1905-03-27

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 12) respecting the Ottawa Electric Company.-Mr.. Galliher.
On section 2-shares in other companies.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: Mr. Chairman, I wish to read a resolution in regard to this Ottawa Electric Bill which was passed by the municipal council of the city of Toronto. I have received the following: letter :
City Clerk's Office, Toronto, Feb. 14, 1905.
Dear Sir,-I have the honour by direction of his worship the mayor to forward herewith a copy of a resolution which was adopted by the city council at its meeting held on the 13th instant, as follows :
Whereas, the city of Ottawa entered into certain agreements with the Metropolitan Railway Company of Ottawa, Limited, and with the Consumers Electric Company, Limited, respectively, in which it was provided that the said companies should not at any time during a period provided in the said agreement, amalgamate or combine with any other company or companies carrying on or which might thereafter carry on in the said city of Ottawa a business for supplying electricity for the purpose of supplying power, light or heat, nor should the said company or companies enter into any contract, agreement or arrangement with any other such company for such purpose, or that should have such effect, nor should the said companies enter into any contract, agreement or arrangement with any such other company for the purpose, or that might have the effect of creating a monopoly for the business, of supplying electricity for the purposes aforesaid without the permission of the council of the corporation of the city of Ottawa to be expressed by by-law ;
And whereas, the Ottawa Electric Company are by Bill No. 12 seeking legislation at the present session of the Dominion parliament at Ottawa which will enable them to purchase the stock of the said Metropolitan and the said Consumers Companies and thus become the owners thereof, and, by so doing, avoid the. said agreements ;
And whereas, it is desirable that the agreements, intererts and vested rights of municipalities should be respected and preserved, and, the passing of the proposed legislation will, ia the opinion of this council, vitally affect the vested rights and interests of the city of Ottawa and destroy the purposes of the said agreements ;
Be it resolved, that this council does most respectfully petition the parliament of Canada to resist and prevent the passage of the said legislation, and does most respectfully request the members of the city of Toronto to oppose it.
Your obedient servant,



W. A. LITTLEJOHN,

[Stage Direction]
City Clerk.
W. F. Maclean, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is the resolution of the city of Toronto, which has a vital interest in maintaining what it calls
[Stage Direction]
the vested interests of muncipalities, because the municipality of Ottawa has a vested interest in a contract with companies incorporated in this city, "who, on getting franchises, have given a solemn pledge that they shall not amalgamate. The city of Toronto asks you to-day to protect the vested interests of the city of Ottawa, in that respect ; they ask that not only on behalf of Ottawa, but on behalf of every other municipality in this country. The municipalities} of Canada are being raided to-day right and left by these franchise holding corporations, who are not content with what they have got, but the moment they get a franchise they are constantly seeking additional legislation which will enable them to avoid their obligations. The experience of all the cities of Canada with these lighting companies is on the line that the company does not carry out its agreement. In the city of Toronto we have two of these companies. These companies gave us a solemn pledge-it is on record in the documents-that they would not amalgamate ; and they did what the chief executive of one of these companies called the cleverest thing that could be done -they got the ablest lawyer in Canada to prepare a plan under which they could practically amalgamate and avoid their agreements, so that one person can purchase stock in the two companies, and while they cannot amalgamate in the letter, they do so in fact. It is the same president, the same board of directors, that meet five minutes after the other is through ; they do whatever they like with the citizens. Now the same thing is proposed to be done in the city of Ottawa. They propose to allow an amalgamation, and when that is consummated they intend to advance the rates charged to the people of Ottawa. We have heard a groat, deal in this House about the vested rights of companies and of corporations, but we never hear anything about the vested rights of municipalities, as a matter of fact those rights are not supposed to be protected. I am glad to know that the Postmaster General to-day is championing the cause of the vested rights of municipalities.
Mr. SPROULE.: He is not here.


William Findlay Maclean: He ought to be here, that is all I can say. But I am sorry to know that in connection with this legislation-of course I will be charged with introducing partisan ideas-but we were told the other day that this was a free question, parties could divide on it, and that the government was divided. But the government whips are active in having this Bill carried through ; the whips of the Liberal party to-day have canvassed their members up and down this House, they have lined them up, and they are bringing the Liberal I Mr. W. P. MACLEAN.
party as an organization into support of this Bill.


Mr. LOGAN.: As the chief whip of the government party does not happen to be in his seat, I desire, as assistant chief whip, to give that statement the most unqualified denial.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: I have the honour to be one of the whips of the Liberal party, and I desire to say that I have never asked a member to vote for this Bill, and have never discussed the Bill with any of the members.	.


Mr.  R. L.@: LAVE'RGNE. As one of the Liberal whips I desire also to deny the statement of the hon. member for York (Mr. W. F. Maclean).


Mr. CRAWFORD.: I have not been canvassed in connection with this matter.


William Findlay Maclean: I knew I would get that statement, and I accept it. Yet I say this is a government proposition, and it is going through the House just as if it was on the order paper as on the government orders.


Mr. CALDWELL.: I beg to deny that statement. I have not been canvassed by one side or the other.


William Findlay Maclean: I also accept the hon. gentleman's statement, but 'I still say that this is a government measure, and when the division takes place you will see whether it is or not. I could give a great deal more evidence, but there is no doubt about this fact, that it is being supported by the Liberal party, and that will be seen when the vote comes on.


Hance James Logan: Would the hon. gentleman explain to us, if it is a government measure, how it is that the leader of the opposition votes in the same way as the leader of the government ?


William Findlay Maclean: I cannot explain it.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I voted for the preamble of the Bill because there are several clauses in it, to three of which I understood there is no objection. To strike out the preamble would not only destroy the clause about which the controversy has arisen, but it would strike out the three clauses to which there is no objection so far as 'I understand. I trust I have made myself clear to the hon. gentleman.


Hance James Logan: I regret that the hon. gentleman did not make himself clear before, so that nobody would have misunderstood him.


Robert Laird Borden: Well I cannot supply brains to my hon. friend.


Hance James Logan: I am not asking the hon. gentleman to supply me with brains. But

I think it would not have been unreasonable l'or the hon. gentleman to have supplied the House with the reasons why he voted for the preamble of the Bill, since voting for the preamble adopts the principle.


Robert Laird Borden: Rejecting the preamble is equivalent to rejecting every clause of the Bill. I should think my hon. friend had been long enough in parliament to know that.


Hance James Logan: I know it.


Robert Laird Borden: If there are sections of the Bill to which there is no objection and one section to which there is an objection, the proper course is to strike out the objectionable section, and not to vote against the preamble.


Hance James Logan: But it is a fair inference I think, that when an hon. gentleman supports the preamble of a Bill he supports the principle.


William Findlay Maclean: The test will be when the votes comes. Now I want to come to another phase of this question. The Liberal party has been known before it came into power to go up and down this country appealing to the farmers, and especially the Postmaster General, and I give him credit now for living up to what he did in those days. They went before the farmers and they wept before the farmers over the way that their money was being extravagantly spent at Ottawa. They wept before the farmers about the extravagance of the previous government in connection with the government house, in connection with every department ; and most of all they told the farmers that they were being bled white in various ways by the tariff, and by an extravagant administration at Ottawa. Well, those gentleman are in power to-day, and this government is the biggest customer of this Ottawa Electric Light Company, this government pays them more than anybody else, and the farmers of this country are supplying the money. As the law now is, it is the farmers of this country who pay for the electric light, we do not pay for it ; the people of Canada pay for the electric light that we use in this building; and we as custodians of the people's money are asked to-day deliberately to remove a clause which protects them from an advance in rates for electricity in this city. Now I leave it to the hon. gentlemen who represent farming constituencies in this House, I do not care on which side of the House they sit, to explain to their constituents how they can vote for this measure which takes away the protection that the people now enjoy in regard to their electric bills. We are bound, if we are honest trustees, to administer the people's money with the greatest economy, we are bound to see that the rates are not
unfairly advanced. Most of all we are bound to maintain public rights, municipal rights that are set out in this agreement. The municipality of the city of Ottawa asks us to protect them in this clause which now prohibits amalgamation. These amalgamations are going on every day. Look at the merger that is looming up in the city of Montreal to-day. There is a merger coming in Montreal under the guise of light, heat and power which will monopolize all the electric energy of that city, gas companies, electric railways, and even the suburban companies-they are all to be merged in a way to become a monopoly upon the people. The same thing is happening in Ottawa. The people who own this electric light company own the street railway, and they are gradually bringing a merger into effect in Ottawa, just as they have got a merger ready to develop in Toronto in a short time on the same lines. They propose to enter into a merger with the intention of doing away with competition, of advancing rates and of avoiding the necessity of living up to the agreement which they originally entered info with the municipality. Let me tell hon. members of this House in a few words what these electric companies do and the case of one is the test of them all. A company for the supply of electricity for lighting, makes a contract, such as you will find in connection with this building, at so much per horse-power to go into an arc light. There never yet has been found a private electrical company that will honestly measure the electric energy supplied to the public. They make a contract to put electrical energy to the extent of one horse-power into an arc light per night, when the fact is that they never put in more than half a horse-power and the experience of all cities is the same in this regard. The greatest fight that is taking place in the United States to-day is that which is now in progress in the city of Chicago, where the people are trying to municipalize the traction service. They have succeeded in municipalizing their electric lighting and they propose to municipalize the street car service. The city of Chicago has found the municipalization of its electrical lighting to be a splendid investment. In many of the American cities they have done the same thing and they have not only reduced the cost of their lighting but they are getting honest measure.. There never was honest measure given to the public in any known case in which any of these private companies supplied electrical energy to cities. I leave it to hon. gentlemen to say whether it is not fair to let this agreement between the city of Ottawa and the Ottawa Electric Company stand as it is. Why this meddlesomeness on the part of the great parliament of Canada into the domestic affairs of the city of

317&
Ottawa? Why is this parliament meddling in the domestic affairs of this little city of Ottawa ? For what reason is it done? Is it for the public benefit ? Is it to set a good example to the public that the right lion, the Prime Minister, fifteen members of his cabinet and all his party behind him are


Some hon. MEMBERS: No. no.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, all right. I beg the hon. Postmaster General's pardon and I will wait until the vote is taken.


Sir WILLIAM MULOOK.: You will have to beg more pardons.


William Findlay Maclean: All right, if they are coming around so much the better. We will put it in this way:	Here is the parliament of Canada interfering with the domestic affairs of this little city of Ottawa and interfering in the interest of a private corporation. Why this meddlesomeness ? Leave them alone. The Conservative party used to be called the party of restriction. This House will become the House of restriction if it interferes with the arrangement between the city of Ottawa and this private company by adopting this Bill. Let Ottawa work out her own solution; let us leave her domestic affairs alone. Let us attend to national affairs. Why devote our time to the domestic affairs of the city of Ottawa? We have a large number of men and women in this city who are the servants of Canada, who are in the civil service. We know that none of them are overpaid, yet, we, as the employers of the civil servants who are resident in Ottawa are willingly turning them over to this Ottawa Electric Company which intends by this legislation to advance the cost of electricity. Why should we subject our own servants to this injustice? Should -we not rather protect their interests by refusing to pass this measure which has in view the amalgamation of these companies and an advance in the cost of electric lighting- in this city? If parliament wishes to help this company, I would rather see it pay more for the electric lighting of this building than that we should turn over the citizens of Ottawa and especially the civil servants to the mercy of the Ottawa Electric Company and subject them to an advance in the rates which they are called upon to pay for electric lighting. The municipal union of this country, a union made up of all the municipalities, is behind the city of Ottawa in its opposition to this measure. All these municipalities have asked their members to assist the city of Ottawa. The city of Toronto has asked all its members, I believe the same thing has happened in the city of Hamilton and in justice not only to the city of Ottawa, but to all other municipalities which have to deal with similar questions I Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
say : Do not interfere with these things, leave them alone and attend to national affairs.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: My hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) in his zeal for the cause which he advocates, has managed to bring into the discussion of this Bill almost all classes of the community. I do not know that the farmers at large are very much interested in this measure.


William Findlay Maclean: They pay the Bills here.


Wilfrid Laurier: No. The city of Ottawa is interested in this measure, but
1	do not know that it interests particularly any other class of the community. My hon. friend referred to a resolution passed by the city of Toronto. That is certainly worthy of credit and of attention, but as far as I am concerned, this Bill was referred to a special committee which after giving it their best attention have made a report upon it. Although this report is assailed, I intend to support it. The position I have always taken has been to support the report of a committee to which has been entrusted by the House with any particular question. In this case, a special committee which was composed of hon. gentlemen in whom the House has confidence has lfiade a report stating that the Bill is satisfactory. Until this report is attacked by the amendment which is to be moved in a few minutes, I think we had better pass the clauses of the Bill and then we will come to the discussion of the amendment.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Shall section
2	be adopted ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, because that is the one which is objected to. Section 2 reads as follows :
(d) Of the said Act is amended by striking out all the words after the word * company ' in the third line thereof.
I have the original Act here and this shows what the change proposed is. Paragraph (d) of section 7 of the original Act passed in 1894, reads as follows :
Acquire shares in capital stock, debentures and securities of other electrical companies or of companies possessing powers similar to those of this company.
The proposition is to strike out the balance of the section which is as follows :
As the consideration for goods, wares or merchandise sold to such other companies in the ordinary course of business.
Parliament just gave them power to buy this stock for a certain consideration and uow it is proposed to strike out the purpose for which the stock was to be purchased. It was to be purchased for a consideration, for the consideration of * goods, wares or

merchandise sold to such other companies in the ordinary course of business.' The object of putting that in the original Act was to prevent the company from buying out the stock of another company which was a competitor and which gave competition to the people of Ottawa. If you strike out that provision which forbids them to buy that stock then we allow them to buy it, they can only desire to buy it for one purpose and that is to prevent competition with the other company. As a result of that competiton, the people of Ottawa have benefited very considerably. They are benefiting to-day to the extent of nearly 48 per cent in what they pay for their lighting. The price which they pay is about 48 per cent below the maximum price that the companies are allowed to charge, and if this restriction is taken out of the Act coinxDetition will be destroyed, and then the company will raise their rates, no doubt, up to 52-lOOtlis of one per cent per ampere hour which is the maximum that the company can charge. That will be an increase in the cost of lighting of nearly 48 per cent, and it applies to the lights supplied to the Houses of parliament and the government departments as well [DOT] as to the lights supplied to the citizens. The First Minister has asked where does the interest of the farmers come in. My answer to him is, that the farmers of Canada through the government are paying for the lighting of these government buildings, and if we allow the company to increase the price, the farmers of Canada will have to pay for it. In 1894, when this company obtained legislation, this restriction was put in to prevent the possibility of destroying the competition which then existed, and this electric company has worked under that law for ten years. We are now asked to remove that restriction against the wish of the citizens and against the contract which the company entered into with the citizens in 1S94. The company cannot break faith with the city of Ottawa without our assistance, and we should not put it in their power to commit s.uch a breach of faith.


Mr. GALLIHER.: I wish to tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. -Sproule) that the Consumers Company and the Metropolitan Company were not in existence until four years after this charter was granted, so that the clause could not have been put in to secure competition.


Mr. STEWART.: When this law of 1894 was passed three companies were being amalgamated, and the idea of it was to prevent amalgamation with other companies that might be brought into existence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The existing law says that this company shall not acquire shares, debentures or capital stock in any other company, except for commodities that the other companies don't want, so that the
provision is general, and if the restriction is allowed to remain they cannot amalgamate with any company in the future.


William Alfred Galliher: Why has parliament granted to other companies in the city of Ottawa the privilege of doing this very thing 7


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is a strange argument.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope the Prime Minister now sees that the farmers have a vital interest in this matter, because it is they who suppply the money to light these government buildings, and if this restriction in the law' is removed the cost of electric light will go up and the farmers will have to pay more. As the custodian of the public purse of Canada the Prime Minister will be doing wrong for which he will be held accountable if he allows this change in the law, which to-day protects the Dominion treasury from the encroachments of the Ottawa Electric Company. If the Finance Minister were here to-day I would tell him the same thing. In the last election the Prime Minister received the confidence of the people of Ottawa who returned two supporters of his, and to-day the citizens of Ottawa through their two representatives in this House, and through two of their newspapers, and through the petitions they have sent here demand that the government shall portect them. I would say to the members for Ottawa that if I were in their place I would offer my resignation and test the feeling of the people on this question. If the two members for the city of Ottawa did that, parliament would soon know whether the people of Ottawa are in earnest or not. I say that every man who votes for this Bill is voting against the interests of the citizens of Ottawa. If this Bill is passed, to-day competition will be removed, amalgamation permitted, and other mergers will be allowed to take place in this city.


William Mulock: Perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) would like to know why I oppose this Bill ? I assume that the Ottawa Electric Company has acquired its charter from the Dominion parliament, because it probably carries on business in the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec. That may be technically a justification for its having a Dominion charter, but there is no doubt that practically the functions of the company are chiefly confined to the city of Ottawa. I do not jmow whether or not it supplies electricity in the city of Hull, but at all events it is in substance a local company, and as a member of the Dominion parliament I hesitate to interfere with a matter that seems to me to be essentially local. This parliament is composed of members representing constituencies from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and they are not in as good a position to deal with a purely local question as would the provincial legis-

lature, or better still the municipal representatives of the people in the Ottawa city council. It is therefore my opinion that we ought not to interfere except with tlfe consent of the people of Ottawa. My hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) is extremely anxious to reform the leader of the government, doubtless with a view to securing the defeat of this Bill. Let me point out to him where he might with greater effect apply his influence. Immediately to the right of him is the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Haggart) and a little further on is his own leader the member for Carleton (Mr. R. L. Borden) whose constituency adjoins the city of Ottawa, and many of whose constituents are consumers of electricity supplied by this company. If my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) would bring his influence to bear on his own leader and get him to change his views, there probably would be sufficient change of sentiment on the other side of the House to enable my hon. friend and myself to defeat this Bill. I have not yet heard the hon. gentleman denounce the leader of the opposition for leading his party to support this Bill. Why are not his strong diatribes directed against the leader of the opposition ? It is not a party question or a government question and if the leader of the opposition will use his best influence I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) and I with our small forces combined with those the leader of the opposition could bring to our assistance might be successful. I have not yet seen my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) make any bona fide attempt to convert those on liis own side of the House who are more or less supposed to be willing to receive his advice. If my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean), instead of trying to make party capital of this would commence bis missionary work in his own ranks. I perhaps might do missionary work over here and we might accomplish some good.


William Findlay Maclean: If the Postmaster General will succeed in converting his leader it will make it all the easier for me to do some converting on my side of the House. Again I say to the Postmaster General, now that he is joining with me in antagonizing this Bill, that he ought to go to his friends around him, who have made the same speech that he has made, and tell them that in the interest of the farmers of this country there ought to be the most careful expenditure of public money, and that no laws should be passed that would do away with the protection which the people of this country enjoy.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK  M.@: v hon. friend has not touched the point I raised. I want to know what he thinks of the conduct o' his leader.


William Findlay Maclean: The Postmaster General was not in the House ten minutes Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
ago, when this very question came up, and when the leader of the oppposition asked the House to judge him by his record when the vote comes. I am not going to prejudge him. He has already put himself on record on this question. A man who is too ready to deliver lectures before they are required puts himself out of court, and I do not propose to begin.


William Mulock: The reason I referred to the leader of the opposition was that when the Bill was up on Wednesday night, I observed that the leader of the opposition voted with me against the Bill, l do not know whether his views have changed.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought it was bad enough for the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) to have made that mistake, but I would have hardly expected it from the Postmaster General. I voted for the preamble of the Bill, which contains five sections. To three of these there is no objection; but with regard to the other two sections I have thus left myself quite open. 1 had hardly thought that explanation would have been necessary for the Postmaster General, an old parliamentarian of twenty-five years experience.


Mr. BERGERON.: After the remarks of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean), it seems to be necessary for a man who votes on this Bill to explain his vote. 1 was a member of the subcommittee which was charged with examining this Bill thoroughly before it was brought to the House. We worked at it for some time, and I think we did our duty, and I may say to the hon. member for South York that I have not seen any one, directly or indirectly, in regard to this measure. I had not known before that the Ottawa Electric Company was furnishing electricity for the parliament buildings. I remember that in the old times we used to make our own electricity. 1 would like to know why it was that the government decided to buy its electricity from the Ottawa Company instead of manufacturing it. If it was because it was cheaper to buy it, that would have some bearing on this subject. Before I go any further, I would ask the Acting Minister of Public Works if he knows why this was done ?


Mr. HYMAN.: The change was made some years ago. I understand, that the increased number of lights required for the buildings would have necessitated a considerably larger plant than we had, and I have- no doubt that it was felt by the department that it would be cheaper to buy the electricity from the company than to manufacture it. With regard to any effect that this Bill may have on the charges to the government, it must be remembered that if the charges made by this company at any time are beyond what the Department of

Public Works consider to be fair and reasonable, the department can supply their own electric power.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: The city of Ottawa can do the same.
Mr. Hl'MAN. The city of Ottawa can do the same.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The city of Ottawa cannot start a similar plant without buying out these corporations.
Mr. IIYMAN, I am confining myself to answering the hon. gentleman's question. If at any time the charges made by this company or any other appear to be excessive, the Public Works Department will, I presume, take into consideration the question of supplying electricity itself, and, if necessary, ask parliament for an appropriation to put in its own plant.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I infer that the department find that the company are not charging exorbitant prices. To come to the Bill, my hon. friend from South York, as is liis privilege, wants to raise a very big question-the question of municipalizing or nationalizing works of this kind. To my mind this is a very ordinary Bill. Here is a company asking for power to increase its capital. We grant that nearly every day. Various companies come to us and ask for increased privileges ; and these are companies which have been organized by the Dominion parliament. We are asked to increase the capital stock of this company -why should we not do it ? Parliament has already, on Wednesday night, sanctioned the preamble of the Bill. The first clause provides that the capital may be increased to $1,500,000. We agreed to that. The second clause provides for increasing the borrowing power of the company from fifty per cent to seventy-five per cent of the capital. I do not see anything extraordinary in that. By the third clause they want power to buy some stock, and to pay money for it instead of goods, wares, merchandise, and so forth. We have given that power to other companies, and it seems to me that it is. better to pay money for stock than to acquire it in these other ways. The last clause, the fourth, which is not before the House, but will be before it in a few minutes, provides for increasing the borrowing power from twenty-five to fifty per cent. My hon. friend from South York says this Bill is going to impose a great hardship on the people j*f Ottawa. There are three companies here. The Ottawa Electric Company was the first. It made a contract with the city of Ottawa, and it stood by its contract. We have to protect municipalities, but we must also protect those who have invested their money in enterprises of this kind. The city of Ottawa did not stand by its contract, but encouraged tbe incorporation of other companies-the Consumers'
and the Metropolitan. The latter is doing nothing at all ; it stands like a threat in the way. The Consumers' Company has a right to sell light at .52 cents per ampere hour, but it has offered to sell at .36 cents. The Ottawa Company does the same. Neither company is paying a dividend, as this price does not pay them. If we grant this Bill to the Ottawa Electric Company, the worst that could happen would be that the citizens of Ottawa would pay .52 cents per ampere hour. It Is not proven that they will ; it is not probable that they will. To show that the people of Ottawa are not crushed by the prices they have to pay for electric lighting, we had produced before the subcommittee many papers which justify the position we have taken. We asked what electricity cost in the different cities of Canada, and we find that in Quebec the price is .60 cents per ampere hour, in Montreal, .60 cents, in Toronto from .60 cents to .40 cents, in Halifax .63 cents, in Winnipeg .85 cents to .60 cents, in Hamilton .75 cents to .50 cents, and in Ottawa .36 cents. In view of all these facts the committee came to the conclusion that it would not be right to prevent these people from coming to parliament and asking for the privileges they desired. I considered it my duty to vote in that sense and intend to do so now, and in the position I take I am a perfectly free agent, perfectly free to vote one way or the other.


Robert Stewart: I do not know where my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) got the figures he has just given the House. I have not obtained any figures, but I have asked for information from gentlemen in this House who live in Montreal and Toronto, and the figures they give me do not agree with those which my hon. friend has just given. I am afraid, therefore, that whatever source he obtained his information from is not at all to be depended on. Not long ago there were several electric light companies in Montreal, but they became all amalgamated into the one. company, and the result has been that the prices for electric light are much higher to-day in that city than they were a few years ago. Those hon. gentlemen who live in Montreal will know whether this be a true statement of fact or not. As regards the city of Toronto, I am informed by a gentleman, who is not at all interested in the measure except In a very general way, and as one who has heard the question debated in this House, that the rate in Toronto is less than what is charged in Ottawa to-day. If that be the case, if It be the case that in Ottawa, where electrical power can he produced very much cheaper than in Toronto, the rate is higher than in the latter city, then the figures just given us by the hon. member for Beauharnois cannot be correct. But we are told by the hon. Minister of Justice that the city of Ottav>
has a remedy in its own hands, inasmuch



'3183 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
as it can make its own electricity. The same statement was made the other evening by the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Galliher). But a year ago when the city council of Ottawa were discussing the question of submitting a bylaw to the citizens authorizing the council to borrow money to establish their own electric light system, a letter was written to council by the secretary-treasurer of the Ottawa Electric Company which, in view of this statement by the Minister of Justice and the promoter of the Bill, I would ask permission to read to the House.
Ottawa, Ont., March 29th, 1904. John Henderson, Esq.,
City Clerk, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-I am instructed by the directors ot this company to call the attention of your council to the fact that they have been advised that your council has no power to lease electric power as it proposes for any purpose. In view of this the directors of this company feel some embarrassment as to whether they should or should not put in a tender in response to your advertisement, and they would respectfully suggest that your council should seriously consider its present position before any further complications arise, as this company may feel it their duty to take steps to prevent the contemplated action of the city.
In this connection the directors of this company would also desire to say that they have been further advised that even if your council had power to lease it could not do anything in the direction of the operation of a municipal lighting plant until it had exercised the provisions of those sections of the Municipal Act commonly called the ' Conmee Act.'
Your council will, of course, appreciate the fact that the directors of this company will consider it their duty to their shareholders to take all proper steps to protect their interests, .and they therefore trust that your council may take such steps as may be necessary to avoid further conflict.
As an evidence of the good faith of this protest, I am instructed to say that the present feeling of the directors of this company is that in the event of the city taking proceedings under the Conmee Act, they will recommend their shareholders to permit their property to be sold to the city.
In view of the fact that this company has a perpetual franchise, and that its property is now in the best shape, such a purchase would no doubt be more advantageous to the city than any other plan looking to municipal ownership. The directors of this company trust that the situation will be carefully considered by your council before further steps are taken.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) D. R. STREET,
,	Secretary-treasurer.
As shown by this letter the position taken by the company is directly contradictory of the opinion given by the Minister of Justice and the promoter of the Bill, and under the circumstances I would not be inclined to consider it safe to leave the city of Ottawa in the hands of the company.
Robert Stewart: 
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That was said before the sub-committee.


Robert Stewart: I pointed out that the Ottawa. Company submitted a financial statement before the committee and that the argument is that the Ottawa Electric Company is not making any money and that therefore this House should put them in a position to make more money at the expense of the consumers of electric light in Ottawa, and I ask members on both sides not to give them that power. It is not a fair thing to the ratepayers of the city of Ottawa. There is another point which I wish to make rather as a warning than as an argument. The same gentlemen who have capital in the Ottawa Electric Company also control the Ottawa Electric Street Railway Company. The Ottawa Street Railway Company is a splendidly managed institution and it is a good investment for those who have their capital invested in it. A short time ago there was a discussion between the Ottawa Street Railway and the corporation of the city of Ottawa as to whether it would be advisable for the city of Ottawa to buy the Ottawa Railway Company and manage the railway themselves. The Ottawa Street Railway Company fixed as a price of their stock $250 per share, the shares having cost them $100. I am not blaming them for that, but the warning I wish to give is that if parliament is going to legislate to-day for the relief of the Ottawa Electric Company the citizens of Ottawa may some day come to this House and ask for legislation to enable them to lessen the profits which the Ottawa Street Railway makes for the capitalists who are in both companies. I understand that a new clause, No. 5 has been added by the committee. When we come to that clause, I have an amendment which 1 propose to submit to the House.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Stewart) challenged the figures which I put before the House. I want to tell him very plainly that they were produced before the subcommittee.


Mr.   W.@: 'f. MACLEAN. From whom ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not remember from whom, but they were placed on the table. Other members may have them because they were typewritten, they were difficult to read and I asked somebody there, whom, I do not know, to put them more plainly, and they were written in lead pencil. I have now compared them with this typewritten copy which was placed on the table of the subcommittee and they are the same. My hon. friend (Mr. Stewart) knows (hat we have asked all the explanations that we could get. The hon. member from Ottawa (Mr. Stewart) should not have spoken as he did about members from other parts of the country, in view of the fact that the members have been very generous to the city of Ottawa. We do not begrudge this generous treatment, but at the same time we should not be told that we have nothing to do with a Bill which deals with the city of Ottawa because we come from a distance from this city ; this is a public measure in a way. They are asking parliament for some privileges and we are entitled to grant them if we see fit, and I am surprised and sorry to hear my hon. friend say that we should not pass such legislation because we come from a distance.


Charles Smith Hyman: Statements have been made more than once to the effect that the city of Ottawa has broken faith with this company in regard to some contracts. I think the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Hagggart) referred to the matter and it seeems to me that the hon. member for Ottawa should make some explanation in regard to it.


Mr. HAGGART.: He did.


Mr. FOSTER.: There seems to be a general desire to have every member on record with reference to this question and I do not hesitate to put myself on record. I do not propose to argue it very much. I look at it this way ; it is a matter in which the city of Ottawa is primarily interested ; it is they who have to give the profits to both of these companies, the Consumers and the Metropolitan. They gave a franchise to this company upon a certain charter and it is this charter which it is now proposed to change. It is a matter which I think may fairly be put on the ground of good faith, that if the city of Ottawa gave a franchise upon a charter the conditions of which were well known to it, and if it is now proposed to change that charter and so relieve the company to which it gave the franchise, there ought to be practically an agreement between the city of Ottawa which

gave the franchise and the people who have that charter, in order that good faith may he kept.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: But the city of Ottawa had another purpose in view ; they gave a charter to the Consumers, in order to induce competition and obtain cheaper rates for light. That was entirely within their rights. The city of Ottawa when it chartered the Consumers' Company did two things ; it chartered a company and said : Go in aud compete, and we will get the advantage of the competition ; we give you a franchise hut we forbid you to amalgamate. The city set the maximum price which the company could charge for light, a maximum price which *was satisfactory to the city. The city therefore had two strings to its bow and it seems to me that both of these strings are being pulled out ; the city is losing its competitive company and therefore the advantages which it got from competition. That being the state of the case I think that we can well afford to let the two companies light out the question of the low rates at present existing, between them. If the two companies cannot come to a conclusion and agree upon a price that will give a fair profit, that is not the fault of the city, and I do not think that parliament ought to intervene in order to get them out of that difficulty.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is a great deal in what the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has said with respect tc the position now occupied by the city of Ottawa in view of the fact that they granted the franchise upon a charter which the company had, but my hon. friend must remember that there is nothing in this amendment which can in any * way affect the franchise granted to the company by the city of Ottawa. As I understand, the franchise granted by the city of Ottawa limits the rates which this company can charge. This amendment will not affect them ; they cannot violate that. I do not think there is very much to be said in so far as the contract is concerned, but with respect to the other protection, with respect to the competition of which my hon. friend speaks, when he says that the Consumers' Company was incorporated especially for the purpose of competing with this Company, and in order to make that competition effective it was provided in the franchise that they would not have the power to amalgamate with another corporation, allow me to point out that this is a provision of the Consumers' charter. We are not dealing with the Consumers' Company, we are dealing with another which is entirely distinct and separate. If the corporation of Ottawa has accomplished its purpose, in so far as getting competition is concerned, or securing competition-


George Eulas Foster: It has.


George Eulas Foster: 


Charles Fitzpatrick: Clearly it has not, because it has not made sufficient provision in the franchise to protect them but they have another protection.


Robert Laird Borden: What my hon. friend means is this, that they have accomplished their purpose if you leave the charter as it was passed, upon which they received their franchise.


Charles Fitzpatrick: They have accomplished their purpose if we deprive this corporation of these privileges which every other corporation is granted, if we deprive this corporation of those rights which it would have under the general law of the country ; that is to say, they accomplish their purpose if we help them to do it. But they have had in view this contingency, because they have made provision for what may occur with respect to the consequences resulting from amalgamation, they have made provision for an opportunity to compete themselves with this company, and no one wants to deprive them of that. They have that power under the Act of 1894, and my hon. friend read a moment ago a letter emanating from this corporation to the effect that the corporation of Ottawa has no power to enter into competition with them unless under a provision of the Con-mee Act. My hon. friend was careful not to tell us that the corporation's solicitor stated before the subcommittee that undoubtedly the corporation had the power to do so. B ut independently of that altogether, let me draw the attention of the committee to this fact, that under the franchise the corporation of Ottawa has reserved to themselves the right to use the poles of this Consumers' Company if they want to string their wires upon them ; they have effectively protected themselves by reserving the right to put their own wires on the poles of this company. It seems to me we are here to do justice to corporations. I quite understand there is a desire in certain parts of the country to encourage corporations to enter into works of this sort. Now, I say it would be a calamity to this country for municipali-tiesjo take up the business now done by private corporations ; it would be a calamity, and my hon. friend cannot point to a single instance in which any municipality has ever taken up work of that sort and carried it out succesfully.


William Findlay Maclean: I can give him dozens of instances. Now that he has challenged me, let me give him one. The towns of Port Arthur and Fort William to-day are doing their own municipal telephone business at one half what the Bell Telephone Company used to charge. The city of Guelph to-day is doing its own street railway business, its own electric lighting, and giving facilities for the establishment of industries in a way that is adding to the welfare of the people and promoting their interests. The town of Braeebridge, the town of St. Thomas, town after town I can
33 S9

mention, that are doing their own municipal lighting. Two great examples are the city of Detroit and the city of Chicago, and nearly every city of England is doing successfully its municipal trading. I know that the hon. gentleman is going to deny the case of England ; but every day instance after instance is reported showing the success of municipal ownership of electric lighting. The only ease where it has ever failed is where the insidious operation of these private corporations has intervened, chiefly in the city of Philadelphia, where private companies have stood in the way of municipal operation of public utilities. The enemies of public operation of these utilities have been these private corporations themselves.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot spend my time making a long speech in answer to these vague statements. I repeat the assertion that the one attempt that was made in this way was in Glasgow, and we all know the result of that. The result was absolute disaster, as everybody knows who is acquainted with the circumstances. My hon. friend talks about Port Arthur and Fort William. Where are their telephone systems to-day ? They are so far unsuccessful that they cannot even get into the railway station.


William Findlay Maclean: Why ? Because you will not give them relief.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is idle to discuss the question with my hon. friend. These are tilings that he talks about, he does not argue about them, he does not reason about them, he merely talks about them. I may be wrong, but I believe myself in private corporations doing this sort of work. I believe these corporations have tended towards the development of this country, and that neither the telephone system, nor electric lighting, nor the street railway systems, in this country, or any other country, would ever amount to anything were it not for private enterprise. I contend that when a private individual has the enterprise to put his money into works of this kind, it is the duty of this parliament to protect him. I do not believe in expropriation, either for the benefit of a municipality or the benefit of a politician.


John Crawford: I come from a town where they have municipal lighting-the town of Neepawa. We have our own electric light plant and our own telephone system, and they are both successful, and are both paying.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How long in operation ?


John Crawford: Our 'phone system has been in operation four or five years and our electric light about four years.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The people of Ottawa had an opportunity to expropriate the street railway system, why did they not take advantage of it ?


William Findlay Maclean: We have had a confession here to-day that it is well the country should make a note of. The Minister of Justice says he opposes public ownership of public utilities. He says his experience and his reading go to show that it is a failure, and when I instanced the case of Port Arthur and Fort William, he said that they cannot even get their telephones into the railway station. When his colleague, the late Minister of Railways, introduced the Railway Act two years ago he pledged himself that there was a clause in that Bill which would compel these railway companies to give these private telephone systems access to their stations for the benefit of the municipality and private telephone companies. If that law was enforced to-day, if the Minister of Justice did his duty in enforcing that law, he would put the Grand Trunk Railway Company, he would put the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and he would put the Bell Telephone Company into the criminal court for breaking the law against combinations of this kind. I make that declaration knowing the facts, and I challenge him now. Why does he not do his duty and enforce the criminal law against these combinations ? We were told in the Telephone Committee to-day that an effort was made in the county of York within a year to have a combination of that kind declared to be against the public interest, and we have not succeeded ; and the reason is because we have in this country public men like the Minister of Justice, we have great law officers of the Crown, we have attorney generals in all the provinces, we have Crown attorneys everywhere, and none of them can be induced to move in the interests of the people. But across the line you see the President of the United States, you see the Attorney General of the United States, you see a new department created Called the Department of Corporations, and all the officers of that department are to-day engaged in an active warfare against these corporations to compel them to do their duty towards the people. We don't see that in this country ; on the contrary, we see the Minister of Justice getting up


Charles Marcil: I would call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that section 2 of this Bill is under discussion.


William Findlay Maclean: %I think I am within my rights in replying to the Minister of Justice ; it was he who strayed from the question in the first place. But I will come back to the proposition. The proposition is one to allow an amalgamation to take place between these two companies. One of the members for Ottawa says that this company has pleaded poverty in asking for this legislation. He tells us that the companies desire to amalgamate because their profits are not large. It has been shown that their profits are only five per cent. The men who own this electric light company and the street



railway know whether they are making money or not. Everybody knows that these men manipulate their own accounts. They have large supply accounts between themselves and other companies with which they are associated, and they pay a big profit in that way. How have the street cars been built in Ottawa? They have been built by a subsidiary company, which has been paid large amounts for the cars which they have supplied for the street railway. What is the Dominion of Canada paying this company to-day ? At page 49 of the estimates it will be found that we propose to vote $75,000 to be paid to the company for the lighting of these buildings and $8,000 for the energy to drive the elevators. This is the game that is to be worked ; once they raise their rates on the citizens of Ottawa, they will come to the Minister of Public Works and say : We are not getting enough money, we have been losing money, we have had to advance our rates in the city and we are going to advance them here. This proposition is to enable these companies to amalgamate, to do away with the competing clause, to advance rates on the people of Ottawa and then to put up the rates on the people of Canada, when to-day, under two items of the estimates, we are voting $83,000 to this company.


Mr. W. WEIGHT.: Mr. Chairman, I was very much surprised indeed at the wild and exaggerated statements made by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). 1 wish simply to say that in the town that I come from we run an electric lighting plant and water works system and make it pay. I am not familiar with the method of measuring light by the ampere hour but I am acquainted with what some of the people of Ottawa are paying for their light and I wa A to say that they are paying in Ottawa 75 per cent more than we are making the people pay in the town from which I come.


Robert Stewart: I do not rise for the purpose of continuing the argument, but I simply wish to answer the statement that was made to the committee by the hon. Acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman). He said that it had been stated that the city of Ottawa had violated its agreement with the Ottawa Electric Company. I do not know why such a statement should be made and as a representative of the city of Ottawa I wisll to give it the most emphatic denial. The corporation have violated no agreement made with the Ottawa Electric Company.


Mr.   I@: I was very much Interested in that portion of this discussion which took place between my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). The difficulty that I have in following what was advanced by the Minister of Justice is this ; he says that we can pass this measure although it is not in accordance Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
with what virtually was the agreement between the city of Ottawa and the company, and he says that we should alter that legislation because it is a usual thing to embody legislation of this amending character in charters granted to other companies. Well, I am free to admit that such is the case. There is no doubt of the fact that a great many of the charters that have been granted by this parliament and by provincial legislation throughout Canada have contained exactly the provision which this company now seeks to embody in its charter by way of amendment. I would like to know from the hon. Minister of Justice, because my mind is open in regard to the argument he has advanced, whether if we have a charter issued to the Ottawa Electric Company and a franchise granted' upon that particular charter by the city of Ottawa and if we have the fact established, as I think it is established, that without that franchise so granted this company could not have carried on its undertaking in the city of Ottawa at all, having regard to vested rights, to rights established under contract by agreement of parties, we are now justified, without the consent of the city of Ottawa, to alter that charter which seems to have been an essential element in the agreement entered into between the city and the company ? That is the difficulty I have in regard to this. I know there is something to be said on the other side. I know what the hon. Minister of Justice has said. The circumstance adverted to in the debate a few nights ago that the city of Ottawa last year was perfectly willing to accept that Which it is not now willing to accept is a circumstance to which weight may be given, but after all does it not come back to this that there was a distinct agreement between the city and the corporation, embodied in the franchise granted by the city upon the charter which the company is now asking to have amended, and how is it possible for us in the face of that to alter that charter in any material or essential element without the consent of the city of Ottawa ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Would my hon. friend (Mr. R. B. Borden) be good enough to apprise me in what respect we are altering the charter in such a way as to effect the franchise, the franchise being the agreement of course ?


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me, with all deference to my hon. friend, that the franchise was granted upon this very charter and it may have been granted for the very reason that subsection (d) of section 7 was embodied in the original charter. That may have been a material part of the inducement on account of which the city of Ottawa granted the franchise to this company and if we are at liberty to believe that such is the case, if we are not now bound to believe that such is the case, how can we
319;

alter the terms of the charter which was the inducement to the city of Ottawa in granting the franchise ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no alteration of the charter in principle. The charter provides practically for the general principle governing all corporations of this sort. The general principle of law is that corporations of this sort shall have the right to acquire the shares of any other company doing business in a like manner. That is the general principle of the Companies'' Clauses Act and of the Joint Stock Companies' Act and that is the principle which applies to nine out of ten charters granted by this parliament. This charter merely provides for an extension of that principle. It provides for acquiring stock in another company for a cash consideration instead of for a consideration in goods, wares and merchandise. What is the difference in principle whether you acquire stock for goods, wares and merchandise or whether you acquire it for cash ?


Mr.   I@: However, true it is that the principle to which he refers may have been consecrated in the Companies' Clauses Act or in private legislation we find that it was not consecrated in this charter, but that there was an express departure from it in this charter. My hon. friend says there is no difference in principle but when you get down to the question of a bargain between individuals or between corporations it is not a question of principle but details are all important. For example, the price agreed upon between two contracting parties one whom undertakes to do a particular kind of work for a certain sum is only a detail. There is nothing touching principle in it but after all it is the essential part of the contract and it is a very important detail of substance. Are we at liberty to alter that detail of substance without the consent of one of the contracting parties? I am bound to say, that being the case, and in view of the discussion which has taken place it is a very serious difficulty as far as I am concerned.


Charles Fitzpatrick: So far as we are dealing with the corporation in respect to the franchise which was granted we have gone to the limit in respect to the vested rights that we are asked to protect. We have gone to the extreme limit and we are not attempting to deal with this question, as I understand it, by virtue of the franchise or to infringe in any way upon the franchise gianted by the corporation to the company. We restrict the powers of the company to the limits of the franchise. It seems to me, that. is all the corporation should expect us to do; I do not believe in paternalism in any form.'
102* [DOT]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does not this restriction in the original Act prevent amalgamation ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Justice said :	I am in favour of corporations, I
support corporations. Well, there are a great many people who think that the whole government are more in favour of supporting corporations than they are of protecting the interests of the public. I notice that whenever a contract is made between the government and a private individual or a corporation we always hear a good deal of talk here about holding it sacred ; we are told that we cannot interfere with the contract made with the Canadian Pacific Railway with regard to its privileges in the Northwest Territories, and we never interfere with a contract unless the other party consents. If a contract is sacred as between the government and an individual it ought to be held equally sacred between the Ottawa Electric Company and the city of Ottawa. The Elec-rtic Company wants to violate its contract with the city of Ottawa, and if we permit them to do so we will have very little respect for the sacredness of contracts.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not want my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Stewart) to be under the impression that I submitted to the House figures which were not correct. My hon. friend (Mr. Stewart) asked me where I got the figures I have placed before the House, and I told him they were submitted to the subcommittee, and were not disputed by any one opposed to the Bill. My hon. friend from Ottawa was present at that subcommittee himself and he no doubt heard these figures read. I have just received the following statement from the manager of the Toronto Electric Light Company, and as it corroborates the statement I have made to the House, I shall read it:
Our rates for incandescent lighting are twenty cents per thousand watts with a discount of forty per cent for small stores and offices and sixty per cent for dwelling houses, churches and similar services. Large consumers get special rates. City arc light, $74.80 per year, commercial inclosed arcs, twenty cents per thousand, fifty per cent discount. Power rates vary according to consumption from two cents per horse-power hour to eight cents per kilowatt hour for elevators and intermittent service.


Robert Stewart: I accept the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) and I may say that although I was present at the committee I did not hear the figures read.
I thought that these figures were placed in tne hands of the hon. gentleman since he came to the House. [DOT]


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: They were read in the committee.
3:195


Robert Stewart: The hon. gentleman misunderstood me when he stated that I said that some of the gentlemen who' were supporting the Bill were not welcome here. I did not say that. My hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) was absent from the city of Ottawa for a few. years, but I think I can say that we are all glad that he is back again, because we like to meet him oe the streets of our city as well as in the House.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Thank you.


Mr. CHISHOLM.: It seems to me that if by auy means any particular company should get possession of all the water-power in the neighbourhood of this city, that company would have a monopoly that could not be competed against. Nothing would be left then but steam-power, and if the city of Ottawa or the government were to offer opposition to such a company the cost of the steam-power as compared with the water-power would effectually prevent them. It would seem that the Ottawa Electric Company can, if they so wish, raise their rates from .36 per ampere hour to .52 per ampere hour, and if they did increase them to the maximum it would mean that the government would have to pay about $40,600 a year more for its lighting. In view of this the representatives of the people here have a very considerable interest in this matter. I would like to know whether or not it is possible that this company can secure all the water-powers in the vicinity, because if so, they can produce electricity at one-third the cost of its production by steam and there would be very little chance for any competition.


Mr. BELCOURT.: I am opposed to section 2, but as my hon. colleague (Mr. Stewart) has given notice of an amendment which if adopted, will have the effect of removing our objection, I shall not divide the House on that section.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In my long experience in this House I have frequently seen figures submitted by corporations interested in legislation, and I frankly confess that I attach little importance to any ex-parte statements of that kind unless they are corroborated by independent evidence and unless we know what the actual facts are. These figures are as a general rule not reliable, and they should not be allowed to Influence the House unless they are verified by independent testimony or a careful analysis by a competent expert. There is a good deal in what has been said by the hon. member for East Huron (Mr. Chisholm). The statement is very generally made that this electric company is endeavouring to get control of all the water-power in the neighbourhood as well as the control of all the companies supplying heat, light and power, and that being the case we should be very careful. What is the object of the company doing
that ? As far as we know their only object can be to enable them to charge whatever price they like.


Mr. O. E. TALBOT.: How can you prevent that while they control the water power ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are trying to prevent it in another way. Now, we apply this principle in other directions. For years we refused to allow railway companies to amalgamate, because we desired to maintain competition ; but we found that they could overcome this provision by pooling receipts, which would enable them to put up then-rates. Of late years yve have required any railway company seeking power to amalgamate with another to name the company it wishes to amalgamate with, and then parliament would decide whether it would grant the power to amalgamate or not. We are carrying put that same principle here. The city of Otawa has endeavoured to secure competition in electric lighting. The city opposed the charter to this company in 1894 unless this provision was inserted, and the company accepted that restriction rather than incur the opposition of the city. Now, the company ask us to do away with that safeguard of Ottawa's interests. Should we do so ? The parliament of the country should be the last to interfere with any contract which secures the rights of the people. The Minister of Justice says that he is in favour of protecting the rights of corporations. The opinion of the country is that the government are too much inclined in that direction, and the voice of the country is saying in thunder tones that they should change their policy, and protect the people, who are unable to protect themselves. These corporations are wealthy ; they control newspapers. I asked one of the aldermen of Ottawa the other day why the Ottawa 'Free Press ' supported this Bill, and he said : ' This corporation practically controls the " Free Press." These corporations are able to bring influences to bear to gain their ends, but the consumers cannot do that. They are at the mercy of these corporations, and they look to parliament to protect them. Is parliament going to refuse that protection which the citizens of Ottawa secured a few years ago ? If we do not protect them, we shall fail in our duty to the public.


Mr. BLAIN.: I wish to express myself as against the part of this Bill which will create a monopoly and interfere with the right of the citizens of Ottawa to get cheaper light. When this matter was up last year, the hon. gentleman then representing the city of Ottawa protested against the Bill in very strong terms ; and now the gentlemen representing the city of Ottawa in this new parliament both express themselves in opposition to the clauses of the Bill which will take away from the citizens of Ottawa the right to get cheaper light. There has been some reference this after-


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: aiy.

noon to the amount of money these companies are earning. Last session the member for Ottawa placed a statement before the House showing that in 1903 the gross revenue of this company was $217,386.83, and the cost of management, operating and maintenance was $118,890.14', showing a gross profit for the year of $98,496.39, and after the expenses were deducted there was left a net profit for the year of $72,116.44. He further pointed out that the capital stock of the company was $1,000,000, on which, in 1903, they had paid a dividend of 7 per cent, besides carrying a large sum to rest account. He pointed out that the amount of money the company had already carried to rest account prior to 1903, added to the amount they were then carrying to that account, namely, $25,000, would make a total rest account of $150,000. Now, when the citizens of Ottawa, through their representatives, are protesting so strongly against this amalgamation, I do not think it is the duty of this parliament to assist this corporation against the best interests of the citizens. I object to it because it will postpone the day when the citizens of Ottawa shall have the opportunity of purchasing, if they see fit, the electric plant in order to do their own lighting. The Minister of Justice states that the municipal ownership of electric lighting and waterworks is not a success in this country ; but I hold an entirely different opinion, and we have illustrations of its success in almost every part of the province of Ontario. In my own town we have a very profitable waterworks system that was constructed by the municipal corporation many years ago, and that has been operated by it ever since ; and to day we regard it as the most valuable as set owned by the town. The citizens are obtaining very cheap water, there is no complaint whatever, and there would be a very strong protest against any man who would propose that the town should give up its ownership and control of that system. If we put this clause in force, it will postpone the day for many years when the citizens of Ottawa will have an opportunity to purchase this electric system.


Mr. GRANT.: Why ?


Richard Blain: For the reason that it will take away the rights that were given to the citizens by the former charter.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This amendment cannot in any way affect the right of the corporation to purchase.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend is trying to bring forward a legal point, and I do not wish to debate it with him ; but what I say is that it will postpone the day when the municipal corporation, if it should desire to purchase this plant and operate it in the interests of the citizens of Ottawa, will have the right to do so. Furthermore, it will increase the cost of that plant to the municipal corporation, because the result of the amalgamation will be that the stock will
go up. I am opposed to it for these reasons and some others that are important. This Bill I consider is an interference with the rights of the city, and is opposed by those hon. members who particularly represent the city in this House. One of them pointed out that a petition was presented against it containing 2,000 signatures. I do not think that a petition of 2,000 signatures .gives all who are opposed to this proposed amalgamation. I am quite sure that if the question were submitted to the citizens on its individual merits, we would have almost a unanimous vote against the amalgamation.


Mr. WHITE.: I do not wish to prolong this discussion to any extent, but I consider it my duty to define the position I take. Let me say, in the first place, that I sympathize to a considerable extent with the views expressed by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. Like him, I am not very enthusiastic about the great results expected to flow from the ownership of public utilities by municipal corporations. That is not however, the question we are now called upon to consider. What we really have to consider at this moment is whether the amendments proposed by this Bill are going to place the city of Ottawa in a worse position than It is in now. From the best consideration I have been able to give the question, I have come to the conclusion that if this Bill should pass with these amendments the city will be in a worse position as regards its lighting facilities than it is at present. Should we adopt the proposed amendments, the Ottawa Electric Company will be in a position to purchase the stock of the Consumers' Company which, under existing circumstances, it is not able to do, and the result will be a destruction of the competition now existing. I do not think we are called upon here to consider whether the Ottawa Electric Company, or any other company, is making money out of its business. What we are called to consider is whether we are by the legislation proposed, going to place one of the contracting parties in a worse position than it now occupies. Having considered the whole question from every point of view, I have come to the conclusion that if this Bill should pass, the city will be in a worse position and shall therefore vote against it.


Robert Laird Borden: Has any suggestion ever been made to leave the question to the determination of the Board of Railway Commissioners ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: As to regulating rates ?


Robert Laird Borden: No, as to whether or not the company should be given the power to acquire this stock. Of course the Railway Commission has no such jurisdiction at present, but it has .in an analogous matter, namely, the amalgamation ar-

i-angements between railway companies. It has also a jurisdiction over certain telephone and telegraph companies and companies formed for the purpose of transmitting light and heat by means of electricity. I do not know whether it has jurisdiction over all such companies, but it has over some of them, and it has occurred to me that some basis of agreement might be arrived at if the matter were submitted to the Railway Commission. I feel some difficulty in arriving at a conclusion because we have not here the franchise which was granted by the city of Ottawa to this corporation.


William Alfred Galliher: We had it before the special committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I am aware of that, but I am not aware that they took into consideration the exact point about which I have some difficulty. There is a great deal of matter to be considered by any one who wants to form a conclusion on this subject, and possibly the promoters on the one hand and the city on the other might consider whether or not they could arrive at a basis of agreement by a reference to the Railway Commission.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I have never heard the suggestion made, but if it were adopted, I do not think there is any machinery to carry it out.


Robert Laird Borden: I was just drafting, more for my own satisfaction than for the purpose of submitting it to the House, an amendment ; and as my hon. friend has some difficulty in seeing how my suggestion . could be carried out, 1 shall read the amendment, which may possibly provoke some discussion and lead to some satisfactory conclusion. By the amendment before the committee, everything is struck out of section 7, subsection D, after the word ' company.' I would suggest an addition after the word * company ' as follows :
Whenever thereunto authorized by order of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada upon application by the company, upon which application the city of Ottawa and ar.y ratepayers of the said city shall have the right to be heard. The said board, upon such aplica-tion, is authorized to make the said order or any order to the like effect upon such terms as it may see fit to impose or it may refuse to make any order thereon. And for the purpose aforesaid the board shall possess all the general powers conferred by the Railway Act, 1903.
I am not reading that as a perfect production, but merely to give the idea of what line the legislation might take, if the proposal should commend itself to the two bodies. '	*


Robert Laird Borden: 


Mr. KENNEDY.: When I saw the Bill first, I felt inclined to give it my support ; but the more I have looked at it since and the more I have heard about it, the greater reason I see for opposing it. It would be impossible for me to support it without going back on the stand I took some years ago in my own town when a somewhat similar proposition was before it. I cannot agree with the Minister of Justice in his statement that in all cases where corporations have attempted to take charge of public- utilities, the experiment was disastrous. Let me inform the hon. gentleman that in the town where I live, the town of New Westminster, British Columbia, we own our own waterworks and our own electric light. When our corporation took hold of these utilities, I was a member of the city council, and we had a very stiff fight with the gas company. They did their best to keep the city from entering on any such line of business, but without success, and to-day we have a cheaper light than they have either in Vancouver or Victoria. The city corporation owns the plant and runs it to our satisfaction in every way.	.
I believe there are many instances of the same kind, and I therefore think that the hon. gentlemen would be more careful in making assertions of this character. I was somewhat amused at the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) trying to make a party question of this as he has done twice, but we must remember that he has the burden of all the oppressed communities on his shoulders. I can vote with him conscientiously on this question, because I think, with some other gentlemen on that side of the House with whom I do not often agree, that these two companies should be allowed to tight this question out themselves, and that the people should be protected from both of them. The people of this city deserve a good deal of consideration, and I think the best thing we can do is to throw this Bill out. As far as I am concerned I intend to vote against it.


Robert Laird Borden: May I add one word in support of what my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Kennedy) and other hon. gentlemen have said. In the city of Halifax we have had a system of waterworks owned by the city for a great many years which has been carried on very successfully. That is a common thing all over the country, but besides that Dartmouth owns as a public utility the ferry between Halifax and Dartmouth, having taken it over some 10 years ago, and I am sure the citizens of Halifax and Dartmouth will bear me out in saying that a much better service is now given by that ferry between Halifax and Dartmouth, than was given under the ownership of the private company which owned it for many years before that date.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, yeas, 67 ; nays, 37.﻿3201

On section 5,

[Stage Direction]
Mr. STEWART moved
That section five be struck out and the following substituted therefor :
Provided, that the power to acquire shares m the capital stock, debentures or securities of other electric companies, or of companies possessing powers similar to those of this company, will not apply to the capital stock, debentures or securities of the Consumers Electric Company, Limited, or of the Metropolitan Electrical .Company, Limited, or their or either of their successors or assigns.
He said:	I only wish to say that when
this matter was first introduced into the House a number of those in favour of the Bill disclaimed the idea of doing anything or of authorizing anything that would mean the amalgamation of the Consumers with the Ottawa Electric Company. It was stated then and has been stated many times since that the evident intention was that the Consumers and the Metropolitan companies should be absorbed by the Ottawa Electric Company. If there are any gentlemen who have any doubt or suspicion that that is the meaning of the Bill they have now an opportunity of voting with us on my amendment which will prevent the company from absorbing the Consumers or Metropolitan Companies.
Amendment negatived, yeas, 30; nays, 61. Section agreed to.
['I think it woulld be quite in order for the Postmaster General to communicate with the premier the request that has been made.']
Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN moved to add the following as a new section :
6. Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as prejudicially affecting any of the rights of the municipal corporation of the city of Ottawa under its existing franchise agreements with the company and-the Metropolitan Electric Company, Limited, and the Consumers Electric Company, Limited, or either or any of them.
He said: This clause does not go as far as I think it should go, but possibly it may preserve some of the rights of the corporation of the city of Ottawa which otherwise might be affected. It is a clause to which it seems to me there could be no possible objection because the very reason put forward by those who are supporting the Bill as it stands at present is that nothing contained in the Bill does affect the company's franchises, and in order to make that perfectly plain I think we should at least embody this provision as clause 6 of the Bill. '


William Alfred Galliher: Of course I like to understand the meaning of any amendment but it seems to me there can be no objection to this. I think all of that is contained in clause 5, but if it makes it any clearer I am satisfied as promoter of the Bill to accept it.
Amendment (Mr. R. L. Borden) agreed to.
Bill as amended reported.



Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Referring to the return brought down on the 17th of February, 1905, Sessional Paper No. 63, in compliance with a motion made by Mr. Morin, what are the dates of the first payment made on account of the said sum mentioned in the said return, $6,215.82, and of the last payment thereof ?


Hon.   S@: The first payment was made on the 7th of October ; the second and last payment wTas made on the 13th of October of last year.


LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER AT BICQUET.
Mr. BERGERON asked :: 1.	What is the name of the lighthouse keeper at Bicquet, in the county of Rimouski ?
2.	What is his salary ?
3.	How much did the department pay to send for him at the close of navigation ?
4.	Has he an engineer's certificate qualifying him to take charge of the engines that work the alarm whistle ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Louis Pineault.
2.	$700 per annum.
3.	Nothing.
4.	The department does not exact such certificates from those officers.


TIMBER ON THE DUKIS RESERVE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT-by ifr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs decided to offer for sale the timber on -what is known as the Dukis Reserve ?
2.	Have the Indians entitled thereto agreed to a sale of the said timber ?
Rt.   H@: It is not the intention of the government to offer for sale the timber on wrJiat is known as the Dukis reserve.


POSTMASTER AT THESSALON.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER-for Mr. Boyces-moved :
For copies of all correspondence, documents and rulings relating to the dismissal or resignation of W. J. B. Dobie, as postmaster of Thessalon ; and all the papers relating to any application for rehearing of complaints or the re-appointment of Mr. Dobie.
Hon.   S@: I w'ould ask that that motion stand.


George Eulas Foster: Then it cannot come up again, as this is the last day.


William Mulock: Then let it drop.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for Algoma West (Mr. Boyce) may be here this evening.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand.


RAILWAY BETWEEN CAPLIN AND PASPEBIAC.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr. Poster-moved :
For a return of the following documents in respect of payments made on account of the subsidy voted in 1901 for a line of railway between Caplin and Paspebiac :
1.	Copy of authority to act, together with full instructions issued to Commissioner Mother-sill.
2.	Report and findings of Commissioner Mothersill.
3.	Sworn evidence of claimants who appeared before Commissioner Mothersill, as taken down by stenographer Roy.
4.	Copy of authority to act, and full instructions to Commissioner Langelier.
5.	Report and findings of Commissioner Langelier.
6.	Sworn evidence, if any, of claimants appearing before Commissioner Langelier.
7.	Affidavits presented to /Commissioner Langelier and subsequently.
8.	Copy of resolution or Order in Council adopting report of Commissioner Langelier.
9.	A statement giving each of the several payments made by the government since July 1st, 1904,- on account of the subsidy voted in 1901, for a line of railway between Caplin and Paspebiac ; showing in respect of every such payment to whom, by whom, on what date, in connection with part of the road, the date of original filing of claim, and on whose recommendation each payment was made.
10.	All correspondence which may have passed between the Department of Railways and Canals, or any person connected therewith, and Commissioner Langelier, in respect of the investigation and payment of said claims. Also all correspondence between the member for the county of Bonaventure and the department, and between said member and Commissioner Langelier on this subject.
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue).: There is no objection to this motion passing, but I wouid like to make two amendments. First, in paragraph 9, instead of saying ' since July 1, 1904 ' say ' since July 1, 1901.' Also I would like to add to the end of paragraph 10 :
As well as by the trustees of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway, C. N. Armstrong, T. C. Casgrain, K.C., J, Galindez, or any other person in their behalf, and the department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. CLEMENTS moved:: For a return showing the imports into Canada for home consumption from the United States ; and the exports of the same from Can-Mr. FOSTER.
ada to the United States ; and the duty on the same, giving Canadian duty and the United States duty, for the years 1903 and 1904, on the following articles :	Pork, all kinds ; apples ;
corn ; beans, raw, canned and otherwise ; tobacco, raw leaf ; cattle ; horses ; wool ; hides ; sugar beets ; hay ; eggs ; butter ; fowls.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I suppose the hon. gentleman would have no objection to putting in, after the word ' imports ' in the second line, the word's ' by provinces ' in order to put before the House the imports by provinces instead of putting them before the House in the form in which they are called for in the resolution. I think it is very important that we should know the volume of our imports into each province as well as the volume of imports into the country generally. The idea of the amendment is to show the imports by provinces.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Would that not show any way ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, that would not show because the resolution simply calls for a general statement.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


MOTINS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For copies of all correspondence between the government or any member thereof, or any person or persons, in reference to the encouragement of the beet sugar industry of Canada.- Mr. Clements-by Mr. Foster.
For copies of all correspondence, telegrams, papers, memoranda, &c., between the government and the War Office, and between the government and members of the Canadian militia, in regard to the granting of the King's South Africa medal to Canadians doing eighteen months South Africa war service.-Mr. Worthington-by Mr. Fowler.
For copies of all correspondence between the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or any officer of his department, and Mr. George S. Greene, junior, of New York, regarding the steel freight sheds of the harbour of Montreal ; together with the report of the said George S. Greene, junior, upon the plans submitted to him for an opinion.-Mr. Ames-by Mr. Foster.
Return showing : 1. The total amount of funds of all life insurance companies within the legislative power of this parliament, invested by way of purchase or loan, respectively, pursuant to the Insurance Act, and the par value, and also the estimated actual value, of securities upon which such investments are made.
2.	The portions of such funds invested in purchase pursuant to section 50 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) respectively, of the Insurance Act ; and the portions invested on loan pursuant to section 50, subclause 2 (a) and (b) respectively.
3.	The portions, if any, of such funds invested in purchase of or loan upon securities named in said section 50 (b) not in accordance with the provisions and restrictions set forth in said section 50 (b).

4.	The portions ol such funds invested in purchase of or loan upon, respectively, and any security or thing mentioned in said section 50, subclauses 3 and 4 respectively ; and stating whether and to what extent any portion thereof was so invested not in accordance with the provisions and restrictions set forth in said section 50, subclauses 3 and 4.
5.	All reports, if any, by the Deputy Minister of Insurance as to non-compliance with the- provisions of the Insurance Act with regard to investments so made.-Mr. Macdonell-by Mr. Henderson.
Copies of all correspondence, telegrams, letters, memoranda, Orders in Council, reports, &c., in possession of the government, or any member or official thereof,-in connection with the granting of an additional subsidy to the province of Prince Edward Island, in 1901, of $30,000 a year, and the basis on which the said subsidy was agreed to be paid to the province. -Mr. A. Martin.
Copies of all Orders in Council and of all correspondence between the Canadian and imperial governments, and of all papers relating to the relief of the Earl of Dundonald from the position of General Officer Commanding the Canadian militia.-Mr. Belcourt-by Mr. Logan.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 59) to amend the Act respecting the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court as to railway debts. -Mr. Geoffrion.
Charles Marcil: Shall I report the Bill ?


Robert Laird Borden: For what reason did it stand ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: For the purpose of a mending it.	,


Charles Marcil: It is proposed to add to subsection 3 after the word ' sheriff ' the words ' according to the laws of the province.


Mr. HAGGART  .@: Will not the effect of that be that a sale ordered by the Exchequer Court will cut out all securities ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The effect of the amendment would be to declare that in respect to a line of railway situated entirely within the limits of the province of Quebec, a sale made under the order of the Exchequer Court would have the same effect as a sale made by a sheriff in our province. I am not very enthusiastic about the Bill, but I do not see any objection to it.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty I would have about making this amendment which may be a very desirable one, without knowing anything about it, is that it makes a certain provision as to the effect of a sale by the Exchequer Court in one province only. Why is it not equally necessary ir the other provinces ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not familiar with the effect of this sale in the other provinces. With us a sale made by the sheriff relieves the property sold of all claims. The property becomes replaced by money and any demands that are made upon the property are to be a charge against the money.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not familiar with the provisions of the Exchequer Court Act at the present moment as I did not anticipate this Bill was coming up. Is there any provision to the effect that a sale shall have generally so that we may have the law definite and certain as to the effect of a sale by the Exchequer Court in every province ? If we have not that, certainly it seems to me extremely obvious that we cannot restrict ourselves to legislating for the province of Quebec alone, but that if an amendment is necessary it mig'ht be made to extend to. the other provinces.


Mr. GEOFFRION.: I cannot state offhand whether there is such a provision. In 1903 we passed a law giving authority to the Exchequer Court, when a road was insolvent and could not be operated properly, to put it under a receivership and proceed with the sale of it. WThen that Act came to be applied in the province of Quebec we found that the court could not proceed with the sale and give a clear title, as could be done under a sheriff's sale. We wanted to sell a railway and nobody would buy it, because we could not give a clear title. In the Insolvency Act and the Winding-up Act, we had to provide in these Acts that a sale under them should have the same effect as a sheriff's sale. We were asked what would we do if the railway was partly in the province of Quebec and partly in another province, and the Bill was amended so as to apply only to a road situated wholly in the province of Quebec. By this amendment we could give a clear title in the province of Quebec just as under a sheriff's sale, and as to the other provinces the matter will remain under the English law as before.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not criticise the Bill so far as it applies to the province of Quebec ; I leave that to those who are familiar with the law of that province. My objection is that if there is no provision which applies generally throughout Canada as to a sale by the Exchequer Court, the way to deal with that is, not for a private member, even of my hon. friend's eminence, to bring in legislation dealing with a single province, but for the Department of Justice to bring in a Bill dealing generally with the effect of a sale by the Exchequer Court in all the provinces of Canada.


Victor Geoffrion: The general Act applies all over Canada, and every one is satisfied with it. but when we come to the province of Quebec it'is necessary to do as has
3?07

320S
been clone in the case of tlie Insolvency Act, which contains a special stipulation for the province of Quebec. It is really an oversight in the general Act, and we are trying to remedy it by this amendment. The Act as it is at present is unworkable in the province of Quebec.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Does the hon. gentleman provide for any advertisements ?


Victor Geoffrion: No. That point was raised by my hon. friend from Iberville (Mr. Demers), and it was thought better to leave that matter entirely in the hands of the judge of the Exchequer Court.


Robert Laird Borden: There appears to be an oversight, but does not that oversight exist with regard to every province of Canada ?


Mr. GEOFERION.: I do not think so.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood from the Minister of Justice that it did. It must exist in regard to the other provinces unless you can show that there is some general provision in the Exchequer Court Act declaring what the effect of a sale by that court shall be. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Geof-frion) finds a defect in the law and he asks us to remedy it in respect only to one province, whereas the remedy should apply to all provinces.


Victor Geoffrion: The Act is in operation in the other provinces, and they do not complain.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. They do not complain, because I suppose the law has never been invoked in any of these provinces, and they have never found out that the defect exists. A particular case in the province of Quebec should not induce us to remedy the law only in respect to that province, but it is a very good reason for applying the remedy all over Canada. The practice in Nova Scotia is to have sales of real estate by the sheriff under an order of the court, but there is no provincial law which would apply to a sale by authority of the Exchequer Court. Therefore, this law should not be confined to the province of Quebec, but a general law should be framed which would have effect throughout Canada. That seems to be an elementary principle on which this parliament should act. I venture to submit, therefore, that the Act should not pass in its present form.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: For my part I do not see any objection to the Bill applying to all the provinces. I do not know the effect of a sheriff's sale in other provinces ; but in our province, a sheriff's sale wipes out with a few exceptions all the hypothecs and liens granted on the property prior to the time of the sale, and gives clear title to the property.


Victor Geoffrion: 


Robert Laird Borden: Then you apply the proceeds to the hypothecs in the order of their priority ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: When a property is sold by the sheriff, all the hypothecs are purged at the same time, and the purchaser receives a clear title in all respects. I may add that under the insolvency law of 1875, and I think also in the law of 1863, there was a special provision with regard to the sale of property in the provinces of Que-bee, and the purpose of this Bill is to apply to sales made under the authority of the Exchequer Court the same principle. For my part, I do not see any objection to apply the Bill to the whole country.


Mr. LANCASTER.: A sale by the sheriff in the province of Ontario has not the same effect as a sale in the province of Quebec. It will only give whatever right or title the person against whom the execution issues had in the property. It will not necessarily give a clear title at all, or any guarantee that there is a good title. Therefore,
I think, the objection of the hon. leader of the opposition is a very serious one, and ought to be considered. After the statement of the Minister of Inland Revenue,
I do not think this law would have the same effect in the other provinces that it would have in the province of Quebec ; and, if so, we ought not to pass it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not say that it would have the same effect in the other provinces ; on the contrary, I am not sufficiently versed in the laws of the other provinces to know whether a sheriff's sale would have the same effect in them as it has in the province of Quebec. At the same time, so far as my province is concerned, I think it desirable that this Bill should pass. I see no objection to declaring that such a sale will have the same effect as a sheriff's sale, without mentioning the province of Quebec. We might perhaps amend the Bill m that way.
At six o'clock, committee took recess. After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. MONK.: I have received a memorandum from some lawyers in the province of QuebeG in regard to this Bill. I am afraid that if we pass the Bill in its present form It may do considerable injury to bondholders of railways situated in the province of Quebec, being calculated to injure the credit of railway companies in our province. I have not gone very fully into the matter but I see that the object of the Bill is to assimilate a sale ordered by the Exchequer I Court in the matter of debts due by rail-

way companies, to a sale by the sheriff in our province. The effect of the sheriff's sale in Quebec, as members are aware, is extremely sweeping. Article 781 of our Code of Civil Procedure, under the title ' Effect of Sheriff's Sale ' enacts :
781. A sheriff's sale discharges property from all other real rights not mentioned in the conditions of sale except :
1.	Servitudes with which the immovable is charged.
2.	Hypothecs resulting from the commutation of seignorial rights except as to arrears accrued previously to the sale.
3.	Rights of emphyteusis, of substitution not yet opened, or of customary dower not yet opened, except when it appears on the face of the proceedings that there exists a prior or preferable claim.
These are the only claims that the sheriff's sale in our province does not wipe out. With the exception of these special claims which I have just enumerated the purchaser at the sheriff's sale takes the property free from any lien, privilege, mortgage or encumbrance whatever.
The contention in the memorandum which has heen sent to me is that the object of this legislation is, by obtaining from the Exchequer Court an order for the sale of the railway by assimilating that sale to a sheriff's sale, as the committee will see, you purge all the claims of the bondholders so that if the Exchequer Court ordered a sale, unless that sale was ordered with special conditions, it would wipe out the bondholders. Take the case of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway, a case in point. The company made default to pay the interest on the bonds. The trustees for the bondholders, in virtue of their deed of trust, entered into the property of the company as far back as July 2. 1900, and are still in possession 'of and operating the road. Their rights are not obliterated. What the parties interested fear is that other creditors of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Company,-I am giving that as an example -might obtain such an order as is contemplated In this Bill from the Exchequer Court, and under this proposed legislation sell the railway. The party selling would give a title equivalent to a sheriff's title, and he would wipe out the title of the trustees and leave the bondholders to pay themselves out of the price of adjudication and that price of adjudication would scarcely be sufficient to bring the property to sale. That appears to me to be a strong argument. Moreover the Bill Is uncalled for. Why ? Because subsection 2 of section 1 of chapter 21, III Edward VII. in the first volume of 1903-1 have just looked for this statute iu the library, but there is not a copy there.-Subsection 2 of section 1, chapter 21, of III Edward VII, gives concurrent jurisdiction to the provincial court, over railways situated entirely or wholly In the
province. If our own provincial courts have jurisdiction under the statute which I have just cited, concurrent jurisdiction upon railways altogether situated within the province, why should this legislation be asked for. I am afraid that if this Bill was passed it might, under certain circumstances, greatly interfere with the recourse of the bondholders and therefore it appears to be a dangerous measure.


Mr. TREFONTAINE.: Does the hon. gentleman think that this legislation will change the law so as to prevent the sale by the sheriff if the present legislation does not change the law, and these properties altogether situated in the province of Quebec are allowed to be sold by a sheriff what difference would it make whether they are sold by an order of the Exchequer Court after certain advertising to be given according to tbe best judgment of the Exchequer Court, or whether it is sold under an order of the sheriff of the district in the province of Quebec ? I think the bon. gentleman has lost sight of that point. At the present moment these railways can be sold -I do not think it is possible to contest that point-by the sheriff of the district in which the chief office of the railway is situated. Therefore, if the railway is sold by the sheriff the mortgages are purged or wiped out, except that every mortgagee has the right to claim on the price of sale, and it is generally the case that the property Is not sacrificed, that the mortgagee goes to the sale and sees that the property Is sold for the proper amount. So if it does not change the position In any way except that action may be taken through proceeding in the Exchequer Court, there will be less cost, less complication and less delay in realizing, i understand that the legislation cannot apply to tbe Atlantic and Lake Superior. On the contrary I think tbe Atlantic and Lake Superior was exempted from the effect of this law in the original Bill, because it said that .it did not apply to a railway in the hands' of trustees. If tbe bon. gentleman will refer to the law passed in 1903 be will see that the Atlantic and Lake Superior, .although not mentioned by name, was actually exempted from the effect of law. In this case, the Bill. I am quite aware, is presented in view of the state of affairs as regards the South Shore Railway and the Quebec Southern. The South Shore has been joined with tbe Quebec Southern and made all one railway in the pi'ovince of Quebec. There are different classes of creditors and difficulty aro%e as to the proceeds of the sale of the railway. At the present time all counties interested are suffering because of the railway being in the hands of the receiver, and what is most serious to the mortgagees is the fact that they do not know the amount of the cost incurred by the receiver. If it remains any longer in

tlie hands of the receiver the creditors would fear that their mortgages will be wiped out entirely-and the railway too.
Unless we can have a sale made as provided in this Bill, I am afraid there will be such an amount of expenditure with the administration by the receiver that the first mortgage will be in danger. It is in the interests of the creditor and the public generally that this measure should become law and the railway put into the hands of parties able to run it as it should be run. The principle of this Bill is not a new one. it is one that was applied in the Insolvent Acts of 1863 and 1875 ; and lately, in the Act providing for the liquidation of the estates of insolvent creditors, a special exception has been made that the sale by a liquidator in the province of Quebec, whether under the Insolvency Act or the Liquidation Act, shall confer just as good a title as a sale by the sheriff. I can, therefore, see no harm whatever in our passing this Bill. The creditors will be regularly notified of the sale and they will be all on the same footing. If we do not pass this Bill, no doubt they will proceed by way of execution and sale by the sheriff, which will undoubtedly cause more costs and endless litigation. I do not think the creditors are anxious to have more costs incurred and would rather have the property sold under the authority of the Exchequer Court and the proceeds of the sale distributed according to the rank of the different creditors.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have not had time to look into the matter very carefully, but there is one thing strikes me. No doubt a sale by the sheriff would destroy in almost every case the recourse of the bondholders. Where a railway property is sold by the sheriff in the province of Quebec, the bondholders have very little to expect.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Unless they go to the sale and bid up the property. Why should they be put in a different position from the ordinary mortgagee ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, the ordinary bondholder is not in a position to do what a mortgagee can do unless there should be an agreement among the bondholders. If we assimilate the title given by the Exchequer Court to a sheriff's title, we shall add' to the risk of the bondholders losing their recourse. In the next place, is there not a Dominion law which provides for the sequestration of the property of railway companies where !t railway is unable to meet the interest on its bonds. Either in the Winding Up Act or the Railway Act. I think there is a provision which permits the bondholders, when the company is in default to pay the interest on Its bonds, to take the railway into their own hands and administer it. Would not that provision be nullified by this legislation ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman is altogether in error on that point. A judgment creditor can always have the property sold by the sheriff if it is situated entirely within the limits of the province.


Mr. BARKER.: When this Bill was before the House on the last occasion, I asked the Minister of Justice whether he had considered the possible effect of a sale such as this in cases where a Dominion railway company, whose railway was wholly within the province of Quebec, had, under the authority of a Dominion statute, entered into an agreement for running powers over a railway in another province. Let us suppose that a railway terminating at the boundary of Ontario and another terminating at the bounday of Quebec, both being Dominion railways, entered into an agreement, under section 281 of the General Railway Act, with regard to the operation of each by the other. Such an agreement between individuals would be called a partnership. Then suppose the bonds of those respective companies are afterwards sold, the bondholders relying upon this agreement being carried out. If an officer of the province of Quebec is able to sell outright the railway within that province, or say one-half the partnership property, we can quite easily see that the consequences might be very serious to the companies which had entered into the agreement and to those who had purchased the bonds on the faith of that agreement.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Surely there must be some way by which a creditor may realize on the property which is the security for his debt. It would not do to allow an agreement between two corporations to take away that recourse. Otherwise, in the case mentioned by my hon. friend, the making of an agreement between a railway company, whose property is wholly situated within the limits of the province of Quebec, and another railway company whose property is wholly situated within the limits of Ontario, would make it impossible for either railway to be sold, and a creditor would have no recourse.


Samuel Barker: It seems to me that before you authorize an official like the sheriff in one province to sell interests that run over two provinces, it would be better to provide some method of disposing of these effects which would not be peculiar to anyone of the provinces.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I regret that I have not given to this matter more consideration than I have been able to give it recently. But it seems to me that that which is within the limits of a province and is nothing more or less than a piece of immovable property within that province, any claims on that* property ought to be dealt with according to the laws of the particular province in which it is situated. If a line of railway ex-

tends beyond tbe limits of a province, then a difficulty would arise, because you have to take into account the fact that this line would be one continuous road in operation between two provinces, and you can deal with it in one province under one system and in another province under another system. But if the railway is entirely within one province, you cannot distinguish it from a house or any other piece of immovable property.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman seems to overlook the fact that parliament controls companies holding both properties, a property in one province owned by one company and a property in another province owned by the other company. Parliament has authorized that these two properties shall be thrown into a partnership, and after authorizing it, and an agreement having been entered into by these two corporations owning properties in two provinces, you authorize a sale of a part of the partnership property under the civil laws of one province. Now, the hon. gentleman says : how are you going to deal with it ? Why, the Dominion controls both, provide a remedy that will apply to the whole, not a remedy that is peculiar to one part.


Charles Fitzpatrick: A running arrangement or an operating agreement made between two companies ought not to defeat the claims of creditors. It is not because a company has made a running arrangement with another company that it should defeat the claims of its creditors.


Samuel Barker: I did not say that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is the result of the hon. gentleman's argument.


Samuel Barker: I would provide a remedy that will do justice to both, provide a Dominion remedy, not applying the peculiar law's of one province to the sale of part of the partnership property.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The procedure under which the property is brought to sale is a procedure created by the Dominion parliament. I think the object of this Bill is merely to provide for the effect of that sale after it has taken place, subject to the arrangements that we make here.


Robert Laird Borden: I object under Dominion legislation, under legislation with respect to the Exchequer Court, to provisions of this kind made for one province with no provision whatever made for any other province. I do not see any reason or justification for it. I am going to insist that this Bill shall not go through until I have looked at. the statutes of 1903. The Minister of .Justice says : Of course, you can deal with an immovable property and make it subject to the claims of creditors. Certainly you can. The Minister of Justice wall remember that a railway is a piece of immovable property of a peculiar character, it is a piece of property in the hands of a private
corporation for the purpose of performing a public function. The mortgages, the liens upon it are usually of a somewhat peculiar character. It is not a mortgage to one man, it is a mortgage to perhaps 500 or 1,000 men, who are bondholders, and who may be represented by a trustee. It strikes me as peculiar to have a railroad sold by the sheriff at the instance of a creditor in such a way as to wipe out altogether the lien of a prior mortgage. Where bondholders are represented by a trustee, it would have extraordinary consequences. I do not know how it is in the province of Quebec, but under the English law, to which I am accustomed, and I think the principle is a very good one, that persons at whose instance a sale is made and who are chiefly benefited by that sale, have a right to the conduct of the sale, and they may protect themselves under the order of the court, which always fixes a reserve bid. But -I am speaking with great diffidence about the practice in the province of Quebec

there, if I understand it rightly, a sheriff, at the suit of a creditor for $500 can get an execution against a railway worth $1,000,000. upon which there are outstanding $1,000,000 worth of bonds ; at the suit of that creditor for $500 you wipe out that mortgage. Well, is that right ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not understand that is the practice. Speaking subject to correction. I think the sale has to take place under the direction of the court, and then we are dealing merely with the effect that is produced by that sale.


Mr.   R.@: 1j. BORDEN. The interpretation of the Minister of Justice may be right. Where hon. gentlemen from that province differ as to the effect of this proposed amendment, it would be presumptuous for me to offer any suggestions. But if it might possibly have that effect, we should not be in a hurry to pass this Bill before we are absolutely sure what we are doing. The worst thing that could happen to the province of Quebec would be to have the law put in that condition ; it would discourage capital from investment there. Would any one of us put $1,000 or $10,000 in the bonds of a railway in the province of Quebec, knowing that a lien created by the mortgage securing these bonds could be wiped out in that way ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is allowed at the present moment under the civil code. A railway can be sold by a sheriff, and some have been sold by the sheriff.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the civil code of the province of Quebec is concerned, this parliament has nothing to do with it. But when you come to this parliament asking for a statute to provide that this shall be done under Dominion legislation, then this parliament has something to say

about it, something to say as to whether we shall pass legislation of that kind. I am not offering any factious opposition at all. I would like to understand a little better what we are doing, and I venture to think the Minister of Justice should look into this Bill a little more carefully.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I was quoting this afternoon the Insolvency law of 1875, and I find that a law similar to the one which is now engaging the consideration of this House has been embodied in the Insolvency law, section 76 :
All sales of real estate so made by the assignee shall vest in the purchasers all the legal and equitable estate of the insolvent therein, and the conveyance may be in the form ' N ' ; but in the province of Quebec such sale shall in all reupects have the same effect as to mortgages, hypothecs, or privileges then existing thereupon, as if the same had been made by a sheriff, under a writ of execution.
So in the present legislation we are simply perpetuating the principle which was embodied in the legislation of 1875. Now, coming to the point which has just been discussed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden), supposing in Quebec to-day an execution to be issued addressed to the sheriff for the sale of a railway, I am not very sure whether the provincial law would apply to that. We constitute, In the federal parliament, a railway corporation, we give to that railway corporation the right to issue bonds ; but when the time comes for the payment of those bonds to be made, how is it going to be enforced ? Cannot a creditor take action under our provincial law^s and have the property sold like any ordinary property, so long as the property is within the limits of the province ? I know very well you could not sell a movable property outside of the province, but in the province itself, cannot the sheriff sell the property ; and if so, what will be the effect of the decree ? Will not the provincial law apply ? Will not the property become free of all mortgages ? It will not affect at all the situation of the mortgagors, because tliey will have the right to buy the property at auction ; in fact, I think this law will give them a large amount of protection, because it wipes out some other mortgages which might have been made on the property after the first mortgage.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not speak about the effect of the sale by the provincial courts. That is a matter for the legislature of the province of Quebec. But, when you come to sell a railway in the province of Quebec under the legislation of this parliament and by means of the Exchequer Court of Canada, I did not suppose that it would be open to doubt that this parliament, directing that sale would have absolute power to determine the conditions of the sale, prescribe bow the sale should be conducted and bow the proceeds should be distributed.
I would not have supposed that that was .


Robert Laird Borden: open to doubt at all if my hon, friend had not suggested it and I still think that no such doubt exists. If this parliament can provide for the sale of a railway in the province of Quebec subject to the jurisdiction of parliament by means of the Exchequer Court, surely this parliament can direct how that sale shall be conducted and can even give to the Exchequer Court judge himself power to make regulations stating how the sale shall he conducted and how the proceeds shall be distributed. I am only asking that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice will look into this Bill-lie generally succeeds in making these matters pretty clear-so that we can understand what the effect of the legislation is. Further, I want to impress upon him the desirability of having one general law applicable to all such sales by tbe Exchequer Court whether they be in the province of Quebec or elsewhere.


Victor Geoffrion: The point made by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is right to a certain extent. There is a concurrent jurisdiction between the Exchequer Court and the Superior Court of any province. Section 2 of chapter 21 of the statutes 3 Edward VII is as follows :
Nothing herein contained shall affect the present jurisdiction of any court of a province in any such matters as aforesaid affecting railways, or sections thereof, wholly within the province, and the superior courts of a province now possessing such jurisdiction shall continue as regards such railways and sections of railways to have concurrent jurisdiction with the Exchequer Court in all matters within the purview of this Act.
Certainly we have this other remedy in Quebec.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not objecting to it.


Victor Geoffrion: But it is a very much more costly remedy and this one is a more rapid remedy. We can take the other remedy if you refuse this one. We passed this Act so as to reduce the cost. The Act says that action may be taken ' at the instance of the Minister of Railways and Canals ; ' that is that if we prove to the Minister of Railways and Canals that a railway is Insolvent, that it is unable to meet its indebtedness or that it cannot be operated properly, we can at his instance immediately commence proceedings in the Exchequer Court. That is a great deal less costly and a more rapid procedure than the other. If we cannot have this remedy we will take the other, but we prefer to take this because it is less costly and when we proceed to sell under this Act, we want the sale to have the same effect as a sale would have under the other. I do not think the point made by my hon. friend for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) can apply. He says suppose two railways, one wholly situated in one province and another in another pro-

vince make an alliance. Surely my hon. friend does not mean to say that we cannot recover against a railway because it may have made an alliance with another railway ?


Samuel Barker: I did not say that. I only suggested what my hon. friend the leader of the opposition said, that there should he a general law providing for that and not a special law for the province of Quebec. I would ask the hon. gentleman what he would do if he had a judgment against the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk Railway ? Would he sell a section of the railway in the province of Quebec by the sheriff ?


Victor Geoffrion: This Act says that it applies only to a railway wholly situated in Quebec.


Samuel Barker: No, it does not. Read section 1 of chapter 21 of the statutes of 1903.


Victor Geoffrion: What does the hon. gentleman refer to ?


Samuel Barker: I mean section 2 of the statute.


Victor Geoffrion: Oh, well.


Samuel Barker: It is the same Act :
Nothing herein contained shall affect the present jurisdiction of any court of a province in any such matters as aforesaid affecting railways, or sections thereof, wholly within the province.


Victor Geoffrion: AVe have the two remedies. If we cannot adopt this remedy we will adopt the other one in the provincial court, we will proceed to the sale by the sheriff and we will obtain what we want, but it is a great deal more costly than the remedy which we have here. What we want is to proceed to the sale which remedy would have the same effect as that which we have in the province. If y ou force us to abandon this remedy we will proceed with the other, but it will be much more costly and less rapid. That is the only reason why we passed this Act in 1903 giving the Exchequer Court jurisdiction in this matter.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask why this is more costly in the provincial courts than in the Exchequer Court ?


Victor Geoffrion: I am not going to give a course of procedure to my hon. friend, but the procedure in the Superior Courts is a very lengthy and very costly one in regard to notices, &c., and it is therefore desirable that we should be able to avail ourselves of the remedy provided by this Act. If we can prove to the Minister of Railways and Canals that a road is insolvent and cannot be operated at his instance we can immediately commence proceedings in the ^Exchequer Court. If we proceed to the sale as we have done in oue instance we want that sale to have the same effect as the other sale would have ; otherwise the Act is unworkable. Nobody would buy the road under the Act unless this remedy is provided.


Robert Laird Borden: I would hardly suppose that under the law of the province of Quebec anything more than reasonable notice is to be given the bondholders and others interested, nor would the Exchequer Court in ordering a sale direct anything less than a reasonable notice. My hon. friend (Sir. Geoffrion) and the Slinister of Slarine (Mr. Prefontaine) seem to be more disturbed about the cost of these sales than I have usually found members of the profession to be, under similar conditions. It is very touching, indeed, to find two such eminent members of the profession so greatly disturbed about the costs which will be attendant ou a sale under the provincial jurisdiction. I venture to think that their apprehensions are a little unfounded, and that they will find the costs of the Exchequer Court sale will amount to about the same thing.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The Act of 1903 provided that the Exchequer Court could order the sale in the public interest, but it did not provide what kind of title the court could give.


Robert Laird Borden: In any province?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It may be different in the other provinces, but we are sure of it from our own experience in the province of Quebec. The intending purchasers of this railway refused to bid because they had doubts as to the title and under these circumstances we would have had to put the railway in the hands of the sheriff, who would have had no right to operate it. The creditors saw it would destroy the value of the property, and that the railway had better be left in the hands of the receiver who would operate it until an amendment to the law was obtained by which the Exchequer Court could grant a sound title. The railway could be sold under the provincial law, but it would be suspended for three or four months, its value deteriorated and the inhabitants of the country through which it runs greatly inconvenienced. There is no violation of principle in passing this amendment because the same principle was involved in the Dominion Insolvency Acts 1863 and 1875, in which a special exemption was made as regards the province of Quebec, making the title given by the liquidator equal to the title given by the sheriff. There is not a single creditor opposing this Bill, which is in the interest of the creditors as well as in the interest


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think I can understand where the objection lies. My hon. friend (Mr. Geoffrion) wants, in a particular case, to avoid the costs of a sheriff's sale, and these costs are incurred because of the sweeping effects of the sheriff's sale, which purges all mortgage rights, and very extensive and costly notices have to be given. These notices are prescribed by the law in order to bring to the knowledge of the mortgage creditors the fact that the property on which they have a lien is to be sold! My hon. friend wants by this law to give to a sale ordered by the Exchequer Court, with or without notice, or with limited notice, exactly the same effect as a sheriff's sale. That is probably why parties in Montreal who are interested, in this railroad do not want this Bill to become law. Under it one would obtain a sheriff's title without the formalities which surround a sheriff's sale.


Mr. PR  E FO N T AIN E.@: There was no provision in the Dominion Insolvency Act by which special notices were to be given.


Victor Geoffrion: There is no objection to providing for notices. The sale of this railway was left in the hands of the Exchequer Court to provide notices and the judge had it advertised much better than would have been the case under a sheriff's sale. Under a sheriff's sale the notices would have been given at the church door in all the parishes where there is not a single buyer, but in this instance the judge ordered advertisements to be inserted in newspapers in New York, Quebec, Montreal and all the large cities where-buyers would be reached. We have no objection to say that the notices shall be the same as in the case of a sheriff's sale, but I think it is better otherwise.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend wishes to provide for such notices as the Exchequer Court would order and not the notices prescribed by the code of civil procedure. That is a serious question, and I think the Minister of Justice had better examine It. Is not this railway taken out of the jurisdiction of the provincial courts now ; is it not brought under the provisions of the Dominion Winding Up Act?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Does my hon. friend pretend that this piece of railway is not under the jurisdiction of the courts of the province of Quebec?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I pretend that if it is today brought under the provisions of the Winding-Up Act it is an insolvent company and is now entirely under Dominion jurisdiction. If it is under the Winding Up Act now, it is under the provincial courts, but it cannot be sold by the sheriff.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think my hon. friend is mistaken. The Winding-Up Act does not apply to these railways.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is a provision of the Winding-Up Act, or of the Railway Act, which applies to railways in a state of insolvency, and which enables the bondholders to get possession of that railway ; and that law would be rendered nugatory, I think, if this Bill passed. I would call the attention of the Minister of Justice to section 1, which surrounds the sale under an order of the Exchequer Court with great precautions.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If my memory serves me rightly, that does not apply to a railway company at all. If a railway company becomes insolvent, by section 285 of the Railway Act, certain proceedings are provided under which application is made to the Exchequer Court. However, in view of the position taken by the hon. leader of the opposition, I think this is a matter which ought to be dealt with by a law of general application to the whole Dominion. I think a very slight amendment to section 3 of the Act applicable to the winding-up of railways will meet the difficulty pointed out by my hon. friend. There is of course considerable difficulty in dealing with' a property in the hands of trustees for bondholders. There is a vast difference between this and a property subject to ordinary mortgages. There are a great number of bondholders all over the country who have to be considered. I understand all that, and I will see if we can draft an amendment which will meet the case and do justice to all parties.


Victor Geoffrion: Is it the intention of the committee to rise without reporting on the Bill ? I want the Minister of Justice to tell me what he intends to do about it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not going to tell my hon. friend now what I am going to do, because I am not in the habit of saying what I am going to do until I understand it. When I have thought it out, I will attempt to assist my hon. friend in doing what he has in view which I think is a very desirable object. But I must consider in what way it can be done without being contrary to the interests of the parties who have invested in the road. This is only a suggestion, and my hon. friend will take what course he thinks best.


Victor Geoffrion: I think the Bill is a proper Bill, it has been discussed by a good many of my colleagues, and I intend to proceed with it.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I would like to point out to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that when he is citing the Winding-Up Act he should refer to clause

S, which says that the Act does not apply to railway or telegraph companies. That is why special legislation is necessary in this case.


Robert Laird Borden: I am disposed to admit that the Winding-Up Act does not apply except so far as it is made applicable by the statute to Which this is an amendment. But that is not the point. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries asks if there is anything wrong in making good the title conferred by the sale. Nothing whatever ; I will support legislation of that kind. But I ask, is it good legislation that provides for one province and leaves the other provinces unprovided for ? Is the hon. gentleman not a member of a government which has the oversight of all legislation of this kind ? I admit that further legislation is necessary, but I ask that it shall be general legislation applicable to all the provinces of Canada. If it is desired by hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec that some different mode of sale shall be provided for that province, I shall have no objection ; but I want some scheme provided by a General Bill which will enable us to know what kind of title the Exchequer Court is going to give whenever it directs a sale in any part of Canada. That is all I want, and I think it is very reasonable.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Under former legislation by the Dominion parliament, it has been decided three times that when a sale should be held by an assignee under the insolvency law, the title given by the assignee in the province of Quebec should be equivalent to a title from the sheriff. That was good legislation, because nobody ever complained of it. The same thing has been decided under the Winding-Up Act, and that has been considered up to the present time to be good legislation. How this has become bad legislation, I fail to understand. No objection was made to it in the case of the Insolvency Acts of 1873 and 1875, and I do not see why any objection should be made to it when you want to apply it to a railway. Under the law in the province of Quebec at present you can have these properties sold by the sheriff, but that is not in the public interest, because when a railway is taken possession of by the sheriff, its operation ceases. Just imagine a railway being seized at the beginning of December, when snowstorms are occurring, the whole system would be stopped, everything would go to ruin and the creditors would suffer ?


Robert Laird Borden: We have heard a great deal of the legislation of 1875, but I do not think it offers the slightest precedent for this measure. If my bon. friend could show me that in the Act of 1875 there is special provision for the province of Quebec and none for the other provinces, then he would have an illustration but be has 103
not done so. But even supposing there was some analogy between the two, that Act was passed 30 years ago and was repealed 20 years ago, and I do not propose to be bound by what was done in 1875 and repealed in 1885.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Then take the Winding-up Act, which makes exception to the province of Quebec.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not read the Winding-up Act in that way. At all events, if it did make particular provisions for the province of Quebec and have the other six unprovided for, it is an example of bad legislation.


Victor Geoffrion: I am not ready to admit that the Act of 1875 was bad legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say it was.


Victor Geoffrion: My hon. friend was not in the House then, but I am not ready to say that it was bad legislation. This Bill may not be perfect legislation, but I think it is fair and in the interest of the public, and I intend to push it as far as I can.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say that the legislation of 1875 was bad, but I said that it did not make provision for one province and leave the other six unprovided for. But this Bill does that, and that is why I object to it. Neither did the Winding-up Act make a provision for one province which did not apply to the others. What 1 ask is that in declaring what title shall pass under a sale by the Exchequer Court, you should not leave that question undetermined as regards six provinces and simply make provision as to the effect of that sale in the province of Quebec.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In the Winding-up Act provision is made for the sale of the property of an insolvent by the assignee, but the sale by an assignee in the province of Quebec would produce no effect whatever. In the other provinces, the assignee is an officer of the court and his sale would produce the same effect as that made by an officer of the court, but in our province it would produce no more effect than the sale by a notary public or myself. Therefore it was necessary in that Act to provide that the sale by the assignee in the province of Quebec should have the same effect as a sale by the sheriff. In the Insolvent Act also my bon. friend will find that there were special provisions for notices in the province of Quebec so that the assignee had to proceed in absolutely the same way as the sheriff. This was in order that the public should have the same protection in the case of a sale by an assignee as in a sale by the sheriff. All that has been omitted here.



The committee divided on the amendment :	Yeas, 38 ; nays, 24.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to,
Bill reported as amended.
Charles Fitzpatrick: I have no objection to the amendments being considered now but I consider this legislation absolutely impossible of application.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 2) to amend the Railway Act.

Mr. Lancaster.
On section 1,
Charles Fitzpatrick: This Bill was up for consideration some time ago and it was then decided by the House that the Bill should be referred to the Railway Committee for consideration. The Bill was referred to the Railway Committee and reported against by that committee. I have nothing to add to what I have already said about the Bill. The legislation is, I think, bad and inadvisable in principle and not the sort of legislation that ought to commend itself to this House. I cannot do more than ask this House to reject it and to give effect to the conclusion to which the Railway Committee came.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We have a little more from the Minister of Justice to-night than we have been able to get before. The House knows very well the principles on which this Bill is formulated, and it would be unjust and unfair to the patience of the House to relate them at any length again. I have discussed this Bill twice in this House, and in the Railway Committee. The last time we were in committee here on it for a half hour before six o'clock we began to find out from the government that they had no reason why this Bill should not be passed. All I succeeded in obtaining from the government when six o'clock came was a statement from the Minister of Justice that we had sent the Bill to the Railway Committee, that the committee had reported against it, and on my appeal to the Prime Minister he said that the committee had dealt with the merits of the Bill. I was asking him about the merits of the Bill and we were in this position that a public Bill of this House, affecting the rights of the people throughout the whole country, a measure that, as the Minister of Justice admitted at an earlier stage of the session, dealt with a matter in regard to which some remedy is required, a measure aimed at remedying an evil that he admitted exists, was to be thrown out of this House without any suggestion from the government, without any alternative or any better remedy notwithstanding that the evil still exists, simply for the reason that the Railway Committee of this House have seen fit to reject the measure. It is right Mr. FITZPATRICK.
for me to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Bill did not go to the Railway Committee with the unanimous consent of this House. There was a division as to whether this was or was not the proper thing to do with it. I am bound to say that having had experience with sending public Bills to the Railway Committee during five sessions, I have never yet seen a public Bill dealt with on its merits in the Railway Committee. This one was no exception to the rule. This Bill has been rejected by 61 members of this House, less than 29 per cent of the membership, and the minister is satisfied that because a majority of the Railway Committee rejected it, nothing should be done. I wish every member to notice that the Minister of Justice says that 61 members are to decide on a matter of this kind. Where does the minister stop ? On what principle does the Minister of Justice intend to govern the actions of this House ? Is it to be minority or majority government ? What is the rule ? Who is to decide questions in this House on large public matters such as that to which this Bill relates ?	61 members of
this House, and 61 only have rejected this measure and the Minister of Justice wants us now to reject it and not see whether or not a majority of the 214 members will reject it. This House is to sit silent and no more discussion is to be allowed on this Bill because a majority of the Railway Committee have rejected it. The Minister of Justice has this time gone a little further than the government has hitherto gone by saying that in his opinion this is bad legislation. I think it is due to the people of this country, to those in the House other than myself who are supporting this measure, to those in the country who are suffering under the evil, that the Minister of Justice shall tell us more than the few words that this is absolutely bad legislation and shall assist us, if it is bad legislation, to provide a remedy, for the Minister of Justice knows very well what the evil is. Each year, the trains run faster than before, and the railways give as a reason that the public demands that higher rate of speed. The Minister of Justice knows also that more trains are crossing the highways of cities, towns and villages, than used to cross, 8,10, 20 and 30 years ago. The Minister of Justice also knows that the same legislation which I am trying to make perfect, to make so that it will operate practically for the benefit of the people, has been on the statute-books since 1857, and which by the decision of the Supreme Court given nearly two years ago has been held to be of practically no effect, the court having decided that no protection was required at highways as long as the track was fenced against adjoining owners, which of course is no protection. This is the section which I am seeking to amend here. I hare been

trying to do so for years and shall keep on trying to amend it until we get some remedy as long as Providence spares me and the people of my constituency allow me to represent them. This section that I have been seeking and shall keep on seeking to amend with what power and ability I have is section 227 of the Consolidated Railway Act, 1903. It has in effect been The law since 1857. It deals with a special class of cases, the thickly settled portions of cities, towns and villages where the track is crossed by highways at rail level, and where the train exceeds six miles an hour in speed. The argument advanced by the railways in the Railway Committee which the Minister of Justice dicl not hear-and with all deference to him that is another reason why he should not be so quick to pronounce in favour of the judgment of the Railway Committee, and say it is absolutely correct- was that you should go to the Railway Commission in regard to every one of these crossings. To-day there are thousands of these crossings in this country, sometimes half a dozen in a municipality, sometimes half a hundred. They claim that you should go to the Railway Commission in regard to every one of these crossings because no two cases are alike. The legislature since 1857 has thought that there was a certain special class of cases sufficiently alike to be grouped together and dealt with in a special way and that is the only reason for this section. If the Minister of Justice wishes to be consistent, he should strike out clause 227 of the Railway Act so that there will be no special legislation. He would have to do that to be consistent with his statement that my amendment is absolutely bad, because without my amendment, that section is idle, and I do not think the Minister of Justice should allow even seven lines of a statute to remain on the statute-book which is of absolutely no effect.
The Supreme Court in the same case McKay and the Grand Trunk Railway, that we have often discussed in this House, have decided that it does not make any liability upon a company unless you get a special order from the Railway Commission. Now as the Minister of Justice pointed out in the early part of the session, you can get that special order under other sections of the Act which give the Railway Commission the fullest powers to regulate speed, and order protection, and everything of that kind. Now I appeal to the Minister of Justice, let us be consistent at all events, even if we are not just to the people. I wish to be both, but if we are to be unjust to the people let us be consistent. This section as it reads to-day is of no benefit at all, it accomplishes nothing, it brings about no protection to anybody. All that can be done outside of this House, according to the decision in the McKay case. My amendment 103*
says that we will make this legislation practical, we will say that since the courts have decided that no protection here is required by this section unless you get a special order, we will add :
Wherever in any such portion of a city, town or village, a railway crosses a highway at rail level, the said speed of ten miles an hour shall in no event be exceeded, unless the company provides, by a watchman or gates at such crossing, protection against approaching trains for persons using the highway.
Now I have had this Bill discussed and attacked from all sides by all the force the railways can bring against it, and I have not yet heard one person say that that language is not reasonable ; the most that has been said against it is that you can already get an order of that kind from the Railway Commission in each particular case. Now the Minister of Justice concedes that it is not bad legislation on the merits, and if he opposes it, it must be on some other ground than that it is bad legislation, it must be on the ground of the manner in which I propose to bring a remedy. Is it not fair that the same procedure should prevail throughout the whole country, and that we should not, as regards every little highway crossing, be obliged to come to the Railway Commission and make special application ? It amounts to a lawsuit. Why is the necessity of all that expense ? The legislatures since 1857 have recognized a certain class of eases as of particular jurisdiction, and has reserved other cases for general legislation, and it has dealt with them and grouped them in this section. Ever since 1857 this section has existed, dealing with thickly peopled portions of cities, towns and villages on the rail level, and these three conditions have to exist in order to bring the cases within that particular class. It must be that the highway is crossed on the rail level, that it is within a thickly peopled portion of a city, town or village, and then the train can run as fast as it likes if it protects, and it cannot run faster than ten miles an hour unless it does protect. Now in all these cases I am free to admit the Railway Commission is very likely to make an order that there shall be some protection. But what does the Minister of Justice gain for the country?-because I apprehend he is trying to help me to legislate to help the people and not the railways-by insisting on their going to expense in regard to every little highway crossing, going to what is practically a lawsuit against a railway corporation. It was suggested in the Railway Committee that a letter could be written to the commission and they would attend to it. Well, it is astonishing what railway counsel will say when they think you can't contradict them. Here are the rules of the Railway Commission passed in October, 1904. The commission did not do much work

in 1904, but they did pass some rules to govern people who should approach them. These rules are like those in every other court of superior jurisdiction, and you cannot come near them without going through the preliminaries set down in these rules passed by themselves. You cannot come near them in regard to any crossing when you want to get what I propose to give here, 'this is the proceeding regarding an application or complaint:
Every proceeding before the board under this Act shall be commenced by an application made to it, which shall be in writing and signed by the applicant or his solicitor ; or in the case of a corporate body or company being the applicants, shall be signed by their manager, secretary or solicitor. It shall contain a clear and concise statement of the facts.
And so on. It goes on to describe how the complaint shall be made, just as it did in the old procedure in Ontario under a Bill of complaint in chancery, or as you would now in any action in the high court. The writ has to be served and proved in a certain way, the defence has to be put in as in a high court suit ; and application has to be made to the commission to hear the case, then the other side has to be heard when it will suit them, witnesses have to be brought to Ottawa, and the case is tried in regard to every little crossing. It is all very well for the railways which can stand these things. But every little village and town, even most cities, are not anxious to have iawsuits with railways about every level crossing.
But there was another thing that came out in the Railway Committee ; it was not intended perhaps to come out, but by a little cross examination a counsel can sometimes Jind out things. When you make a counsel get into the witness box and answer our questions, he sometimes has to let things out, and Mr. Chrysler, counsel for the Grand Trunk Railway, having been asked some questions by me a little more rapidly perhaps that he had been used to ask questions himself, did say-and I think this is where the cat was let out of the bag-that the commission would perhaps order the municipality to pay part of the expense. Now I think that is what is the trouble here, and I ask this cdmmittee to reject that as an unfair proposition, to tell me if there is any reason for refusing this legislation of mine ? Why should a municipality pay part of the expenses of protecting what is nothing but the result of the railway corporation running its trains through a city, town or village for its own benefit ? By the common law of England, and I think by the civil law of the province of Quebec, the principle is that when a man or a company brings a dangerous thing upon the premises of another person he is responsible for what happens. Now- the railway company brings their dangerous machinery Mr. LANCASTER.
through a peaceable locality in a city, town or village. No one objects to that. We want the railways to run through to develop the country. But they run there for their own gain. They do not hand over to the corporation a' portion of their receipts, they do not give a discount on the tickets they sell. They sell as many tickets and charge as much fare as the law will allow them and hand none of the proceeds back to the municipality. They run their trains upon the level through the thickly peopled portions of cities, towns and villages for their own gain, and because it would cost them a little to put that track on a bridge over a highway or to bridge the highway over the track by grading down, they object to this legislation.
So I say this to the Minister of Justice, that if you are going to obstruct this legislation because it may not be fair to the railway companies, you should be able to show on what ground and in what way it is unfair. It is certainly unfair to the people that a dangerous condition of affairs should be created for them where they live, where they control their own highways as they have a right to do because the highways belong to the people, the liege subjects of His Majesty, and not to the railway companies in any sense. Yet, the railway companies are only allowed to cross the highway as a licensee not paying toll or rent for their own benefit because the country is good natured enough to allow them to cross the highways on the level without forcing them to build a bridge overhead or a tunnel underneath. As protection is absolutely necessary we have the section which was placed in the Railway Act in 1857 providing that if a railway crosses at rail level it shall take special precautions for protecting the people. I appeal to the hon. Minister of Justice on the question of vested rights which we have been hearing so much about to-day. The people are always giving way to the railway companies on the ground of vested lights. Let us have some vested rights the other way. These railways were built with this understanding by the people. They were built on the understanding that in thickly peopled portions of cities, towns and villages where the tracks cross at rail level they should be protected if the train went at a faster speed than six miles an hour. We increased that speed from 6 miles an hour to ten miles an hour in 1903, but we want that protection still. The people have a right to this protection because when these railways were built they rvere built on that understanding, and the people would probably have opposed the building of these railways if they had not been built on that understanding. I think it would be better all around if the hon. Minister of Justice would do something similar to the course which he has adopted in relation to the Bill

that we have just been dealing- with. It relates to the province of Quebec only, but I think the lion. Minister of Justice should take hold of this legislation and help me to put it into practical shape. I brought in this Bill last year in a little different form than that in which it is now drawn. It was then a little more drastic. I wanted some protection for the people at these dangerous places. We thought we had that protection until the case of McKay vs. the Grand Trunk was decided in the Supreme Court about two years ago. I said last year and I think so still but I gave way to* the majority opinion against me that a watchman was the best protection. Some lion, gentlemen in this House said that they must oppose the Bill because I limited the protection to watchmen whereas gates might be better protection than watchmen. Nobody suggested amending it, but some of them took that as a reason for voting against it. Some of them, and I am afraid nearly all of them, were looking for an excuse to oppose the Bill, because although I have put in the word ' gates ' as well as watchmen, none of these gentlemen who said that the word ' gates ' ought to be in last year have manifested a desire to support the Bill, this year. Last year it was also attacked by the Minister of Railways and Canals-not the Minister of Justice-because it was not limited to thickly peopled portions of cities, towns and villages. I thought then and T still think that the incorporated limits of a town, village or city would be the proper place to draw the line within which the railway companies shall be obliged to keep their speed down or provide protection at these crossings. We all recognize that in the open country you can see and hear the trains approaching whereas in towns and cities the view is obstructed by buildings and you cannot hear the trains approaching. As soon as you get out into the open country you do not need this protection. This law was never intended to apply except in cities, towns and villages, but, because it has been suggested that it was hard to know what was meant by thickly peopled portions of cities, towns and villages and that it would be better to define that so that there will be no question and no necessity for lawsuits between people who are injured or between the descendants of people who are killed and the railway companies on account of the question as to whether the place where the accident happened was thickly peopled or not thickly peopled I suggested last year that it should be limited to the corporate limits. Then, I was opposed because it was said that I was extending the law. Hon. gentlemen said : You must be awfully careful ; you are going to hurt the railway companies and it is not right to extend tlie law. So, they said that they would oppose it because it was not limited to thickly peopled portions. They said that you should have it
limited to thickly peopled portions and I have done so, and not limited to watchmen, and therefore an alteration was made so that it should read 'watchmen or gates.' If the railway companies place watchmen or gates at these crossings they may go as fast as they like, hut if they do not, they must reduce their speed. Under these circumstances, I say again to the Minister of Justice, that I think he ought to take hold of this legislation and help me if he can to draw a Bill that will meet the requirements better than 1 have done and if he will do that he will have my hearty support. But, up to the present time, he has not shown any disposition to do that, and in the absence of any other remedy, I think the House ought to adopt this one. There is one thing certain and that is that the people want some remedy for the existing state of affairs. It is all very we'l for one to bring a Bill into the House and make out a strong case on its merits. The government call upon the majority behind them to vote down the measure thinking that it does not matter what happens, that it is not of any importance to the' country, but I want to tell hon. gentlemen opposite that the people are stron-er than any government and that the people will get, if not through myself, then through somebody representing them in this parliament the ledress that they require. Some members of the House will take a keen interest in any piece of legislation that affects by one per cent the dividends of some company. There is a much more active interest taken in private Bills by hon. members of this House and in questions of legislation that might affect the income by one per cent of a private company or any piece of legislation that might reduce dividend earning power of a company from five per cent to four aud a half per cent. There will be greater care taken about that and about the question of the vested rights of private companies than about a question affecting the rights of the people. To a question involving the ability of a private company to earn a little more money a hundred times more attention is paid than to a legislation which is in the interest of saving human life. The immigration department of this country is always talking about increasing the population off the Northwest Territories. Keep your own Canadians and keep them alive. You do not want to bury them as they are being buried in Ontario now. People going to school, to church, to market, sober and industrious people, many of them very young people, are hurled into eternity by railway trains travelling at the rate of 40 and 45 miles an hour through thickly peopled portions of cities, towns and villages. The railway companies do not care how many people they kill and they wili not take care until you make them pay some hundreds of thousands of dollars to the heirs of the people whom they kill or else

refrain from killing them. They will not do anything about it unless you reach them through their pockets. They want to make all the money they can and they do not care how many people they kill unless you make them pay for itr If you make them pay for these accidents they will begin to see that it is time they were stopped. 1 say, with all due respect to the Minister of'Justice, that he should take this thing a little more seriously than he and the government do. The Minister of Railways said in the committee, that if I could show him a crossing that was not properly protected he would see that the Railway Commission attended to it. Well, the Minister of Railways has undertaken a big contract. Between now and next session, I will see that he is deluged with letters complaining of railway crossings, and if the Railway Commission attends to one-tenth of the complaints I will apologize here publicly next session.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. member who says 1 hear, hear,' is like the Minister of Justice, in that he does not seem to care for the rights of the people. He is one of those gentlemen who will vote for the railways irrespective of the merits of the case, and I am sorry to say that we have some of them in this House, but they do not come back to parliament a second time ; the people leave them at home. After all, the railway companies do not mark the ballots, and the hon. gentleman over there who is so facetious will find that the .people have more power than the railway companies, and that he will not come back to give an ironical ' hear, hear,' when the member for Lincoln is endeavouring to advocate the rights of the people in this House.


Mr. McINTYRE.: I congratulate the member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) on the able manner in which he presented his Bill to the House. I was not at first aware that the Bill had been introduced in the last parliament and that the arguments advanced by the hon. member had been then advanced in its support; but, at all events, I was struck, not only by the force of the presentation, but with the eloquence of the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster), who advocated its passage with such ability. As I listened to the hon. gentleman, I found myself compelled to assent to the propositions he set forth. It was with a good deal of interest I awaited the arguments that would be offered against him, but when these arguments came I was rather surprised to find that such arguments had been deemed sufficient by a previous parliament to cause the defeat of the Bill. There did not appear to be any real opposition to the principle contended for, namely, the necessity for greater protection, but there were various criticisms, such as the amount of trouble the amendment would involve, the expense it would entail on the railways to provide proper protection at crossings, and the fact that Mr. LANCASTER.
we had established a Railway Commision to attend to all these matters. We were told that it was an extremely simple matter to go before this commission and to get every' thing you desired. These arguments did not fully satisfy me, but the suggestion of the Minister of Justice that the Bill should be referred to the Railway Committee for further action struck me favourably. I noticed that the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) protested vigorously against that suggestion, but in the vote that followed I favoured the reference to the committee, and I am not sorry I did so. Several advantages followed from that reference, and although the member for Lincoln did not like it, I think there was a distinct gain for him. The necessity for this amendment arises from the fact that the decision which has 'been repeatedly quoted in Mackay versus the Grand Trunk Railway, shows the necessity for greater definiteness with regard to the character of the protection that should be given. In that connection, as a layman, I may perhaps be allowed to say that it is one of the reasons why the ordinary layman receives with a good deal of incredulity what is so frequently told him by the legal fraternity : that it is necessary to have a legal training in order to give judicial interpretation to laws. Perhaps it is, and yet after all these laws are made largely by ordinary laymen who have not a legal training, but who endeavour 'to couch the law in ordinary English. In this case the first decision given was along the line that an ordinary layman, with as much common sense as he could bring to bear on the subject, would have thought correct ; and it was then the law. because a judge of the land had given a decision on the point. The case was appealed, and the second court upheld the judgment of the first court, and it was still the law, and good law. But a further appeal came and, strange to say, this third court reversed the decision of the other two, and virtually told the judges below that, with all their legal training, they wei-e not competent to properly interpret the law. Is it any wonder that, under such circumstances, the ordinary layman will at times endeavour to interpret the law for himself, and perhaps come to the conclusion that his interpretation is just as likely to be correct as that of the legal gentlemen ? The actual result of the final decision is that the Act refers to the rate of speed on railways crossing a highway ; and yet the decision states virtually that you may run at any rate you desire over a highway so long as you afford protection to some other portion of the railroad-not the highway at all. It would seem to me that that is either a ridiculous interpretation of the law. qr else the law itself has been drawn in a ridiculously loose manner. The actual result of all this is that the protection which was assumed for many years to exist at a highway crossing, and which two courts of the land had declared to exist, does not exist as a matter of law. The re-

suit also is that the burden of getting protection is thrown on the individual or the municipality. The individual or the municipality is told that he has redress, but he must go to the Railway Commission for it. The promoter of this amendment desires protection, but he desires to get it in a prompter and different way. His first proposition is a very simple one in form : that you erase the word ' or ' and insert the word ' and,' so that the Act shall read ' fencing and protection ' instead of fencing or protection.' It was just in this connection that I thought the reference to the Railway Committee proved of some advantage. We had the advantage, not only of the member for *Lincoln giving his views, but we had also the advantage of the presence of a representative of the railways, and during the discussion it so happened that the representative of the railways, on being pressed a little, stated that the railways would not object to substituting the word ' and ' for the word ' or.' I know that a concession on the part of a railway company does not in the least bind the committee to do as the member for Lincoln desires, but it seems to me that when the railways conceded this the committee might very well have accepted it. However, the committee threw out the whole Bill, and in my opinion the committee acted hastily and without mature judgment in doing so. Perhaps there is some reason to doubt whether the change of the word ' or ' to ' and ' would have any practical value, and my suspicion arises largely from the fact that the railway companies were willing-to concede it. The variance in decisions between various courts naturally make one hesitate to say that that change would have had the desired effect, and I notice that there was a considerable amount of opposition in any case to the proposal of my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster). In view of that, and seeing that the railways were willing to have that change made, I would be inclined to urge the promoter of this Bill to limit his amendment to this change of the word ' or ' to ' and.' If he did that it is possible his amendment might meet with greater favour, although it may be that it would not accomplish all he desires. Possibly, in addition to that, he would add the words ' on the highway,' as that addition might prevent that peculiar misconstruction of the meaning of this clause, which the public have so much reason to complain of. I would urge upon him the wisdom of carrying at least part of his amendment in this way. I think, however, that he has made out a good case for the other amendment, which is that a speed of ten miles an hour should not be exceeded in thickly-settled portions of cities, towns or villages, unless the company provides watchmen or gates at the crossings. This does not supercede the action of the commission, but it does bind both the railway and the commission to see that that is carried out. It does not prevent the commission from demanding a greater limitation of
speed or greater protection ; but the railway in any case can avoid in any doubtful case the risk of involving itself in damages by running at a less rate than ten miles an hour, unless it gets permission from the Railway Commission. However, my main object in speaking is to express my willingness to vote for the amendment, but to urge on the promoter the advisability of limiting it to the first part. .


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think the hon. gentleman who has just sat down would on reflection ask me to strike out all my amendment except the part which changes the word ' or ' to * and,' although he is quite right in saying that it would accomplish something to have that passed. He is also right in saying that the committee paid no attention whatever to that matter, although the counsel for the railways when pressed hard had to admit that the law was not sensible as it is. This was not a voluntary statement by him, but was dragged out of him because he realized that the rest of his case would fall if he admitted that the public were not entitled to both gates and fences. But the latter part of the clause is absolutely necessary to bring about any change in the general law and to override the decision of the Supreme Court which the hon. gentleman has repeated, because the Supreme Court has decided that the only protection you can get under the Act as it is now is such protection as the Railway Commission will order. So that I am asking that in all cases of this class we shall have at least this much ; and, of course, as the hon. gentleman says, we will get as much more in any special case as the Railway Commission will order. The Railway Commission may order that the railway should not run on the level at all, but shall either go under or over the highway. They do that in some large cities and dangerous places. My hon. friend suggests that I should insert the words 'at the highway' after the word 'protection.' It is my intention to protect the highway, and I think he will see that I have practically accomplished that. The protection is limited to persons using the highway. If I inserted the words 'protection at the highway', I do not think the case would be met so well, for the protection is required for the person lawfully using the highway at the time the injury might happen. Under these circumstances, and backed up by the hon. member for South Perth, I again ask the Minister of Justice to help us to put this Bill into practical shape for the benefit of the people.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would like to say to the hon. member for South Perth that the reason that I opposed this legislation last year and the reason I oppose it again now, is that I think a more effective and more complete remedy is provided by the Railway Act. My recollection is that this

legislation was first introduced by way of an amendment to the Railway Act of 1903. It is a sort of bardy annual that comes up periodically. We have discussed it already three times, and I see no reason to depart from the opinion already formed by the House on three different occasions.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In support of the hon. member for South Perth. I would say that this hardy annual will continue to be hardy every year so long as nothing is done by the Railway Commission.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Why does not my hon. friend go to the Railway Commisssion?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Railway Commission was appointed in 1903, and at that time I had the temerity to suggest to Mr. Blair, then the Minister of Railways, that he had better make the law plainer than it then was, and I was voted down by Mr. Blair and the other members of the gov-eminent and their supporters when I tried to get this amendment inserted in the Consolidated Railway Act of 1903. The language of this law ought to be so plain that there would be no chance of the judges differing about it. It is part of our duty here to make laws so plain and distinct that laymen will understand them. We have had this Railway Commission since 1903, and it has not done anything with regard to this matter. I am not finding any fault with the Railway Commission as an institution. I am in favour of it, but this is not one of the matters that was ever intended to go to the Railway Commission. If it was, we should have struck out this section. ThP Minister of Justice ignores the fact that section 227 ought not to be in the Railway Act at all if the Railway Commission is the proper place to settle this matter, because in the earlier parts of the Acts, as the Minister of Justice pointed out on former occasions, the Railway Commission are given the fullest power to settle the rate of speed and to regulate the protection of crossings both by railways now being constructed and railways that were constructed before this legislation came into force. Unless we are going to carry out in effect what is said in the section, we ought to repeal it. If wTe ought to get the remedy from the Railway Commission, I cannot see any necessity for this section, because the commission can act under the wider sections of the Act. But this section is intended to be a direction to the Railway Commission that a different condition should prevail in the cases mentioned in this section than is allowed in others. I want to make the thing practical, and I think the Minister of Justice should assist me to carry out this section unless he does not think there ought to be any other protection in the thickly settled districts than you have in other parts of the country. That is not my opinion, and I think that this Mr. FITZPATRICK.
hardy annual ought to prevail and it will continue to be brought before this House as long as I am here.


Samuel Barker: I am very sorry to have to differ in this matter from my hon. friend the member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). In 1903, again in 1904, and now in 1905, we have heard the hon. gentleman most eloquently lay this matter before the House, and he assures us that he will continue to do so again and again. If this were not a matter of great consequence, rather than have it brought up year after year, I would be inclined to support my hon. friend, but it is a matter of considerable importance and therefore I cannot support his Bill. For years the question of the appointment of a Railway Commission was agitated. We were told that we, should have practical business men on that commission. It was conceded, I believe, that there should be one lawyer, but it was understood always that there should be a majority on the board of what are called men of common sense. That agitation went on until 1903, when, after many months of debate and hard work in this* House, we did constitute a Railway Commission, and gave it full power to deal with not only this question which the hon. gentleman has been agitating ever since, but others of great importance, perhaps, apart from the question of life, of far greater importance that these crossings. I do not want to be understood as at all belittling the importance of the question of public safety at railway crossings. That Railway Commission cost us last year nearly 370,000, and probably will cost us in the neighbourhood of $70,000 every year of its existence. And it does seem to me absurd to continue so expensive a tribunal and give it full power to deal with this and all other questions within the Railway Act, and then have gentlemen in this House getting up session after session and asking us to legislate concerning matters with which that commission has ample and full power to deal, without any limitation whatever. I am quite prepared to admit the great ability of my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster); but I do think that when the government selected three men to act upon such a commission, and when these men are from month to month and year to year acquiring experience in these, matters, it is absurd that we should undertake to withdraw from that board one of the most important matters that has been left to its jurisdiction and deal with it ourselves. What is it that was said by the hon. gentleman in 1903 ? He told us what a monstrous thing it was that a poor man should have to employ counsel and come to Ottawa to argue his case before this Railway Commission. We have not heard so much on that point this session. My hon. friend must know well enough there is nothing in it. He must

know that any individual who lias any grievance with regard to a railway crossing or the speed of trains or anything at all in connection with railways, need employ no counsel, need go to no expense. All he need do is write a letter to the commission and that commission will send an engineer to the spot to inquire into all the circumstances. And if necessary the commission, instead of making this man come to Ottawa, will go to the scene of the trouble and there deal with it. For a time there was a little trouble in that court owing to the withdrawal of Air. Blair, but since the court has been reconstituted by the appointment of Judge Killam, what have we seen ? Instead of the complaints having to come to Ottawa, we find the court going to them. The commissioners go to the spot, they view the premises, they hear the charges, and give their decision, and the man interested need not spend a five cent piece. Instead of the litigants going to the court the court goes to the litigants, and thus one of the great grievances is removed about which we heard so much. Section 25 of the Act of 1903, gives this commission power to deal in the broadest and most ample manner with all questions. It says ' The board may make orders and regulations ' then the section which relates to this matter says :
With respect to the rolling stock, apparatus, cattle-guards, plans, signals, methods, devices, structures and works, to be used upon the railway so as to provide means for the due protection of the property, the employees, of the company, and the public.
There is the broadest authority given the commission. They can do whatever is necessary in their judgment. We have on that board, commissioners who, with their two or three years experience, will know probably a great deal more on the subject than the members of this House, and they will go on from year to year gaining experience on all these matters. It has been said that they must decide every little question. They need not do that. They may decide one question or decide the matter at once for a whole city, village or county. There is no restriction whatever upon their authority. It is all very well to make these appeals and speak of the unfortunate people who meet their deaths on railways, but there is also a little common sense to be applied to this thing ; and when we have appointed at great expense competent men to deal with these questions, men who are not limited or restricted, men who" may allow ten miles an hour or three or fivd or fifteen, who are not obliged to make one law for the whole Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but may regulate the particular rate of speed for Toronto on the Esplanade, for St. Catharines and all the different parts of the country according to the circumstances. Why should we interfere ? When the commission 'can do that, why is it not a better provision ? The hon. gentleman would allow ten miles, but at some places 10 miles an hour would be dangerous and the committee can say five miles if they please. At some places the ten miles might be too little, might be an unreasonable restriction. For example a railway sometimes runs through an excavation, through rock, where although it is in a thickly settled part of a city or town there is no more danger in running fifty miles an hour than if there were no people within fifty miles, and so in this way high embankments on each side of the railway may render the railway so safe that trains may run at any speed without danger to the public and yet at the top of the embankments there may be a large population. All these circumstances are considered by the commission. They go to the spot and look at all the circumstances. Under section 25 they may say to the company : You shall run at only five miles an hour. They may say :	You shall put up gates or watchmen
or both gates and watchmen. The hon. gentleman says In his wisdom that there must be either a watchman or a gate ; the Railway Commission In a. particular case may say :	we will have neither, we will
have an overhead footway. Then the railway must construct that footway and that would be far safer in many many places, than a watchman or a gate.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That would be so under my Act.


Samuel Barker: You say : watchmen or gates. For years I have seen in Alontreal crossings where watchmen and gates are provided, but yet I venture to say that as many people are maimed and killed at these crossings in Montreal, where there are both gates and watchmen, as there are in any city, town or village throughout the land.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are there as many as would be killed if there were no gates or watchman ?


Samuel Barker: I do not think in such a place as Montreal in the district where the Grand Trunk runs, the gates have the slightest effect.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Hear, hear.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman says, ' hear, hear.' I wonder how often he has been there. I have crossed these crossings hundreds and hundreds of times, and I know that people, especially young people will go under the gates, run through the trains and cross between the cars. I have seen workmen a score at a time passing between the freight ears, over the couplings, having gone under the railway gate and so across the railway. You cannot stop these men, the only way to avoid danger in such a place would be to stop the crossing alto-

gether and make them pass over the railway by an overhead bridge or under it by a subway. The hon. gentleman lays down the two ways in which he would like to have these crossings guarded. Some other gentleman next year may come with some fancy device and I may come the year after and say that there must be an overhead crossing, and take up the time for two or three sessions discussing overhead crossings. Another gentleman may ask for electric bells. All this is left to the Railway Commission and in my humble judgment, with all respect to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) the experienced Railway Commission, having the responsibility on their shoulders for what they do in each particular case, should be held to that responsibility and should be allowed to exercise their judgment.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I want to say a word to the hon. gentleman because he is under an entire misapprehension, and I want to put him right. I said a few moments ago that X do not think this was one of the questions that the Railway Commission is called upon to deal with entirely and I say it again. We have a general law here with regard to protection of the lives of the public and the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat seems to think this commission was appointed to see in what places the general laws should be carried out and in what places they should not be carried out. We all know that the principal object in appointing the commission,-and the hon. gentleman from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) I think spent a good deal of time in this House in 1903 getting very tine distinction made between dividends, stock sheets, and a hundred other things that he thought ought to be looked into carefully, and the hon. gentleman was particular to see that all matters of rates and traffic were to be referred to the Railway Commission, and we all supported him -we all agree that the principal object in having a Railway Commission was to secure uniformity in rates and to have traffic arrangements adjusted so that the trouble that existed and would exist and I am afraid still exists to a certain extent notwithstanding the appointment of the Railway Commisison in regard to freight discrimination and refusal to exchange traffic and similar matters should be adjusted. And X think that I am in the judgment of the House when I say that the subject of my Bill is not one of the things that the Railway Commission was appointed for, and we would not have appointed a Railway Commission for this purpose. But because there is a Railway Commission some hon. members seem to think it is just like a general post office and all of these things may be taken to it just as letters would be dropped in the post office boxes. The hon. gentleman has taken his cue from the statement made by the counsel for the railways in the com-


Samuel Barker: mittee last year. He forgets that the counsel in the Railway Committee this year took it all back. He says that a letter to the Railway Commission will cause them to attend to all this. I have the regulations here, and as the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) will not accept my statement I shall read this.


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. gentleman allow me ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have the floor and I want to speak, and be done with this, because I have another engagement. I am not going to allow him to do as he likes just because he comes from Hamilton, where they have protection which is not enjoyed in other places. He can come from Hamilton and still learn something.
The heading of this document is, ' The Board of Railway Commissioners, for Canada, Rules and Regulations, October 18, 1904.'
The board, in virtue of the provisions of the Railway Act, 1903, hereby makes the following rules and regulations :-
3. Every proceeding before the board under this Act ghall be commenced by an application made to it, which shall be in writing and signed by the applicant or his solicitor, or in the case of a corporate body or company being the applicants, shall be signed by their manager, secretary or solicitor.
If the applicant is a lawyer himself he would not have to go to a solicitor to have the papers drawn, but the hon. gentleman will find, if he reads these rules, that he must go to a lawyer because no layman could undertake to correctly fill out the forms as they are given in these regulations. Section 4 deals with the answer that the railway company has to put in in all cases, and then there are about 15 lines of description as to the technical requirements that this answer has to comply with. That has to be filed and served like a writ in any other proceeding for the poor man that the hon. member for Hamilton sneers at, and the reply has to be put in by the poor man within four days and he has to have a lawyer to draft it for him. If the poor man wants to fail In his application he will go sitting around the town or village whatever it may be and will wait until he starves for the Railway Commission to come, hut he will never see it. If he wants to succeed he will have a collection taken up for him and get some one to come down here and have these things done in Ottawa as they have always had to be done. The hon. member, in his sneering way, goes on further and says that he knows cases where these things have been attended to and instances St. Thomas. He cannot point out any place which is not a railway centre where the Railway Commission have attended since 1903. Three days before Christmas a couple of years ago three people were

hurled to eternity at Grimsby by a train going fifty miles an hour, where there was no watchman, no gate, no protection, and the track was not even fenced. The relatives of these people have got a remedy, and their case is in the Supreme Court to-day because that track was not fenced against the adjoining owners, not because the railway did not protect the highway, but because the track was not fenced. On account of those people being' killed letters have been written to the Secretary of the Railway Commission. The Minister of Railways suggested in the Railway Committee the other day that if we sent letters to him he would see that all cases were attended to.
He will get letters as soon as he can get them from the corporation. But the commission has received these letters, or their Secretary, letters sent them over a year ago, and none of them answered yet. I think three letters have gone from there. There is a case that is practical, there is a statement the member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) had better think over. What sane person in this country or in this House would suppose that this commission is answering every letter that is sent to them from the village of Grimsby, or the village of Prescott, or the town of Napanee, where a letter asks them to come ? Why, they could not go to every place where these level crossings require to be inspected, they could not go over the whole of them in fifty years. The proposition is ridiculous. Now here are the rules of the commission showing what you have to do to approach them, and the word ' letter ' cannot be found in them. I am sorry to have to trouble the committee in going into these details, but they must blame the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and not me, when he says that a letter will do it. Now in all cases a notice has to be given. I have already read rule 3 setting forth at great length the procedure to be followed in an application or complaint. Then in regard to the answer :
Within ten days from the service of the application, the respondent or respondents shall mail or deliver to the applicant or his solicitor, a written statement containing in a clear and concise form their answer to the secretary of the board at its office, together with any documents that may be useful or explaining or supporting it. The answer may- admit the whole or in part of the facts in the application. It shall be divided into paragraphs which shall be numbered consecutively, and it shall he signed by the person making the same, or his solicitor.
And so on. Then the mode of the reply Is set forth with equal multiplicity of details. Where notice is required, a copy or copies of said proceeding or proceedings for the purpose of service, shall be endorsed with notice to the jiarties in the forms of endorsement set forth in schedules 1 and 2 ;
the board may enlarge or abridge the period of putting in the answer or reply or for hearing the application ; except in any case where it is otherwise provided, ten days notice of any application to the board, of any hearing by .the board, shall be sufficient ; unless, in any case, the board directs longer notice. -Then there is a section dealing with consent cases ; another stating power to direct and settle issues :
If it appears to the board at any time that the statements in the application, or answer, or reply do not sufficiently raise or disclose the issues of fact in dispute between the parties, it may direct them to prepare issues, and such issues shall, if the parties differ, he settled by the board.
Then there are sections with regard to preliminary questions of law, preliminary meetings, preliminary examination with the parties, production and inspection of documents, notice to produce, notice to admit, witnesses, the hearing and so on. _ After hearing the case the board may dismiss the application, or make an order thereon in favour of the respondents, or reserve its decision.
Then there is a section with regard to affidavits. Schedule No. 1 contains forms of application. This has to be filled in by the secretary :
AB of CD hereby applies to the board for an order under section 198 of the Railway Act. 1903, directing the	railway company to
provide and construct a suitable farm crossing where the company's railway intersects his farm in lot , concession , township , county of	[DOT]
The application must state that he is the owner of the land, that by reason of the construction of the said railway he Is deprived and so forth ; and that it is necessary for the proper enjoyment of his said land, and so forth.
If it is a mere matter of getting a farm crossing, a man has to take all the proceedings under these regulations as if he were bringing a lawsuit in the Exchequer Court againt the King. You have to describe that lie is the owner of the land, that by reason of the construction of the railway he is deprived of the practical enjoyment of his land. Then you have to describe what he thinks his claim is, and there are forms for affidavits, notices to be given, and these rules make no exception, every application to the board must follow the rules and regulations there laid down.	.
Now the hon. member for Hamilton says that I want one law all over the Dominion. Well, I do want one law for every citizen in the Dominion living in a place where the railway is crossing on a rail level. 'Is not (*very Canadian citizen entitled to exactly the same protection as every other, no more and no less ? One law for the railway, another for the people ; one law for the rich

man who can afford to bring a lawsuit against the railway, and another law for the poor man who has not got the money to do it with-is that what the hon. gentleman wants? is that the way to build up Canada ? I say at the risk of having the undying disapproval of the hon. member for Hamilton that I do want the same law to prevail in *every city, town and village, in every part of Canada where the conditions are exactly the same. I say more than that, that he ought to join with me and assist me in simplifying this legislation, and in pressing upon the Minister of Justice the need of making it a practical section, because this section in this Act does deal with all thickly peopled portions of cities, towns and villages. According to the view of the hon. member for Hamilton it is bad legislation and ought not to be there ; I think it is good legislation and ought to be made practical. The hon. member for Hamilton says that ten miles an hour is not always a proper speed. Well, the hon. member for Hamilton has not introduced any Bill to regulate the speed of railways. He can sneer at the member for Lincoln for trying to do his duty in this House ; at all events the member for Lincoln is backing up what he thinks is right by practical legislation to remedy what he thinks is wrong. But the member for Hamilton thinks that the speed should not be ten miles an hour ; yet he was here when that section was consolidated in 1903, he has been in this House ever since, and we have heard from him once in a while on railway matters, but he has not made any attempt to amend this Act, he has not said by practical legislation that he thinks section 227 is bad legislation. So there it stands upon the statute-book in all cases, making the speed ten miles an hour in every thickly peopled portion of every city, town and village. I will not trouble the committee any longer in regard to this matter. It is manifest from the action of the Minister of Justice, with the majority be has in this House and with the support he is getting on this side of the House, supplemented even as I am by the assistance of the hon. member for South Peel (Mr. McIntyre), that he is determined to defeat this Bill.


Samuel Barker: If the hon. gentleman would have allowed me one moment in the course of his speech, he would have given me an opportunity to say what I wished to say. What I was going to say when I asked lum to allow me a word of explanation was this :	That when the hon. gentlemen in
the Railway Committee referred to these rules as binding on every person throughout the Dominion so that no man could take the ordinary proceedings of laying a complaint before this Railwray Commission without acting upon all these rules, employing counsel, drawing pleadings and doing everything Mr. LANCASTER.
within a certain number of days, I asked him what the procedure was, and were these rules intended for such cases. I went to the chairman of the Railway Commission and asked him what the procedure was, and whether these rules were intended for such cases. The chairman of the Railway Commission informed me, as he would inform my hon. friend from Lincoln if he thought fit to ask him, that the commission will act upon a letter from any person making such complaints as he is referring to here ; that they will, when a complaint is made, send an engineer to examine, and in a proper case the commission will personally visit the spot. That is all I wish to say to the hon. gentleman. I do not know how he knew what I was going to say, but it is usual to allow a person who has spoken and who thinks he has been misrepresented to give a word of explanation. I did not get that courtesy from the hon. gentleman. These rules are intended for very large and important cases, where parties are opposed and represented by counsel. For example, there has been going on for a considerable time a very important dispute in the city of Toronto, where two or three railway companies and the city are interested, and where they have three or four counsel on each side. There would be confusion if there were noc rules to apply to such cases, and necessarily with such a body as this commission is, formal rules for such matters must be laid down for the guidance of the procedure. But to say that these rules are intended to be applied to a gentleman who is writing to the Railway Commission, or making a complaint as to the speed of trains, or as to a crossing, or that he is being deprived of anything else-there is nothing at all in it. and the hon. gentleman has only to go to Mr. Killam, or to any member of the commission, and he will find that the very contrary of what he asserts is the fact. That is all I desire to say in answer to what the hon. gentleman has just said. I would like to add that I was not aware I was sneering at him. I was telling why I differed from him, and I think I have the same right to express my opinion as opposed to him as he has to introduce and advocate this Bill.


Mr. INGRAM.: 
Charles Marcil: Shall the section be adopted ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Before the vote is taken, if it is understood that this Bill is amended in the way I suggested, I would be very glad to vote for it.


Mr. U. WILSON.: Before the vote is taken I would like, you, Mr. Chairman, to read the amendment to the clause.


Charles Marcil: There is no amendment.


Andrew B. Ingram: I beg to move that the words ' watchman and ' be inserted between the words ' or ' and ' gates ' in the second line.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The section would then read ' watchman or watchman and gates' ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I will accept the amendment. I do not think it makes any difference.


William Mulock: I wish to ask the promoter of this Bill if application has been made to the Railway Commission.


William Findlay Maclean: The Postmaster General is out of order, we are proceeding to take the vote.


William Mulock: Am I out of
order, Mr. Chairman ?


Charles Marcil: The question has been put, and we are now asking for the yeas and nays.
Section negatived : Yeas 32, nays 49.
The committee rose.


ADJOURNMENT-RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK moved the adjournment of the House.
William Findlay Maclean: Hold on. I have the next Bill on the order paper. We were told to-night that this would be the last opportunity to discuss public Bills, and I will only consent to the adjournment if the Minister of Justice will assure me that I will be allowed to discuss this Bill of mine in connection with his Bill to amend the Railway Act. We were given to understand by the Minister of Agriculture that the government were prepared to accept practically the first clause of my Bill which refers to the control of express rates by the Railway Commission. Is it the intention of the government to do that this session ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would like to say for myself at any rate, that there is much to be said in favour of the proposition to

324S
bring express companies under the control of the Railway Commission, but, I say it with all respect. I do not think the Bill of the hon. gentleman will accomplish the object he has in view. There are a great many difficulties connected with the control of express companies, and the question would have to be considered more fully than my hon. friend seems to have considered it.


William Findlay Maclean: Do I understand that the government has no intention of dealing with the matter this session ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is quite right.


William Findlay Maclean: Then I am prepared to go on with my Bill to-night, and leave it to the Postmaster General to say what we shall do.


William Mulock: There are a number of Bills on the order paper and I suppose the gentleman in charge would like to have them discussed, but that would be impossible to-night. Whether or not there will be another day for private members depends on what action the House will take on the motion of the Prime Minister. On that motion my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) will have an opportunity of pressing his views, and perhaps he can convince the House that the subject he is interested in is of such importance that at least one more day should be given for its consideration. It "is not to be expected that at this late hour we should reach a conclusion on this very important Bill-what is the Bill about ?


William Findlay Maclean: To bring express companies under the Railway Act.


William Mulock: It is a very important subject and although a quarter to eleven is not very late, it is not very early and probably the House will be sitting somewhat late for the rest of the week. I leave it to the good sense , of my hon. friend whether he thinks anything would be accomplished by prolonging the sitting tonight.


Samuel Barker: This Bill is a very important one, and if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) wishes to proceed he should be allowed to do so unless he has an assurance that he will have another day to discuss it. 1 agree with the Minister of Justice that the Bill requires a great deal of careful consideration, and in my belief it ought be presented by the government. However, it is not quite fair that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) should be prevented from going on.


William Mulock: I should be extremely sorry to prevent the hon. gentleman from proceeding with his measure, but I hardly think he has any grievance because we have several times this session gone through the whole order paper and the hon. gentleman has not moved his Bill.


Charles Fitzpatrick: i have no feeling in the matter, and if the House desires to sit until to-morrow morning I have no objection.


William Findlay Maclean: I admit that the Bill was called several times this session, but I intended doing as I did last year, namely, to discuss my Bill when the government proposed its Bill dealing with the Railway Act. For the first time in my experience I was prevented from doing that, because I was told that it was bad procedure to do so and in a way I was cut out.


William Mulock: How ?


William Findlay Maclean: Because when the government Bill was being discussed I asked that my Bill should be discussed also, and for the first time I was told that was not good parliamentary procedure. I protested strongly against the idea that there should be one law in this House with respect to a public Bill introduced by the government, and another procedure for private members introducing a Bill to amend the same public Act. The member for Lincoln was sent to the Railway Committee, and I suppose it is the intention to do the same thing with me, but if the government has a Bill amending the Railway Act any member ought to have the right to have his amendments to the same Act tacked on to the government Bill. I was cut out of my opportunity to proceed.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman was never cut out; he has had many opportunities of proceeding. The government Bill would not be moved on private members day, and the hon. member as well as all other members had full right of way to proceed on the day set apart for that purpose. He has had opportunity after opportunity of doing so, but never once, until this moment, did I hear the hon. gentleman express any anxiety to go on with his measure. Because the hon. gentleman has been neglectful of his interests, he now pretends that he was letting the matter stand over on some theory of his own that he could move it as an amendment to some government measure.


William Findlay Maclean: I moved it in connection with the government measure, but was stopped by a new procedure in this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for South York did attempt to get his Bill before the House. He moved along the same line that was allowed last year. Up to that time he bad not made a strenuous effort to press the Bill, because he intended to bring it up in connection with the government Bill, but by a ruling of the Chair he was deprived of that opportunity.


William Mulock: I am not asking what he may have attempted to do in some irregular way, but did the hon. gentle-

man ever move the second reading of his Bill until to-night?
Mr. SPROUT,E. He attempted to do it.


William Mulock: There was nothing fo prevent his attempting to move the second reading on any Monday before to-day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Postmaster General is a little facetious, but it seems to me it is not necessary. Since the hon. member for South York attempted to move his measure and was shut off by the ruling of the chair, he has not had an opportunity of moving it. But what I was going to suggest is that it might be well for the Postmaster General to consult the premier and see if we cannot have another day allowed for private members, because there are some other important Bills on the paper.


William Mulock: I would like that one point cleared up. I am not asking whether or not the hon. member for South York endeavoured in some way that was really out of order to make progress. I ask whether at any time when he had a right to do it, he has moved the second reading of his Bill. To attempt to advance his Bill in a way which the Speaker rules out of order is not an honest attempt to move it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought I made it plain enough that he did not move the second reading of his Bill, and I gave the reasons why he did not-that he intended to follow the same procedure that he had followed last year and have it discussed at the same time that the Bill of the Minister of Justice was up for discussion.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If this is going to be the last private member's day. I wish to say a word in regard to my Bill No 44, to amend the Act respecting certificates to Master and Mates of Ships. The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will, I think, concede that I am justified in asking that a special day be fixed for the discussion of that measure, or else that we be allowed another private members' day. On one Monday on which this Bill was called, I was obliged to leave on account of illness, as I was suffering from a violent headache. With that exception I was here on every occasion ready to press the Bill, and on three occasions I allowed it to stand at the request of the First Minister, who on one of these occasions promised that if I did it would not suffer, because a special day would be given for it if private members' day should be taken by the government. I would, therefore, urge on the government that private members he allowed next Monday, when we shall probably be all able to get through with the matters on the order paper. Otherwise I shall have to urge on the Prime Minister that he give a special day for the discussion of my Bill.


William Mulock: The argument my hon. friend is advancing might be in order on motion of the premier to take Monday. If the premier has any understanding with the hon. gentleman, the hon. gentleman has only to call his attention to it and it will be observed. I question whether any good purpose would be served by entering on a discussion of any measure at 11 o'clock at night, but I am willing to go on for three or four hours if hon. gentlemen desire.


William Findlay Maclean: Of course, discussion is not shut off by these tactics of the government. We are going into supply on four days in the week, when all these questions can be discussed and will be discussed in one way or another, but I would like the Postmaster General to recommend to the premier, after the discussion that has been had here to-night, that private members be given at least another day.
SIR WILLIAM MULOCK. I can only say that the hon. gentleman is so well able to plead his own cause that he does not require any assistance on my part, and I do not wish to put the premier under any pledge in the matter. My hon. friend speaks of these tactics. I am quite willing, if the House wishes it, to withdraw the motion for adjournment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it woulld be quite in order for the Postmaster General to communicate with the premier the request that has been made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, House adjourned at 11 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 28, 1905.