governor General in Council not only to sanction and confirm these orders, but should continue in him the right for all time hereafter to rescind, change, vary or take other action upon them. I would submit that the proper way would be to take power to sanction and confirm them, when confirmed that they should be under the same provisions as if they had been enacted by the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I would suggest therefore that you strike out the words ' rescind, change or vary or take other action upon ' from the fifth line, and after the word ' effect ' in the third line from the bottom of the clause insert the words ' and be subject to the provisions of the Railway Act of 1903' and strike out the words ' issue thereof ' at the end of the clause and insert instead ' passing of the last mentioned Act.'
I have given the minister the section altered as I propose. I think that would answer his purpose. It would enable the Governor General in Council to make valid all the orders and regulations that have not yet been confirmed, and after they are confirmed they would then come under the ordinary jurisdiction.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has very correctly stated the object of this legislation. But I would like to draw his attention to this point. The attention of the government is to restore the powers of the Governor General in Council with respect to orders made by the Railway Committee so that these powers may be the same as they were previous to the repeal of the old Act. At present there is but one order of the Railway Committee to deal with, the order with respect to the Yonge street crossing at Toronto. That is the order we have in our mind, and I think it is important we should restore to the Governor General in Council all the powers he had previous to the new Act which repealed the old Railway Act of 1888. These powers are all conferred not only by section .187 of the Railway Act, but also by section 21-1 am speaking now of the old Railway Act. If my hon. friend will look at section 21 and read that in connection with section 187, he will see that the Governor in Council had the authority to sanction, confirm, rescind or vary. It might be important that the order should be changed to a slight extent to meet altered circumstances, and in that view we desire to have the old jurisdiction restored. With respect to the other words 'to take other action upon ' it might be found desirable to refer the matter again for further consideration to the Railway Commission. That is the reason these words are in the section. With respect to my hon. friend's amendment, its last part is, I think, an improvement on the terms we use.


Samuel Barker: Have the parties to the particular order to which the hon. gentleman refers approved of this ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes. The only party that has been consulted is the city of Toronto. The amendment was submitted to them and they approved of it. They approved of the concluding words, but I take the responsibility of making the change because I think it is an improvement without altering the sense.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Justice contradicted the statement I made that the object of this was to declare what the Act was intended to mean. It seems to me the words mean nothing if my interpretation is not correct. What else can these words mean-' notwithstanding anything contained in the Railway Act, 1903, the Governor in Council shall have and shall be deemed to have had since that date '-and so on, if they do not mean to interpret the law and declare what it is.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 187 of the Railway Act of 1888 provided that the Railway Committee, if it appeared to them expedient or necessary for the public safety was empowered, from time to time, with the sanction of the Governor in Council, to authorize or require a company owning a railway constructed upon, along or across any street or other public highway at rail level or otherwise, to carry such street or highway over or under the said railway by means of a bridge or arch, instead of crossing at rail level, or to divert such street highway either temporarily or pei'manently, or to execute such other work and take such other measures, as, under the circumstances of the case, appeared to the Railway Committee best adapted to remove or diminish the danger arising from the then position of the railway. It will be observed that an order made under that section required the approval of the Governor in Council to have validity and effect. The Railway Act of 1903. abolishes the'Railway Committee. And section 310 of the Railway Act of 1903 repeals the Railway Act of 1888. So that, while the committee has passed the order, the order had no validity and effect because the Governor in Council was without power to deal with the matter. This is, therefore, not to interpret, to construe, but it is to restore the power of the Governor in Council with regal'd to these orders to what it would have been if there had been no repeal.


John Graham Haggart: It is intended to apply to something that has not been completed. What is it ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The Yonge street crossing in Toronto, in which the city of Toronto, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway are all interested. The Railway Committee of the Privy Council made an order authorizing the construction of an overhead bridge or some other form of crossing and determined the share which each of the parties interested should contribute toward the construction and maintenance. And, of course, that order of the Railway Committee has no validity because the Governor in Council has no power to deal with it.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 2,


Charles Fitzpatrick: Briefly, this section is intended to apply to railways that are
situated entirely within the limits of one province and that would be under the exclusive jurisdiction of that province were it not for the fact that they have been declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada and to provide that they shall be subject to the Sunday legislation of the province in which they are.


John Graham Haggart: As I understand it, this is to place them under the control of the legislature in reference to Sunday observance alone.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Exclusively. And, in order to make that absolutely clear, i propose the following amendment:
This section shall not apply to any railway or part of a railway which forms part of a continuous route or system operated between two or more provinces or between any province and a foreign country or to any railway or part of a railway between any of the ports on the great lakes and such continuous route or system, nor shall it apply to any part of a railway which the Governor in Council, may by proclamation declare to be exempt from the provisions of this section.
The intention is to exempt from the operation of the law the Canadian Southern which forms part of the through system of the Michigan Central with respect to its traffic and also part of the Canadian Pacific which,
I understand, operates between a port on the great lakes-Owen Sound, I believe- and the city of Toronto, and other railways that are part of through continuous systems and which are not, properly speaking, local enterprises at all and which we think, should not have this law applied to them.


Samuel Barker: I would ask the minister how far this section will apply to many of these short lines now forming part of the Grand Trunk corporation, but which were originally local railways and declared works for the general advantage of Canada.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is a difficulty that I mean to meet by this amendment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are several such lines in Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Samuel Barker: I would like to call the attention of the minister to subsection 2. It seems to be very unusual and extraordinary legislation. It reads :
The Governor in Council may at any time and from time to time by proclamation confirm, for the purposes of this section any Act of the legislature of any province passed after -the passing of this Act for the prohibition or regulation of work, business or labour upon the first day of the week.
That looks like giving a power of attorney to the ministers to get the local legislatures to pass Acts which the ministers will make into law. A local legislature may hereafter pass laws upon this subject and

we authorize the Governor in Council to make them valid.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I will point out our difficulties. Under the first paragraph we approve of the Sunday legislation now in existence. We know the legislation, anti knowing it we declare it unobjectionable and we approve of it. Now, with respect to future legislation that may be passed- because after all these laws affecting Sunday may be changed by the local legislatures at any time-with respect to them, it seems to me it would not be wise for this parliament to say that we approve in advance of any legislation which may be passed by any province. The only other alternative is fo give to the Governor in Council authority by proclamation to declare that any Act respecting the observance of Sunday passed by a local legislature should be confirmed and ratified, so far as that Act may be within the limits and powers conferred upon the province. We have either one or the other thing to do, either to confirm in advance legislation of the character of which we must necessarily be in ignorance, or else to give to the Governor in Council authority and power to ratify and confirm that legislation when it has passed.


John Graham Haggart: Can we delegate that power to the Governor in Council ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No. We could not delegate it, but we give the Governor in Council power to adopt. It is not a delegation, it is an adoption of the legislation of the province and making it our own.


John Graham Haggart: Surely it is delegating power to the Governor in Council to confirm an Act which we do not know the effect of.
On section 3,


Samuel Barker: I have given to the Minister of Justice a copy of an amendment that I propose to suggest on this section. I propose to add some words after the words ' An Act to amend the National Transcontinental Railway Act ' in the fifth line. The section as it is now printed is limited to the purpose of ascertaining the true net earnings of the eastern division of the leased portion of the Transcontinental Railway. But in drawing the section it seems to me the fact was overlooked that so long as the government is guarantor of the bonds upon the western division, it is equally interested in seeing that the Grand Trunk Pacific should receive a proper portion of the through earnings as regards the whole of its system. It is just as much interested in seeing that the Grand Trunk Company gives the Grand Trunk Pacific a fair proportion of the through rate for the whole of the railway as it is interested in seeing that we shall get a fair portion as regards the leased or eastern division. Scr I propose to add these words :
And in order to the ascertainment of the true net earnings of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company upon its system of railways at ail times while the principal or interest of 'any bonds made by the said company and guaranteed by the government of Canada shall be unpaid by the said company.
Then I propose further on to add at the end of line 19, the words :
Or as guarantor of any such principal or
interest.
Then at the end of that first section I propose to add further words. The clause provides for a fair apportionment of the rates, but before the question of determining can arise, the rates will have been divided, and the Grand Trunk Company, or the other carriers who are interested in through rates, will have received their share, and the clause does not provide for the payment or repayment to the Grand Trunk Pacific of what it has been short of in the division. I propose that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall make that good, whatever ihe shortage is, because the Grand Trunk Railway Company is given absolute control over the Grand Trunk Pacific, and if it allows them to receive too little of the through rate, the Grand Trunk itself should make good what the Grand Trunk Pacific may lose. I therefore propose to add that:
The Grand Trunk Railway Company shall pay "to fhe Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company such sum and sums of money as, by the said board, from time to time may be ascertained to be necessary to make good the true net earnings upon the basis aforesaid of the said eastern division, and of the said Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company's system of railways.
Provided always that either party to any such question may appeal from any such determination to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Charles Fitzpatrick: When the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Act was up for consideration it was pointed out that under the Railway Act as we have it now there was no power vested in the Railway Commission to determine the question of a joint tariff between the two companies, that the two companies were free to make such a joint tariff as might suit their own convenience and that as a result of the powers so vested in these two companies the Grand Trunk Railway Company might he in a position to practically divert all the traffic down by North Bay, make a through-rate and send the whole of the traffic to Portland as at the present time. In order to prevent that I promised to introduce legislation which would enable the Railway Commission to deal with this question of a joint tariff. That has been done and accomplished by the amendment as I now introduce it. My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) is anxious to go somewhat farther and to give the Railway Commission power to make an investigation in respect to the ascertain-


Samuel Barker: meiit of tlie true uet earnings of the western division so that the government may know in respect to its obligation as guarantor what the true obligations are. 1 argued at the time the question was up before that these powers were already vested in the Railway Commission under sections 45 and 309 of the Railway Act and that it was not necessary to have that amendment, but,
I think, to be strictly logical, having advanced the contention that these powers were already vested in the Railway Commissioners and as there will be no objection to our reaffirmation of it in this legislation in respect to the amendment of my hon. friend to that section I accept it, but in respect to the last part of the amendment imposing an* obligation on the company to pay over so much I think that would be a departure from the original contract and I cannot accept it.


Samuel Barker: The reason I ask it is this : The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will not be in existence in the operation of the road. It will be a mere name. The Grand Trunk Railway Company itself will make the rates, collect the rates and divide the rates. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will never be heard of in the practical operation of the road. The Grand Trunk Railway Company can give itself for its own line more than is fair or reasonable and it may have an object in view in making, as to the eastern division, the line not pay its interest in which case it would not have to pay the rent. It might have an object in making the whole line, including the western division, not paying because it might be interested at some time in putting the bonds that this government has guaranteed in default. It may be no injustice to the Grand Trunk Railway proper which has the whole control and which makes the unfair apportionment of the rate to compel it to make It good so that the company which the government has guaranteed may receive its due share of the through-rate. I will add that it means more than what the hon. Minister of Justice has said as to a diversion of the traffic to North Bay. It is equally important that there should be a fair apportionment if the traffic that goes to Quebec and thence to some point on the Grand Trunk Railway,


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, that is quite right. I had not thought of that.


Samuel Barker: There is no question about that. I may say again that the general Railway Act cannot apply practically because these sections in the general Railway Act are intended to apply where there are two companies with an opposing interest and one complains that it was not getting a fair share, but nobody ever supposes that 216
there will be any complaint between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Railway Company when they get into operation. It is only one company and the section of the general Railway Act will never be brought into play at all. There will be no complaint. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will never appear before the Board of Railway Commissioners to complain that its parent, the Grand Trunk Railway Company, is not doing it justice. You will never hear from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway at all. Therefore, these sections in the general Railway Act cannot apply and it is for that reason that the greatest care has to be taken in the interest of the government that it should have the power to see that the rates may be fairly apportioned and that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall make good to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company the loss occasioned by an unfair apportionment.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have faithfully lived up to the pledge I gave at the time the National Transcontinental Railway Act was under consideration by the introduction of the Bill in its original form. The suggested amendment of my hon. friend in respect to an investigation into the accounts of the western division I accept because it is practically putting to the test my good faith, when I submit that it is already covered by the Railway Act, but I do not think my hon. friend could ask me to go farther.


Archibald Campbell: Mr. Barker moves to add the following words in the eighth line after the word 'Act':
And in order to the ascertainment of the true net earnings of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company upon its system of railways at all times while the principal or interest of any bonds made by the said company and guaranteed by the government of Canada shall be unpaid by the said company.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Archibald Campbell: Then, again at the 19th line after the word ' railway,' Mr. Barker proposes to add the following words :
Or as guarantor of any such principal or interest.
Amendment (Mr. Barker) agreed to.


Archibald Campbell: Mr. Barker moves to add at the end of the clause the following :
The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall pay to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company such sum anl sums of money as, by the said board from time to time may be ascertained to be necessary to make good the true net earnings upon the basis aforesaid of the said eastern division, and of the Grand Trunk Pa-



cific Railway Company's system of railways.
Provided always that either party to any such question may appeal from any such determination to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Lost.


John Graham Haggart: Before the amendment Is considered I would ask the hon. Minister of Justice whether the initiation of any proceedings for the purpose of ascertaining the due apportionment between the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Companies may be made without the consent of either of the parties?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, by the amendment.


Samuel Barker: It can be done at the request of the Minister of Railways and Canals.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This last amendment is lost.
Amendment (Mr. Barker) negatived.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I beg to move to amend that clause 3 by adding the following words :
Provided always that either party to any such question may appeal from any such determination to the Supreme Court of Canada.
On section 4,


Samuel Barker: When this section was before the committee on a former occasion, it was suggested, I do not know whether by myself or by some other hon. gentleman on this side of the House, that this clause should read :
The majority of the directors and of the executive committee of any company, &c.
I would suggest that that should be added.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I must confess that in so far as I am personally concerned, I have absolutely no sympathy with legislation of this description. I think that if foreigners choose to come into this country and invest their money in our railways they are entitled to have some control over the railway system which is created by their capital. It seemed to me that the sense of the House then was in favour of a change in the law along these lines, and I have as a consequence introduced an amendment which will require that all railway companies, aided by the parliament of Canada, shall have a majority of their directors British subjects. With respect to the executive committee, it would appear to me that we would be pushing the matter very far if we insisted upon the executive committee coming under the same rule. These executive committees are usually composed of five members ; I think I know of one case in which the committee is composed of only three members, with the president as an ex-officio member. If we should re-Mr. CAMPBELL.
quire that a majority of this small committee shall be British subjects, it seems to me that the result would be that we would have dummies placed upon this board by the people who control the stock of the company, because, after all, the men who control the stock control the board, and the men who control the board control the executive committee. If the House would allow me to have the Bill go through in its present form, I would put my view before my colleagues, and when the Bill comes up for third reading, if it is found desirable to make an amendment we can do so.


John Graham Haggart: Is anything known as an executive committee recognized by the law ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: In several special Acts provision is made for an executive committee. That is the case in the special Acts of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern and two or three Acts passed last session. In fact, in the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill there is provision for such a committee. However, I do not want to commit the government on the subject, and I would like to have an opportunity to discuss the matter with my colleagues.
Bill, as amended, reported ; amendments read first and second time.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.

William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad if the House would again facilitate the passage of the urgency Supply Bill, as to which some explanations were given both yesterday and to-day. We have been waiting until the various items were collected and put in proper form. I now move :
That the House resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means.
Motion, agreed to, and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.


William Stevens Fielding: The items with which the Committee of Supply has dealt in detail in the estimates for the new fiscal year amounted to $21,585,073.78. Then, in addition to that, we have taken one-fifth of the remaining items, the amount of that one-fifth being $4,288,332.69, making the total of the sums for this coming fiscal year which have been dealt with by the committee $25,873,406.47. Accordingly I move:
Resolved, That towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the 30th of June, 1905, the sum of $25,873,406.47 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, I have not verified the clerical work ; I am taking the hon. gentleman's statement and the word of his officers for it.


William Stevens Fielding: I may say that I also have to rely on the officers of the House who have done this work, and I have no reason to doubt that it is correct.
Resolution reported ; read the first and second time, and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 156) for granting to His Ma-jecty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 30tli of June, 1905.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.
William Stevens Fielding: I think it is rather late for us to resume the consideration of the estimates in Committee of Supply, and I move that the House do now adjourn.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the business for to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: Some of the Bills on the order paper will be taken first, and if we reach supply, the estimates of the Minister of Railways will be taken up.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 15, 1904.