1908-06-16

Mr. RALPH SMITH.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the Minister of Railways if he has instituted inquiry into the causes of the recent accident on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in the district of Kenora.


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways).: I at first thought that the accident had occurred on the Grand Trunk Pacific . portion of the line ; but finding that it was on the National Transcontinental portion,
I took the matter up with the chairman of the Commission, and he informs me that they have instructed their engineer to make a full report of the circumstances. Up to this morning that report has not yet come.
I see by the press that the provincial authorities have started an inquest, which has had to be adjourned until those in the hospital are able to give evidence. This accident is somewhat different from the others inasmuch as the serious loss of life did not occur to those engaged in the blasting, but was rather the result of a blast blowing a ledge upon some employees working below it The foreman in charge was not seriously injured. As far as I can ascertain, this man is one of the most expert men in that line of blasting, in which he has been engaged for many years, and this is his first accident. I hope to be able to give further particulars, but perhaps full particulars will not come out until the inquest is finished.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

Hon.  G. P.@: GRAHAM moved second reading of Bill (No. 118) to amend the Railway Act with respect to Telegraph and Telephones and the Jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: Mr. Speaker, before the second reading of this Bill, I desire to call the attention of the government and the House to matters connected with legislation along these lines. Some four years ago the government appointed a special committee to inquire into one of the main matters that are dealt with by this Bill, that is, the question of the ownership, operation and control of telephones. As the House is aware, that committee had many sittings, did a great deal of work, and collected valuable informaftioii. The proceedings of that committee are recorded in two large volumes, but that is as far as the matter has gone. The information obtained was practically without result. It has never got to the public, and no action has been taken in line with it, unless the action of the government in introducing this Bill can be regarded as the outcome of that investigation; but I think not. It is generally believed that Sir William Mulock, as the result of his inquiries, and the investigation of the committee, formed the opinion that government ownership and control of telephones was desirable, and it is surmised, whether rightly or wrongly, that his retirement from the government was due to a difference of opinion between himself and his colleagues in the government in that respect. On his retirement he took a position to which it was well understood he had been up to that time unalterably opposed, that is, he retired from the government direct to a position on the bench. I do not propose to give any very elaborate summary of the results of that investigation, but I propose to refer to some of them with a view to having it considered whether or not the government is taking the proper position now. The propositions that were submitted to that committee may be divided mainly into two classes. One was that the government should own and operate the entire system of telephones ; the other was in the main the ownership of the long distance lines. Among those who sent in petitions or resolutions .advocating government ownership and operation were the Toronto city council, which unanimously recommended that the government should entirely take over and operate the telephone service of Canada. The Owen Sound Board of Trade said ;
The petition of the county council of the county of Bruce said :
There is a close parallel between communication by mail and communication by wire, and if one should be maintained at the bare cost of operation, why not the other? We would, therefore, urge upon the Dominion government the importance of assuming as speedily as possible the management and control of the telephone business of the country, believing that if the idea of profit were eliminated, the cost to the public would be materially reduced, and, as a natural consequence, this means of communication brought within the reach of a much greater number of people.
The city of Nanaimo said :
The council considers that these rates are hiclier than they should be, and they strongly favour government ownership of all telephone lines.
The town of Simcoe recommended the full ownership and operation of all telephone lines by the Dominion government. The township of Pickering sent in a resolution declaring that :
The council wish respectfully to submit that telephones are now as necessary as post offices, and that the telephone system should toe a monopoly in the hands of the Dominion government. The council is of opinion that a better service would then be had, the public better served and at much less cost than now, and that the telephone -system could be made a success if placed under the control of the Post Office Department.
The town of Tort Perry said this :
It wouid be an immense advantage to Canada and certainly to this particular neighbourhood, if the telephone system were taken over by the government and run in connection with the post office.


Mr.  D. W.@: Bole, M. P. for Winnipeg, wrote :
As to the future of the telephone business in Canada, I am strongly of opinion that the whole system should he nationalized.
I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is of the same opinion still. A number of -other bodies sent in recommendations along the same lines. For instance the Regina Board of Trade, the Montreal Chambers of Commerce, the Stratford Board of Trade, the town of Morris, Manitoba, the municipality of Pipestone, Manitoba, the municipality of Batisean, Quebec, the municipality of Matsqui, British Columbia, the municipality of Jordan, the municipality of Maple Creek, Northwest Territory, the township of Rama, the county of Essex, the town of Hespeller and the councils of the towns and county and the trades and labour councils and boards of trade of the county of Waterloo.
These are not nearly all of those who advocated government ownership and operation of the entire system of the country.
In the opinion of this board, tbe time is opportune for tbe Dominion government to assume tbe ownership and control of all telephone systems and lines within the Dominion of Canada.
337J

As I have said there is a large number of representative bodies which do not go so far as this, but advocate the ownership of the long distance lines. From Kelowna, British Columbia, Mr. Melville writes :
The government owns the long distance line which operates here and gives perfect satisfaction.
The Ontario Municipal Association says :
ilt would he still better in the public interest that the Dominion government should own and control all the long distance lines, and permit them to be used by all local telephone systems under a reasonable tariff of rates to be fixed by the government.
The Union of Canadian Municipalities unanimously resoJved at Winnipeg in August, 1905 :
This convention is strongly of opinion that the time has arrived when the long distance telephone should no longer be operated as a monopoly for private gain, and that the service should be owned and operated by the federal government under conditions which will enable every telephone user to have unrestricted intercommunication between all local systems now in operation, or which may be hereafter established.
The town of Peterborough resolved :
The council strongly recommends government ownership of long distance lines, and that municipalities be given control of the streets.
The Winnipeg Printers' Board of Trade resolved :
This board deplores the unsatisfactory service given by the Bell Telephone Company, and we hereby endorse the principle of municipal ownership of telephones, with government ownership of trunk lines.
The significance of this is not so great now except as an expression of opinion because Manitoba has adopted the system of government ownership and control. Recommendations on the same line were sent in by a great number of others, among them the Retail Merchants of Ontario, 5,000 members, the Guelph Board of Trade, the town of Orangeville, the town of Neep'awa, the town of St. Andrews, New Brunswick, the Union. Telephone Company of Florence-ville, the municipality of Gormely, Onta-no, the county of Elgin, the township of York, the town of Weston, Halifax county, Nova Scotia, and the town of Sarnia.
So that we have this strong current of opinion and a great deal more in the evidence taken and matters submitted to the committee all in the line of government ownership. And we have also collected there a number of cases in which the system has actually been established; and in the vast majority, if not in all of these, the system of government ownership and operation has been found abundantly satisfactory Mr. LENNOX.
and profitable. Among these I might mention Great Britain, Denmark and Belgium, that Great Britain operates the trunk lines and some of the local systems. Denmark operates the long distance lines. Belgium the entire system, Germany the entire system, Austria the entire system, and Bavaria, the State of Victoria, the State of Tasmania, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand owns and operates the long distance system and local exchanges, Norway the greater number of the trunk lines, Holland the interlocal lines, Switzerland and Russia nearly all the trunk lines, Glasgow and Brighton, Hull, Portsmouth, Swansea, Sweden, Strait Settlements, Natal, &c., &c., as having adopted telephone systems; and coming home there are the examples of Manitoba and Saskatchewan which have just adopted the ownership of their telephone system and Alberta which is also committed to this scheme.
Now, as to the practical results, for instance let us compare the government-operated lines with the company lines. The figures I am about to quote will nearly all be found in the evidence reported in the proceedings of the committee. In Canada under company ownership and operation, we find that the charge for sixty miles transmission is 35 cents. The following figures show the cost in Canada as compared with government ownership for the same service:
Charge for 3 minutes conversation, 60 miles-
Cents.
Canada	
Great Britain New Zealand..
Norway	
Denmark.. .. Switzerland..
Bavaria	
Belgium	
Russia	
Australia.. .. *For 55| miles.
18
12!
n
9|
12
19|
26*
24!
The charge for a distance of 300 miles in Canada, according to the evidence of President Sise given before the committee was $1.65. Compare this with the prices in the countries I have just referred to ;
Charge for 300 miles-
Canada	$1.65
Great Britain	 0.86
Norway	 0.33
Denmark	 0.54
Switzerland	 0.15
Bavaria	  0.24
Belgium	 0.19!
Russia	 0.62*
Australia	 0.82
*TJp to 77 cents for 411 miles.
I might also give some special information as regards Australia. The following figures show the rates for three minutes conversation and for each additional three minutes as adopted by the Commonwealth of Australia :

Each
Distance.	First additional
Miles.	3 minutes. 3 minutes.
Cinder 15	$0.01	$0.0115 to 20	
0.06	0.0620 to 25	
0.08	0.0625 to 50	
0.16	0.1250 to 75	
0.21|	0.1875 to 100	
0.32J	0.21i100 to 150	
0.15	0.321150 to 200	
0.57	0.121200 to 250	
0.69	0.51250 to 300	
0.82	0.61300 to 350	
0.96	0.69350 to 100	
1.05	0.80Up to 600	
1.22
Dp to 600, after 8 P.M.. .. 0.61
Now, a word as to annual profits. I take my figures on this subject from the latest Information brought down to the time the committee sat.
In Brighton, with a population of 125,000, the total expenditure was $250,000; surplus over working expenses, interest and sinking fund, $2,065.
Portsmouth, with a population of 200,000; total expenditure, $191,098.80; revenue, $15,612.12; total expenditure, including sinking fund and depreciation, $36,008.78; net surplus, $9,603.61.
Guernsey.-Surplus after deducting sinking fund, $1,383.
Swansea.-Net profits, $3,615.
Straits settlements.-Total receipts for 1904, $8,168.31; total expenses, including 10 per cent depreciation, $4,131.17; net profits, $1,031.11.
State of Victoria.-Net profit for 1901, $31,281.80.
Tasmania.-Net surplus, 1901, $28,026.85.
Rotterdam.-Net profits, 1901, $26,621.86.
Transvaal colony.-Net profits, $111,115.
Norway.-Surplus, $137,181.
Germany.-Exact figures not given, hut there was a considerable profit. Germany owns almost the entire system.
Bavaria.-Net profit, 1903, $355,166.
Besides these matters which I collected from the report. I have the following statement from an expert :
Profits of government telephone systems.
The following are the profits from the operation of telephone systems by the undermentioned governments;
Great Britain-Dong distance lines, $45,152; whole system, $92,827. After providing for depreciation and interest- on capital expenditure. (Postmaster General's report, March 31, 1907.)
New Zealand-$38,756.46, or 2.69 per cent on capital expenditure after paying 5 per cent interest on debentures. (Ottawa evidence.)
Norway-Long distance lines, $137,181, or 7 all per cent on capital expenditure. Telegraphs and telephones, $253,233, or 8:04 per cent on capital expenditure. (Ottawa evidence.)
Bavaria-$375,101, 5:05 per cent on capital after providing interest and sinking fund. (Ottawa evidence.)	_
Germany-Secretary of 'State in his reply says; ' Since 1880, 5 per cent has been paid on the capital expenditure for the entire telephone system. (Ottawa evidence.)
Belgium-Profit on whole system, $153,923. The 'Minister of Railways, Post and Telegraphs, states that the interest paid by the government amounts to 3 per cent on the capital expended; also that the cost of the lines is paid off in 15 years, and the cost of the apparatus in. 10 years. ('Ottawa evidence.)
Russia-The 'St. Petersburg-fMoscow line, 111 miles in length, which cost $192.10 per mile for two circuits earned a surplus of $36,050 in 1904. The rate for 3 minutes conversation being 77 cents. (Ottawa evidence.)
I am giving here some facts which I have collected in my investigation. There are many matters of great interest in these volumes that I do not profess to be familiar with. As to Great Britain, I would like to say a word or two. Great Britain has been making history in this matter, and has been steadily working towards national ownership and operation. iCoupled with the fact that almost every European country owns and operates its own telephone system, trunk lines in almost all cases, and the whole system in the great majority of cases, it is an example which may be very valuable to us. Dp to 1892 the National Telephone Company of Great Britain, which is not actually a national company but a private company, as the Bell Company is here, controlled the telephone business of Great Britain upon terms of paying a ten per cent royalty. In 1892 the government took over the trunk lines; by Act of 1899 it was provided that municipalities might establish local systems; and in 1905, after certain municipalities had taken advantage of the provision, the government came to the conclusion to own and control the whole system. Therefore they decided in 1905 not to grant any more municipal franchises, and there is a provision in all the franchises they grant, and a definite agreement with the National Telephone Company, that at the end of 1911 they shall take over the entire system and operate it as a government work. The terms upon which it is to be taken over are set out in the agreement, and 1 took occasion to read in discussing a Bill here recently, the exact provisions contained in that contract, showing that they are much more drastic than the provisions we generally adopt in reference to taking over a work regarded as a necessary monopoly in the interests of the people.
The written authorities that were consulted during the investigation, and which are necessary to a thorough understanding of the subject, are collected in the first volume between pages XXIV and XXVII. and they are pretty unanimous in the line of advocating government ownership, and generally of government operation. 1 will only refer to a sentence or so found in the [DOT] Arena,' volume 16, page 194, the language of Congressman Gibson:
The dangers and possibilities of evil resulting from private ownership of all the teie-

graph lines in the United States are appalling when considered in connection with times of financial, social or political peril. No private corporation should have the power to pollute, pervert, or destroy the streams of information on which our people must depend and our government act. The postal telegraph is necessary to the national welfare. A country that allows private ownership of all its telegraph lines is criminally indifferent to the machinations of fraud, the devices of selffisJh-ness, and the possibilities of prejudice, and wilfully tempts fate to strike in the crisis of danger.
What he says here of telegraphs is true to a large extent of telephones, looked at from a national standpoint. Hon. gentlemen will remember that the government employed Mr. Francis Dagger during the progress of the investigation before the special committee, to assist the committee, and that gentleman's utterances I submit as being exceedingly valuable on this question. I may remark that he is now the representative of the Saskatchewan government in connection with the telephone system they have just established. Speaking before the Iowa Independent Telephone Association, he uses this language with reference to Canada.
The problem is not rendered more easy from the fact that in Canada the very air is impregnated with a desire for government ownership, many advocates of which, in their zeal for the cause, do not stop to discriminate between government ownership at any cost and a (rational government ownership, established on a businesslike basis, which will secure to the people an efficient service at the lowest cost. I wish to say that ' government ownership at any cost' is just as sensible as ' peace at any price.'
Having said this, by way of caution, Mr. Dagger adds :
<1 believe it is necessary that the long distance service of any state, province or country should be owned and controlled by one interest, and inasmuch as it is not, from the public standpoint, desirable that such ownership amd_ control should be vested in a private corporation, it is essential that the government should assume such ownership and control. I am convinced that if the long distance lines were in the control of the government the people would get a square deal in the matter of rates and service. Competition would then be (placed upon an absolutely fair and equitable basis, and the evils of the Bell monopoly would disappear.
I believe that even iin your great Republic, the time is not far distant when this problem of government ownership of the long distance service will have to he seriously considered Before the telephone users upon the North American continent can eniov the full measure of the advantage which this great utility is destined to supply, facilities will have to be provided which will enable every citizen to have telephone connection, beyond the limits of his own town, with the lines of every local telephone system, in every other city or town or village; over toll lines of Mr LENNOX.
standard efficiency, under conditions which will admit of no discrimination, and controlled by interests whose policy is not the creation of a monopoly to satisfy the selfish interests of a few, but the (maintenance of a system which will secure to the people an adequate service upon equal terms to all. I know of no other means of effecting this than by a similar policy to that which governs our postal system to-day, viz.: government ownership.
In these few remarks I have merely desired to draw the attention of the House to the fact that personally I do not think the question is at all settled. The proper system for the government to adopt in Canada, taking into consideration the actual conditions, is government ownership and management of the trunk lines at least. I recognize that the government in introducing the Bill which is now before the House, is endeavouring to secure greater control over telephones then we have had. That is absolutely necessary, but I am not at all convinced that the government might not, with great profit, have availed themselves of the labours of the committee to which I have referred, and have taken some means of bringing the benefits of that great amount of investigation before the House 1;o the end that we might evolve a system more in the interests of the public than that provided for in the Bill introduced. I have read the Bill carefully and, while I shall not discuss it in detail, it appears to me that aside from all this it embodies one of the evils that crop up very frequently in our legislation- I fear it displays a disregard for the rights of the provinces, and constitutes an infringement upon their rights, as the sections are framed. I do not think this is from any improper desire, it is probably from a laudable desire to obtain greater control over these lines, but it will be found, I think, that the measure of control attempted in many sections cannot be worked out as a matter of law. My aim would be to deal with both the telephone and telegraph services as they are dealt with in European countries and in Great Britain, as a system closely allied with the postal service. The postal service, as hon. gentlemen recognize, comes into closer contract with and affects a greater number of our people than any other matter with which we deal in this House ; it is essentially a monopoly. The telephone to-day, under the present system of living, is as essential, almost as much a matter of every-day life, as postal communication itself. In many instances where business has to be attended to rapidly it is more essential than is the mail service. The telephone and telegraph are more and more displacing and superseding the ordinary mail communication. My belief is that these three great utilities can he worked advantageously side by side and in close connection, and that incidental to the de-
.TUNE 16, 1908
velopment of greater facilities for the people, greater modern advantages carried to them all, is, of course, the system of free rural mail delivery. At a very early stage in that agitation I spoke upon the question on several occasions; I have not spoken upon it lately, but I have listened with very great interest to the able presentation of that matter by the hon. member for Bast Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), and 1 believe that [DOT] we cannot consider the question of rural free delivery altogether as an abstract question or as it applies to Canada alone, disassociated from the position which we occupy in relation to the United States. They have adopted the free rural mail delivery and almost as a necessity of the case the time is fast approaching when we, by reason of that additional circumstance, will have to consider the question of free rural mail delivery.
X believe, therefore, that the aim of the government should be in the direction of securing control of these three great monopolies which essentially, and so minutely, affect all classes of our people,that they can best be worked in conjunction, and that the aim of the government should be that in Canada, as in Sweden to-day and to a certain extent in portions of the United States, the government, by means of the telephone, the telegraph and the postal system should overcome the isolation of the farm, and that by a judicious management of these great public utilities, controlled and operated by the government, we shall rapidly approach the time when we will have an efficient telephone, telegraph and mail service reaching out to all our people.
lion. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways.) Just a few words in reply to the observations of my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox). The hon. gentleman has referred to the provinces in the west as having taken up the question of the public ownership of telephones. I think if he looks into the matter, he will find that Alberta was the first province to seriously consider the question of provincial owned telephones. Alberta started in to construct lines somewhat in opposition to the Bell Telephone Company and later it bought out that company. The province of Manitoba has recently bought out the Bell Telephone Company within that province at a very large price.


Mr.   BUSTER@: Manitoba purchased the Bell Company before Alberta did ?


George Perry Graham: Yes, and X believe the province of Saskatchewan is now seriously considering the same matter. I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) approves of that and that being so I presume he would favour the province of Ontario purchasing the Bell Telephone Company in that province. I am not arguing that question, but I merely point out that the western provinces have done so and as my hon. friend
approves, he would not be out of place in urging the province of Ontario to follow their example. The question of government ownership is a large one. There are three distinct propositions in connection with it, namely : Government ownership with private operation ; government ownership and government operation ; private ownership and private operation.


Mr.   BUSTER@: What about government control ?


George Perry Graham: There is as a fourth proposition : Private ownership and operation with government control and each of these propositions is fairly discussable. I may say that the fairness of the rate charged by all these utilities depends largely on the density of the population which contributes the business, and it is the same with telephone or telegraph companies as with railways. My hon. friend spoke of public ownership by municipalities and I can understand that the undertaking may have been a success in these municipalities. For myself I would be largely in favour of municipal ownership and municipal operation of the public utilities in our various municipalities and so far as I know it has been quite successful. But, when it comes to the broader proposition of government ownership and government operation there are many things to be considered ; there is the amount of capital needed, the amount of care required for economic and efficient operation, and other cognate questions. We have in Canada at present a government owned and government operated railway and to get the best results from that system of operation one does not occupy a bed of roses. I would not argue for a momont that it would be better not to have a government operated railway. Not at all. But I want to point out to my hon. friend, when he draws a roseate picture of what has been accomplished by government operation that it has its drawbacks as well as its advantages. It has this advantage of course, that, as my hon. friend has pointed out with regard to the telegraph and telephone service, the public got cheap rates in some places. But, it may be arguable whether the public will not have to pay something in the lonsr run for the advantage of cheap rates, in the way of depreciation of capital account and that kind of thing. If we want to get a really thorough view of the question we should not altogether rely on the figures given by my hon. friend, for it would be necessary to have a statement of each case as to the relationship which capital bears to expenditure on income, the amount allowed for depreciation, the efficiency of the service and these other details which we have before us when we are discussing the Intercolonial Railway in this House. It is only with all that information before you that you can come to a conclusion as to whether there is a profit or a

loss, or as to whether the utility is paying its way. What the people need is a good service at a fair price and in my opinion they care not by what means that is best accomplished. If a good service at a fair price can be obtained for the people they will be satisfied. Now, which is the best way in the interests of the public to accomplish that result ? After full discussion of the question the government has come to the conclusion that private ownership with govemment control is the best way to solve the problem. My hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) has taken as a comparison several places where the business	is large	iand
where the population is dense, but let me point out the position of Canada as compared with some of the states of the Union. The following table will be of interest:
Population
Area. Popu- to lation square mile.
New York	
47,620	5,997,858	126Pennsylvania	
44,985	5,258,014	117Massachusetts	
8,040	2,495,345	310Ontario	
220,000	2,182,947	9-8Canada	
3,653,946	5,371,315	1-5
My hon. friend will therefore see that the population of Canada is only 15 per square mile as compared with 300 per square mile in some of the states, and considering our great extent of area and the sparseness of our population the question of giving our people as cheap rates covering all that area as prevail in these densely populated communities, is very problematical. But, we all hope and believe that density of population will come to us in the future and then, like rural mail delivery, the question will wear another aspect. In a thickly settled country more business will offer and the people can get these services at a lower rate per capita. The time probably will come in Canada when we will have rural mail delivery. The United States has adopted the system at the expenditure of a vast amount of money but they have a vas,t population to pay that great expenditure. When in Canada we have that large population which we expect, this question will become more practical than perhaps it is at present. I would not of course go the length of saying that the system might not be adopted in some parts of Canada to advantage. In the same way with the telegraph and telephone systems, when we have a dense population in the years to come we could undertake the operation of the trunk lines as a government proposition with more advantage than at present. The government at the present time, has with the consent of parliament adopted the alternative so far as telephones and telegraphs are concerned of private ownership with government control. The Bill, the second reading of which I have moved, provides for Mr. GRAHAM.
more complete control over these utilities than has heretofore existed, and in addition to telephone companies and express companies, it brings telegraph companies under its control. The government hopes that through the operation of this Bill as administered by a Railway Commission with powers that are given to any similar body in the world, the people will get a good service at fair rates, and for the present I think that is what the country requires.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,-interpretation.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I do not desire to delay the House at this stage of the session with any controversial argument respecting the relative merits of government control of lines operated by pi'ivate companies and state ownership. I would like, however, to point out to the Minister of Railways and Canals that the comparison which he instituted between Canada and the United States so far as population is concerned is by no means a fair comparison, as he will perhaps be inclined to admit on reflection. If it were a fair comparison, one would suppose that we would not have any telephone lines in this country at all. He says we have a population of D5 to the square mile, which would seem to indicate that it -would be the utmost folly for any company to operate a telephone system in this country. As a matter of fact, if you compare the state of New York with the province of Ontario, you will find that the older portions of Ontario, so f^r as the rural districts are concerned, has just as dense a population as the state of New York.	In New
York there are perhaps three or four millions of people congregated in one great city, and then there is a large rural expanse which I think is not more densely populated than corresponding areas in the older portions of Ontario. The same comparison would hold with considerable portions of the province of Quebec and of the maritime provinces. The objection of my hon. friend on that score, therefore, does nat seem to be a very valid one. We have in Canada a population of six millions at least, scattered over a very considerable area; but we must bear in mind that the total area of Canada as compared with the total population does not give us a really clear idea of the density of population in many of the eastern provinces.
The minister has spoken very fairly of the relative merits of the different systems. The government, as he has said, has adopted the system of private ownership with public control. Of that system it may be said that it is very much better than private ownership without public control. We have always taken that attitude in this House, and apart from saying that

I do not desire to discuss the subject further to-day, except to state that the position I hare taken on this subject outside of this House on many public platforms I still adhere to, although I see, as the hon. minister has done, that the question of the relative merits of the two systems is a debatable one.
On section 2,-jurisdiction of board.


Robert Laird Borden: This seems to be a very long provision to accomplish no doubt some suitable purpose. What is the intention of the section? Does it add something to the general jurisdiction of the Railway Commission in respect to all matters that are under the control of that board, or has it relation specially and solely to the particular subject that is being dealt with by part 1 of this Bill?


George Perry Graham: This whole part 1 takes the place of the section of the Act which applies to telephones, but this is substituted because it includes telegraphs, which the other does not.


Robert Laird Borden: The only objection X have to the section in its present form is that it seems to apply not only to this particular part, but to the Railway Act as a whole, and if you have two different parts of a statute declaring that the board has certain jurisdiction, but in somewhat different terms, it may lead to confusion.


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: As I understand this clause, it is complementary to the present clause in the Railway Act as to the jurisdiction of the board. It confers jurisdiction on the board to entertain and determine any application by any one interested, complaining that any company-which by the definition means a company authorized to operate a telegraph or telephone line- has failed to discharge any duty which is imposed upon such company by-first, the Railway Act; second, this particular legislation; third, the special Act; fourth, any regulation, order or direction made by the Governor in Council.


Mr. BERGERON.: Would it not be shorter to say, and just as effective, that telegraph and telephone companies shall fall under the Railway Act ?
On section 2-jurisdiction or board.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any appeal on questions of law ?


George Perry Graham: There is an appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law, and matters of fact to the Governor in Council. It is practically the same clause as is in the Railway Act. The provision in that Act as to appeals will be applicable to this part.
On section 3, subsection 2-penalties for violation of regulations.


Mr. PERLEY.: Is this a special clause ? Why not apply this to the Railway Act altogether ?


George Perry Graham: We are trying to make the provisions of the Railway Act, so far as we can, apply to telegraphs and telephones. In subsection 4 of section 30 of the Railway Act, these same penalties apply to railways. We are applying them now to telephone and telegraphs.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is the fine the same ?


George Perry Graham: The same wording exactly.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Then what is the use of this clause ?


George Perry Graham: It is better to make a specific clause where penalties are involved.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: As I said a moment ago, if we were to provide that the Railway Act will apply to telegraphs and telephone lines, that would simplify the matter.


George Perry Graham: You cannot do that altogether. If the Railway Act in its entirety could apply, that could be done ; but there are some clauses applicable to railways which are not applicable to these companies.
On section 4-approval of tolls and filing of tariffs.


Mr. FOSTER.: Is this the rule which would apply ? A telephone company makes un its schedule rates and puts them into operation and those will be effective until and unless the board disallows them.


George Perry Graham: The tariffs of the telegraph and telephone companies will be subject to the board as are railway tariffs. The companies make out their tarifls and submit them to the board. Unless the board rejects the tariffs, they will come into operation. Of course the companies will have to be allowed their present tariffs until a new tariff can be submitted.


George Eulas Foster: But, I am not quite clear as to whether the company is to get approval of its rates before putting them into force, or whether it publishes the rates and puts them into force and leaves them to be disallowed or otherwise by the board. There is quite a difference.


George Perry Graham: They have to submit them before they put them into force. The present tariffs in force will remain meantime.


George Eulas Foster: So that the charges cannot be increased until the authority of the board for the increase is given ?


George Perry Graham: No.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Then, as I understand, these tariffs will be authorized just as railway tariffs are ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the use of calling this ' freight tariff ' so far as tele-

graphs and telephones are concerned ? The marginal note says, * Application of provisions as to standard freight tariff.'


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will see, if he reads it carefully, that these tariffs are to be prepared just as the freight tariffs are prepared under the Railway Act. That is the meaning of it.
'On section 4, subsection 4,
i. The board may, by regulation or otherwise, determine, and prescribe the manner and form in which any tariff or tariffs of telegraph or telephone tolls shall be published or kept open for public inspection.


George Eulas Foster: Is it desirable that that should be left to the board? Would it not be better to provide for this by permanency and publicity of an Act of parliament? I do not see any reasons why the same should not apply here as in the case of a railway. There ought to be certain well known ways in which telephone tariffs should be published.


George Perry Graham: There is a certain difference between the telephone and telegraph in this respect, and a greater difference between these two and the railway. People have telephones in their houses. But, to use the railways, you must go to a. station, that being a place where the public who are interested gather, the Act provides that publication shall be made there. After considering it, we thought it would be better to leave it to the board to work out a scheme by which publication of telegraph and telephone tolls shall be made.
Mr. FOSTER, Could not the telephone and telegraph rates be published in the post office ?


Mr. CROCKET.: How about requiring publication of the telephone rates in the telephone directories ?


George Perry Graham: That would be all right, except that it might not reach the general public. The man who has no telephone has no directory.


Haughton Lennox: There must be a directory with every telephone.


George Perry Graham: " That might not secure publicity enough. And in any case that would not apply to the telegraph. After discus'sing the matter with the members of the commission, we decided that it would be better to leave to them the devising of the plan by which this could best be done.


Haughton Lennox: There are several things I wish to say on this section as a whole, I understand that we are reading the sections through, but not adopting them.


George Perry Graham: We have adopted them up to section 4.


Haughton Lennox: Then, we will have to talk about it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: 


George Perry Graham: No harm in that.


Haughton Lennox: I did not understand that we were adopting the sections as we went along. And I do not think it a very logical way to deal with these sections, for, until we know what we intend to do about the others, we can hardly say what ought to be done concerning any one depending upon those others. The first part of section 4 is almost identical with section 355 of the Act-there is only the addition of the word ' telegraph ' so as to cover telegraph as well as telephone tolls. Subsection 2 is a substitute, with slight variations, for 366; subsection 4 for section 357, subsection 5 for 358; subsection 6 is to the same effect as section 358; subsection 7 is framed upon the lines of section 359, with additional provisions; subsection 8 is similar to section 360. Does the minister intend that both these subsections and the sections in the old Act shall remain in force ?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) will see that section 6 of this Bill reads :
Sections 355 to 360 of the Railway Act, both inclusive, are repealed.
This Bill will be brought into force by proclamation, and, when that is done, these sections are thereby repealed.


Haughton Lennox: That is all right.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Before this legislation was enacted, how were these telegraph and telephone companies regulated ? Did they come under the Privy Council, or what was the procedure ?


George Perry Graham: The railways of course came under the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, these other utilities did not come under any control before the previous Act was passed. The Act passed a few years ago brought the telephones under, and this Act adds telegraphs to telephones.


Mr. OWEN.: Have the railway companies asked for this Act ? Do they intend in the near future to build and operate telephone and telegraph lines, or is it simply the intention to put the tolls of the present telephone and telegraph lines under the Railway Commission ? If the Act is simply to put the control of the tolls of the lines now in existence in the hands of the commissioners, it is well to say so.


George Perry Graham: The purpose of this Act is to bring under the control of the government, through the Railway Commission, telegraphs as well as other utilities, with tolls, connections, joint tariffs, and ail that kind of thing. It will apply to those now in existence and to those that hereafter may come into existence.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Is the minister not aware that the present commission have already more work than they can attend to

in managing tlie railways of this country ? I understand that they are months behind in their work, and here you are saddling them with another great amount of work in the management of the telegraphs and telephones. I agree with the remarks of my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) who wants an independent commission to control and operate these lines, particularly the trunk lines, for the benefit of the whole people. The minister made a remark in connection with rural free mail delivery and telephones, whicli gives us to understand that we cannot expect to have free rural delivery and telephones placed under government control, until we have a country practically as thickly settled as that in the rural districts of the United States. The hon. gentleman must not expect that the people of Canada will look with favour upon his proposition that they must wait until they have a population of 20,000,000 people, as the Postmaster General has suggested, before they can get free rural mail delivery or government control of then-telegraphs and telephones. I may say that rural free mail delivery and telephone and telegraph systems are profitably conducted in districts that are presently thickly populated in the United States, but the districts must have a population of a certain amount before they can be operated. I think it is hardly fair for the minister to say that we must wait until we have a population three or four times our present population before we can have government control of those lines.


Mr GRAHAM.: This Bill is a Bill to do just what my hon. friend thinks we can do, that is, to control the telegraphs and telephones, not to own them, but to control them. I did make a remark concerning the larger question. It is a big question, that of buying out a utility in a sparsely settled section of the country and making some other people pay for it, buying a commodity out of which they can get no benefit. That is another matter.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the reason of the delay in appointing the other members of the Railway Commission ?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend suggests that the Railway Commission is very busy. That is true. Owing to the lamentable death of the late chairman, and the time elapsing between his death and the appointment of a new chairman, which was not an unreasonable length of time, and for other causes business did accumulate. But the commission is working very hard now, and I believe is catching up somewhat, though there is a great deal remaining for them to do. We are adding work for them by this Bill, but at the same time we are proposing to double the size of the commission. When the Bills are through both Houses, we will discuss with the chairman of the commission concerning the appointment of
new members, and we hope they will be in a position to catch up the work that is in arrears.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: As a matter of fact we are giving the commission more work to do, while we are increasing the numbers of the commissioners, and they will be in a better position to do it than they were before.


Haughton Lennox: As I have to leave in a few minutes, I desire to anticipate this subsection a little, and to discuss subsection 6 and 7. The first part of subsection 5 reads :
Whenever any company or any province, municipality or corporation, having authority to construct and to operate, or to operate, a telephone system or line and to charge telephone tolls, whether such authority is derived from the parliament of Canada or otherwise, is desirous of using any long distance telephone system or line-
The new measure directly brings in not only companies that are incorporated by this Bill, but other telephone companies, and also brings in a provincial system, as I understand it. But I wished particularly to refer to subsection 7 which provides in substance that :
Where the telephone system or line operated by the company is used or connected, for purposes of communication as aforesaid, with the telephone system or line operated by another company or by any such province, municipality or corporation, whether the authority of such province, municipality or corporation to construct and operate or to operate such telephone system or line is derived from the parliament of Canada or otherwise, and whether such connection or communication has been previously or is hereafter established either by agreement of the parties or under an order of the board, the provisions of the Railway Act with respect to joint tariffs shall apply-
That embraces every telephone system in Canada, so far as I can see. It affects a local or a provincial charter. It says, and I am now giving the actual wording of the clause :
7. Where the telephone system or line operated by the company is used or connected, for purposes of communication as aforesaid, with the telephone system or line operated by another company or by any such province, municipality or corporation, whether the authority of such province, municipality or corporation to construct and operate or to operate such telephone system or line is derived from the parliament of Canada or otherwise, and whether such connection or communication has been previously or is hereafter established either by agreement of the parties or under an order of the board, the provisions of The Railway Act with respect to joint tariffs, in so far as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the Railway Act, or this part or the special Act, shall apply to such company or companies and to such province, municipality or corporation; and the board

shall have, for the enforcement of its orders in this respect, in addition to all other powers possessed by it therefor, the power to order a discontinuance of such connection or communication between such different telephone systems or lines.
My understanding is that a private company which is not under the jurisdiction of this parliament may make an agreement either before or after the coming into force of this Act, as it says, and altogether independently of the board and the board may, under the authority of this section, order a discontinuance of such connection or communication. In other words, they can absolutely cancel the agreement which has been made between a provincial company and a Dominion company, or between two provincial incorporated companies or between a company and a municipality, or they can disallow or cancel the agreement which a province, Manitoba or Saskatchewan, for instance, has entered into-and entered into altogether independent of the board. We certainly have not power to do anything of that kind and, as suggested, If we had the power we ought not to do it. I am arguing now as to the question of jurisdiction. 1 have communicated with certain authorities in connection with this and I have been confirmed in my view by these authorities connected with the province. I do not think I am at liberty to read the letters or more definitely to refer to them.
Section 8 of the second part, subsection 20a, on examination will be found to have the same vice.


George Perry Graham: Specific performance.


Haughton Lennox: What I mean is that this is in excess of our powers under the Confederation Act. I think that on analysis it will be found that we cannot possibly enact all that is therein contained. I know we sometimes go on the principle that no harm may come from such legislation, but I submit that we should always frame our legislation as nearly along the lines of our own jurisdiction as we can and should not purport to make enactments that under the constitution we have not power to make. One result of such a course is that it misleads the people, litigation arises and there are difficulties that otherwise would not occur. It is very plain that subsection 7 of section 4 and section 8, part 2 of this Bill are beyond the jurisdiction of this parliament.


Mr. GBAHAM.: Section 5 is a reprint of section 358 of the existing law, with the exception of one or two words. All the authority that is taken in 358 is to compel the companies over which we have jurisdiction to behave properly with any other company no matter where that other company gets its jurisdiction.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister's suggestion is that so far as the province is Mr. LENNOX.
concerned it is merely an enabling provision, enabling the province to make an application.


George Perry Graham: Yes, and it gives us complete control. Suppose the province made an application in reference to a line over which we had jurisdiction, and the question would be raised that the Dominion had no jurisdiction over a provincial line. This Act is to provide that we have complete jurisdiction over a trunk line, for instance, and can compel it to allow any line, any municipal, private or local company, to make its connection with the lines of the company over which we have jurisdiction.


Robert Laird Borden: Your view is that this enables a province or any company incorporated by authority of a province to make an application to the board in respect of a company over which the board has jurisdiction. So far as the province or the provincial company is concerned, this Act merely enables it to make application.


George Perry Graham: That evidently is the intention of the Act as passed by this House and we have not changed it except to put in the provision : Whether the company is chartered by Act of the parliament of Canada or not.
Subsection 7 is an exact reprint of section 359 of the old Act, except that in the old Act there is a subsection 2 while here it is ail put in one section. The question of jurisdiction in connection with that clause (lid not strike me. I supposed it was thoroughly threshed out at the time the Railway Act was passed. I shall express my views on subsection 8 when we come to it, but in the meantime 1 am glad to hear my hon. friend's views.


Haughton Lennox: I did not emphasize section 7 particularly, although it says : Whether such authority is derived from the parliament of Canada or otherwise. The language of subsection 7 is broad enough to cover all cases and it especially covers the case of every provincialiy controlled telephone system and every municipally controlled telephone system. It defines every kind of telephone system we have in the country and we are professing to give the Board of Railway Commissioners the power to say :	That although a system constituted under a provincial charter has entered into a contract with a Dominion system to transmit messages at certain rates, or two provinces have made arrangement agreeing upon terms, before this Act came into force or afterwards without reference to the board, and one of the parties is dissatisfied with those terms, the Railway Board can step in and cancel that agreement. I submit we have no such power as that.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Upon what ground is it objectionable ?


Haughton Lennox: Ou the broad ground that it invades provincial laws as to proper and civil rights. Here is a company with a provincial charter which enters into an agreement with a company having a Dominion charter, or for that matter two provincial companies may enter into an agreement, and if one becomes dissatisfied this Dominion Board can step in and cancel that contract whether it is made before or after the passage of this Act.


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact it could hardly aoply to provincial companies because the interpretation of ' company,' is, a company under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The clause reads :
The board shall have for the enforcement of its orders in this respect, &c.
It only takes this power for the enforcement of its orders and I submit that the parliament of Canada can for the purpose of enforcing any law which it has power to pass, add this additional power if necessary. But, apart from that, suppose the province of Manitoba which now owns the provincial telephone system makes an arrangement, for through rates, with the Bell Company which has a Dominion charter. Suppose the province of Manitoba should come to think that the rates are much higher than they ought to be and the question is submitted to this board and the board finds that the rate shall be decreased, in order to enforce its order the board can go to the extent of disconnecting the lines of any company that may be connected with the trunk line. You have to give the board some power to enforce its orders and the most practical power is to enable the board to say : You will have to carry out our orders or you cannot do business.


Haughton Lennox: I did not overlook the interpretation of the word ' company ' but this Bill says : ' That a telephone system or line operated by any company or by any such province, municipality or corporation whether its authority to operate such a system is derived from the parliament of Canada or otherwise, the very language of this Bill thus overrides the ordinary definition given in the first section of the Act.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. LANCASTER.: If I am right in my construction of subsection 8 of section 4, it absolutely nullifies agreements that may have been made between municipalities and telephone companies. I can imagine, although I have no distinct case in mind, that some of these local companies in different parts of the Dominion have made arrangements with municipalities by which certain minimum rates are agreed to, or a general control of rates, in return for the
privilege of erecting poles and stringing wires in the streets. If that is an essential part of the franchise granted by the municipality, would it be fair to the municipality to give the Railway Commission power to nullify that contract ? They could not put the municipality in statu quo before the original agreement was made, by having the poles taken out of the ground and the wires taken off the streets. Therefore I would suggest that this clause be modified by providing that no agreements entered into before the passing of this Act should be interfered with.


George Perry Graham: This subsection 8 is a verbatim copy of section 360 of the Railway Act, and refers only to contracts and agreements respecting an interchange of traffic. It refers not so much to agreements between municipalities and companies as to working agreements between companies.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It would cover the former.


George Perry Graham: Probably. Does my hon. friend not think we ought to bring "under this Bill every agreement which has been or will be made?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Between a muni-pality and a local telephone company ? I would say no. I would not interfere in a bargain between them.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend will look at the clause closely, it merely refers directly to an interchange of messages and the portion of tolls which will go to each one of the companies interested and to the genera] operation of the line. I do not think It Would interfere with an agreement between a municipality and its own local lines; but when the local company makes connection with other lines, this steps in and apportions the business.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If it means what the hon. gentleman says, it is all right; but I am afraid that, as worded, it would be construed by the courts to go further. If it only means what my hon. friend says, my objection disappears ; but I am afraid it is wide enough to be, in the hands of an astute lawyer, made to mean something very different. It says;
All contracts, agreements and arrangements between the company

Having a Dominion charter. .
-and any other company

*
This would not be one having a Dominion charter.
-and any province, municipality or corporation having authority to construct or operate a telephone system or line-
A corporation may get authority to construct a telephone system or line without its being a Dominion company



-whether such authority is derived from the parliament of Canada or otherwise, for the regulation and interchange of telephone messages or service passing too and from their respective telephone systems and lines, or for the division or apportionment of telephone tolls.
The yerv minute you give this commission power to say what the division or apportionment of tolls shall he, they must of necessity fix the aggregate amount of tolls. They must impliedly have power to fix practically what the tolls shall he from time to time with the company making connection. If they are going to divide the tolls, they must see how much the local company shail have and the trunk line. But the toils may have been agreed to for a good many years with the municipality which, because of that special agreement, gave the right to poll and line' its streets. But if we give the commission power to adjust the tolls between those two companies, we of necessity say they must fix the whole toll; and in doing so they may violate the agreement which the local or any other company may have undertaken and not only a local company hut any company, for instance the Bell Telephone Company, might have got-permission to use the trees and highways by virtue of municipal agreement imposing certain conditions, and such agreement should be protected in this section. We should not interfere with agreements already made. An agreement made after the passing of this Bill would be in a different position. It might be quite right to say that such an agreement would he no good unless sanctioned by the commission. But if an agreement were made before this measure became law, it should be protected.


George Perry Graham: I think there will be no trouble about that. The section says:
* Shall be subject to the approval of the board and shall be submitted to aiid approved by the board before such contract, agreement or arrangement shall have any force or effect.' It merely makes it clear that the public shall be protected in any arrangement that two companies may make between themselves regarding toll.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Protected by the
board?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: iThey may be already better protected by their own municipal board.


George Perry Graham: That will not be affected.


Mr. NORTHRTJP.: Is it the minister's intention to give power to the board to deal with the affairs of two purely local telephone companies? I do not think that constitutionally we could do that. At the same time the wording of this clause, coupled with the wording of the interpretation clause, would profess to give authority to-' Mr. LANCASTER
deal with the affairs of two local companies confined to one county.


George Perry Graham: AH contracts, agreements and arrangements between the company and any other company-


William Barton Northrup: What is the meaning of the word 'company'?


George Perry Graham: It means, by the interpretation clause, a company incorporated by the Dominion.


William Barton Northrup: If my hon. friend will read the interpretation clause more carefully, he will find it has not any such meaning. The word ' company ' is one which is applied to three distinct objects. In the first place, it means ' a railway company or person authorized to construct or operate a telegraph or telephone system and to charge telegraph or telephone tolls.' That is on class. It includes also 'telegraph and telephone companies ' and also * every company and person within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, having power to construct or operate a telegraph or telephone system or line and to charge telegraph or telephone tolls.' If I read that clause correctly, there are three different classes and the words in the third clause ' every company and person within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada ' do not apply at all to the second class. You have your railways allowed to use telegraph and telephone lines and charge toll. Then you have telegraph and telephone companies regardless where incorporated. Then third, every company and person which derives its authority from this parliament. As a pure matter of English, the word ' company ' would apply to two telephone companies with provincial charters and locally used entirely.


Mr. DANIEL.: Does anything in this Bill authorize the board of Railway Commissioners to give authority to companies to erect polls and string wires in a municipality without its consent? Is the minister of the opinion that any arrangement made by a municipality with various companies could, under this section, be overcome by the Board of Commissioners?


George Perry Graham: No, I think not. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) says that this is the reply :	' Every company
and person within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada ' and so on. Whether their charter is from us or from a local authority if they are within the legislative authority of this parliament, they come under the operation of this Act.


William Barton Northrup: This subsection 8 refers to ' the company ' and ' any other company,' or any province, municipality or corporation having authority to construct or operate a telephone system or line, whe-

ther such authority is derived from the parliament of Canada or otherwise.' Now, if we refer to the interpretation clause we find that there are three classes included, railway companies with telegraph or telephone powers, telegraph or telephone companies and companies or persons within the legislative authority of this parliament having power to operate a telegraph or telephone system and to charge tolls. So you are open to the difficulty that you are professing to deal with companies entirely outside the jurisdiction of parliament. That is the reason why I ask if it is the intention to do that, and whether the minister thinks we have power to do it. I am not questioning at this moment the propriety of doing it, but simply the power. Suppose there are two telephone companies operating only in one county and deriving their authority from the provincial legislature, does the minister think that we shall have power to refer the ' management of their internal affairs to this board 1


Mr. PTJGSLEY.: It seems to me that, having passed the previous subsection, there can be no objection to passing this one. For, in subsection 7, similar words are used :
Where the telephone system or line operated by the company is used or connected, for purposes of communication as aforesaid, with the telephone system or line operated by another company or by any such province, municipality or corporation, whether the authority of such province, municipality or corporation to construct and operate or to operate such telephone system or line is derived from the parliament of Canada or otherwise.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That was criticised for the same reason.


William Pugsley: But it was passed. In this subsection 8, unquestionably ' the company ' means a company over which this parliament has jurisdiction.


William Barton Northrup: No. If the hon. gentleman is right there, I have not anothel word to say.


William Pugsley: It must mean that, because if you can give an interpretation to the word ' company ' which - would cover companies over which parliament has jurisdiction, the language would be held to apply to such companies. Now, giving that construction to the words ' the company ' you will simply have a provision that all contracts, agreements and arrangements between a company which is subject to the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament and any other company which might he incorporated by any province or municipality shall be subject to the board of commissioners. If it were possible to conclude that this parliament has jurisdiction over all local telephone companies, no
harm would be done, because the natural result would be that this board would have jurisdiction over each and all of them. It seems to me there can be no possible objection to the clause, particularly in view of the paragraphs which have preceded it.


William Barton Northrup: Of course, it will be admitted that if we should pass legislation which is quite ultra vires, it would not be the first time that this parliament has erred in that way. I have no particular objection to the clause if parliament has power to pass it at all. But, as I read the Bill, we are assuming to do something which we have no right to do. If I am correct, I am sure the Minister of Railways would not be anxious, any more than I am, to put on the statute-book a clause which will be wholly inoperative. As to what the Minister of Public Works has said, the question is, what jurisdiction has this House ? Assume the case that I have spoken of, the case of two telephone companies deriving their authority from a provincial source and carrying on their work wholly within one county, would it be said that we have power to refer their internal affairs to this hoard ?


William Pugsley: If not, the Act would
not apply.


William Barton Northrup: (But I think the question is first whether we have that power. If we have not, I certainly object to the House making itself ridiculous, and I think the House does not wish to put itself in that position. If it is said, that we have this authority, I have nothing more to say. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth)- and I would bow to his authority-says that we have this power, I am willing to let the matter rest upon his opinion.


George Perry Graham: This is a legal argument. As I understand it, it is a question of legal opinion, and may have to be decided by the courts, whether these other companies would come under the legislative authority of the pai'liament of Canada or not. Of course I am not competent to discuss that, but I think that, in the interests of the public, it would be better to give the public the benefit of the doubt and to put this in the Act. For I believe that the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction over a municipality or even over a person.


William Barton Northrup: In certain directions and to a certain distance.


George Perry Graham: Put it this way :	It
has been held that this board has a right to compel. a municipality to pay its share of a railway crossing. To that extent, it must be acknowledged, the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction over a municipality.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is where a Dominion railway is dealing with a municipality.


George Perry Graham: Probably, it might not be a Dominion railway ; but I am not going into that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It would not have power unless it were.


George Perry Graham: That point has been raised with me once or twice before, but not to the same extent. Opinions differ. A good many opinions I get-and, I think perhaps, the strongest-are in favour of the contention that the Dominion parliament has jurisdiction over all these if it chooses to exercise it. I believe there can be no question as to the advisibility of this clause, and I am strongly in favour of having it inserted. It is only a reprint of section 360 of the old Act, and we will proceed to enforce the law, believing it to be good law-and my own opinion is that it will be held to be such. As we are endeavouring to put on the statute-book an Act to take full control of these public utilities, I think we ought to go the fullest extent of our power, and not create obstacles when none exist.


William Barton Northrup: The minister will see that the public being protected might mean that parties having in good faith made an arrangement, an appeal to this board would put them to a great deal of expense and trouble, and eventually it might be decided that the board had no authority. The minister is correct as to the power of the commissioners over municipalities, but I think, that if he inquires of the Minister of Justice that gentleman will tell him that that is based on another principle altogether. It is this, that if this House has jurisdiction to pass a law on a certain point, as for example, banking, then in order to carry out what is necessary to make bank legislation perfect, we can pass laws that, apart from that, would be ultra vires, because they would interfere with civil rights. But in so far as it is necessary for this House to pass any legislation in regard to any matter over which it has jurisdiction, there is no doubt, whether it relates to a municipality, an individual or a province. But the point we have raised here is whether this House has any jurisdiction. If the House has any jurisdiction over these local companies, we may make any provision we like. But the point still remains, Have we this jurisdiction ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I agree with my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup). The minister's contention is that there may be some doubt about this, but I think his Interpretation clause puts it beyond doubt. I 'cannot understand why neither the Minister of Railways nor the Minister of Pub-Mr. GRAHAM.
lie Works can grasp the correct statement of my hon. friend from East Hastings as to the interpretation clause of the Bill. By this Bill we are saying what this shall appiy to, and although my hon. friend from East Hastings has read it twice, as neither one of the ministers seem able to grasp it, I will read it again.
' Company ' means a railway company or person authorized to construot or operate a railway, having authority to construct or operate a telegraph or telephone system or line, and to charge telegraph or telephone tolls

That' is one thing it means. It also means :
-and includes also telegraph and telephone companies.
No limitations as to which ones. Then there is a third clause :
And every company and person within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada having power to construct or operate a telegraph or telephone system.
iSo it applies, first, to telegraph companies who are operating telephones and telegraphs; secondly, it applies to every telegraph and telephone company.
Mr. PU'GSLEY. Suppose it does, what is the harm in it ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Every telegraph and telephone company includes companies having jurisdiction only, unconnected with any company authorized by the Dominion. The interpretation clause makes that quite clear, and we are not wise to imagine what the interpretation clause might be construed to be, because we have said what it is. It includes every telegraph and telephone company. Then, thirdly, it includes persons that are authorized to construct but have not yet constructed. Now take a telegraph or telephone company that is constructed, there is no limitation there that it must have a Dominion charter. Here is subsection 8 the word ' company ' means a company which has no Dominion charter, as long as it is a telephone company authorized by any authority. Therefore, we have the case oT provincially constituted telephone companies, and I think we have no right to interfere with them. I can well see that if a dozen of them were to be mixed up in a deal with a Dominion company, then some authority such as the Dominion Railway Commissioners should have some power over them. But when there is no scintilla of Dominion corporation, when all the companies concerned are of provincial authority, how can it be argued that this parliament has any power whatever to interfere with them, or depute any commission to interfere with them ? The minister says we ought to give the public the benefit of the doubt, but the public are interested in having their local utilities controlled by local

authority. You cannot say that you are giving the public the -benefit of the doubt when you take away from them local jurisdiction and force them to come down to Ottawa and be dealth with by Dominion authority which it was never contemplated should control them when they made their arrangements. They want to be controlled by the authority which they had in contemplation when they entered into these arrangements.


Mr. GALLIHER.: I think the interpretation clause means this : First, a railway company or person authorized to construct or operate a railway, who have the power of operating a telegraph or telephone system. whether they be under a provincial charter or a Dominion charter. Does not the first part of the clause mean that ? Then does not the second part-I take it there are only two parts-mean and include also telegraph and telephone companies within the legislative authority of parliament ?


William Barton Northrup: It does not say so.


William Alfred Galliher: I may ne wrong, but at least I wish to make clear what I mean. Does it not include also telegraph and telephone companies within the legislative authority of parliament, and every company and person within the legislative authority of parliament ? There is no distinction. 1 think these two were put together, and that the words ' within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada ' refer to these particular ones, not to any that might follow, because they are indivisible, they are taken together.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They are separated by the word ' and.'


William Alfred Galliher: No, 'and' is not a separating word, ' and ' is a copulative conjunction.
Includes -also telegraph -and telephone companies and every company and person within the legislative -authority of the parliament of Canada.
It seems to me quite clear that ' within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada ' refers to those that you cannot divide into two. They are two in a sense, but they are both limited and qualified by the words following.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is quite clear that the hon. gentleman and myself both want to accomplish the same sort of legislation. To settle it I would move to strike out the words that make the trouble, ' every company and person.' It would then read :
-all telephone and telegraph companies and persons within the -legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.


George Perry Graham: Does not the first part of (b), down to the word ' tolls,' refer to a railway company owning a telegraph or 338
telephone line ? The clause deals with two classes, first a railway company with telephone lines and second a person or company having telegraph and telephone lines, not being a railway company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And third, other persons having authority to construct lines.


William Barton Northrup: If the minister would add after the word ' every ' the word [DOT] other,' it would give the exact meaning he intends.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: We are not for the first time putting this provision upon the statute-book. We have had for two years exactly this clause, empowering the Railway Board to do exactly the thing which this subsection 8 now provides for. I understand that what is now before the committee for consideration is the question whether or not that legislation shall be repealed. When this Bill came to be drafted, the desire was to put telegraph companies throughout the Dominion under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. The draughtsman found upon the statute-book six clauses relating to telephone companies which had been passed by this parliament two years ago. These clauses could without any difficulty be adapted to telegraph companies as well, and it was thought to be neater draughtsmanship to repeat these clauses with the variations necessary in order to make them include telegraph companies as well as telephone companies, than to enact a series of new clauses applicable to telegraph companies alone and leave on the statute-book the old ones relating to telephone companies as they stood. Accordingly these six clauses of the Consolidated Railway Act which related to telephone companies were taken and were made to include not only the telephone but also the telegraph companies. In those clauses there was no definition of the word ' company.' It was taken for granted, when the enactment was made by this parliament two years ago, that it would include any telephone companies. In order that there misrht be no mistake about what was meant, in order to limit rather than extend the operation of these provisions, a definition of the word ' company ' was inserted in the statute. That definition makes the word ' company ' for the purposes of this part one of the Act, mean any individual or company, no matter where such a company is incorporated, which carries on a telegraph or a telephone business and is within the legislative authority of this parliament. If there be any company in this country carrying on such a business but which is not within the legislative authority of this parliament then that company is not touched by this subsection 8. It is impossible for any person to answer such a question as was propounded by the hon. member for East Hast-



iugs, (Jlr. Xortlirup) who says : I give you the case of two companies with which 1 am acquainted, local companies, incorporated otherwise than by this parliament, and I ask you does section 8 apply to an agreement which these two companies may enter into ? My hon. friend might quite as well ask the question: 1 give you two companies neither of them incorporated by this parliament and I ask you to say whether or not these companies are within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. The only answer is that they are for some purposes, no matter where they are incorporated, though for other purposes they will not be in any wav under the legislative authority of this parliament. Take for instance the subject of bills of exchange, the subject of interest or any of the subjects which by section 91 of the British North America Act are placed within the exclusive legislative authority of this parliament. Any legislation with regard to such subjects necessarily applies to companies as well as to individuals, no matter where such companies receive their incorporation and so, for certain purposes, all companies, no matter where incorporated, all companies, as well as all human beings in Canada, are within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada. I cannot answer whether or not such companies as my hon. friend from Hastings described, would be touched by this subsection 8 or by the present section 360 of the Railway Act. That depends ; it may be they would, it may be they would not. But that surely is no reason why this parliament should not legislate with regard to a subject over which it has jurisdiction and with regard to companies which are undoubtedly within its legislative authority. It is for the company which objects to the legislation of this parliament applying to it to demonstrate to a court that it is not within the legislative authority of this parliament. '


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Mould that not be settled by the interpretation clause of this Bill ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The interpretation clause simply declares that any company which is within the legislative authority of this parliament shall be subject to the following enactments. It does not profess to say what company is or what company is not within the legislative authority of this parliament. One company may be and another company may not be ; that is for determination by the courts if the question is ever raised. Unless you do put an enactment of this sort on the statute-book of course the question could never arise. It is only when some legislative enactment has been made which a company or an individual thinks is beyond the jurisdiction of the legislative body which passes it that the question of authority to enact can be Mr. AYLESWORTH.
raised. And it is for the person or company disputing the jurisdiction of parliament or of the legislature to raise that question to show the facts to the tribunal which has it for decision and to await the decision of the tribunal. If the company which is described as of purely local character and as receiving its incorporation otherwise than from this parliament, is in truth within the legislative authority of this parliament, the court will so declare and there is no reason why this enactment should not apply to it. On the contrary, if the court finds any company doing business in Canada which is not subject to the jurisdiction of this parliament, this clause does not hurt it. In either view there can be no good reason why this clause should not be substituted for the exactly, word for word, similar clause which now appears in the general Railway Act. It would serve no purpose whatever to strike subsection 8 out of the Bill, if at the same time you refrain from repealing it by this Bill. It would then stand on the statute-book as it stands to-day ; ;t would only be printed in a different place and would have just the same legislative effect as though this subsection now passes.
Progress reported.



ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have to inform the House that I have received the following communication :
Ottawa, June 1G, 1908.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Chief Justice of Canada, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber this afternoon at 4 o'clock, for the purpose of assenting to such Bills as have passed the Senate and House of Commons.
I have the honour to Ire, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. IIAXB1JRY-WILLI AMS, Colonel,
Governor General's Secretary. The Honourable,
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
A message was received from His Honour the Deputy Governor by the gentlemau Usher of the Black Rod as follows :
Mr. Speaker,-His Honour the Deputy Governor desires the immediate attendance of your honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly Mr. Speaker, with the House, went up to the Senate Chamber.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that his honour the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following Bills:

An Act respecting the Hamilton Radial Electric Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the North Empire Fire Insurance Company.
An Act to incorporate the Travellers' Life Assurance Company of Canada.
An Act to incorporate the Bank of Hamilton Pension Fund.
An Act respecting the Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters in the Dominion of Canada.
An Act to incorporate the Canada Weather Insurance Company.
An Act respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company.	*
An Act to incorporate the Vancouver Island and Eastern Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Western Alberta Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Standard Accident and Guarantee Company of Canada.
An Act respecting the Eastern Trust Company.
An Act respecting the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Board of the Presbyterian College, Halifax.
An Act for the relief of Andrew Walker.
An Act for the relief of Edith Maud Rosario Gammell.
An Act to incorporate The Anglo-Canadian and Continental Bank.
An Act to amend the Winding-up Act.
An Act respecting the Anglo-Canadian Insurance Company and to change its name to the National Union Insurance Company.
An Act respecting the merger of the Northern Bank and the Crown Bank of Canada under the name of the Northern Crown Bank.
An Act to incorporate the Standard Plate Glass Insurance Company of Canada.
An Act respecting the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company.
An Act to incorporate the Northern Empire Railway Company.
An Act respecting the New Brunswick Southern Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Fort William Terminal Railway and Bridge Company.
An Act respecting the Pacific Coast Fire Insurance Company.
An Act to repeal the Canned Goods Act.
An Act to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act.
An Act respecting the Ottawa, Brockville and St. Lawrence Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Pontiac Central Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Occidental Fire Insurance Company.
An Act to incorporate the Architectural Institute of Canada.
An Act to amend the Land Titles Act.
An Act respecting Signal Dues at Halifax.
An Act respecting Meaford Harbour.
An Act respecting the Grank Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company.
An Act to incorporate The Ruthenian Catholic Mission of Saint Basil the Great in Canada.
An Act to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
An Act to incorporate the Saskatchewan Power Company.
338i
An Act respecting the Pacific and Atlantic Railway Company.
An Act to authorize the exchange of certain school lands for other Dominion lands.
An Act respecting the Nipissing Central Railway Company.	,
An Act respecting The Crown Life Insurance Company.
An Act respecting the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1909.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 118) to amend the Railway Act with respect to Telegraphs and Telephones, and the Jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners.-Mr. Graham.
Charles Lewis Owen: Mr. Chairman, before we go any further I would like to ask if this Bill should not have been brought down worded a little more plainly than it is. I venture to say that 95 per cent of the members of this House do not understand this Bill as it is worded, and after it is passed they will not understand it any better than they do now, and if they were asked by the electorate of their ridings to explain it, they could not do it. I ask if that is legislating in the interests of the people of this country? We have listened to three or four legal men this afternoon discussing this Bill, and they do not agree as to its meaning. We have listened to the hon. Minister of Justice, who is not very clear as to what it means, and he goes so far as to suggest that any corporation or municipality might get an opinion as to its meaning by going to law. Now, I claim that that is not legislating in favour of the masses. No Bill should be brought into this House that could not be understood by all the members. I think all of our Bills might be brought down with a little more common sense in them and a little less law, so that the every-day man could understand what we are passing in this House.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: When the committee rose the Minister of Justice had given reasons why he thought the law should be made as lie is trying to make it, but I want to point out that what the Minister of Justice said is not what is in the Bill. If we were sure, as has been well said by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, that the people of this country would understand this legislation as the Minister of Justice understands it, that would be all right. The law will not be interpreted according to what is said in this House or is reported in ' Hansard,' but according to the language of the Act, and I think the answer to what the Minister of Justice said is the interpretation clause of the Bill. The Minister of Justice, as I understand, says he wants to include all companies over which this parliament has any power, and if a

certain company thinks it is not included in that description, it can go to law to find out whether it is or not. I agree with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat that that is not the kind of legislation to have. Although it is necessary sometimes to have the courts interpret statutes, I think we should legislate in a way to avoid as far as possible that necessity. If the Minister of Justice wants to mnke it clear that the Bill says what he intends it to say, he will at once accept the suggestion of the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) and insert the word 'other' in the eleventh line. Then it will be clear that it applies to companies within the jurisdiction of this parliament and only to those. What we all say we want will then be done by the Act, and there will not be the doubt or the excuse for going to law to find out what companies It does include. Why should we have legislation which requires the decision of court after court? The concern which is defeated in a lower court will probably be induced to take the case to a higher court, and so it will go from one court to another until it reaches the Supreme Court or the Privy Council of England at an enormous expense to the people concerned. We all apparently aeree as to what the statute should say, but for some reason there seems to be a terrible objection to amending it so as to make clear what it does say. It is bad enough for us to dispute about what the law ought to be made in this House, but when we agree that it ought to apply only to companies that are under the jurisdiction of this parliament, why should we not put in a word that will make that perfectly clear so that there will be no necessity for law suits to determine the question?


George Perry Graham: I do not see any reason for the insertion of the word ' other.' In fact, I think the Bill is better without it, because it might imply what we do not want to imply. If we inserted the word ' other,' we might take in banks and things *of that kind. The Minister of Justice thinks we are on safer ground with the clause as It is.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If you want it to be contended that it applies to purely provincial corporations you are safe, but you are not safe if you wanted it understood that it only applies to companies within the jurisdiction of this parliament.


William Barton Northrup: Surely the Minister of Justice is not serious when he deliberately says that if we add the word ' other,' the clause might include banks. The words in the interpretation clause are ' and every company and person within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada having power to construct or ' operate a telegraph or telephone system.' Surely he does not think that the addition of the word ' other ' would make the interpretation Mr. LANCASTER.
clause include banks or anything of that kind. I have no further objection to make to tire Bill. I must confess I have been converted by the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth). I had thought in my innocence that this Bill was intended to facilitate and expedite the desirable result of having cheaper tolls and better managed telephone and telegraph companies, and having the interests of the public better protected. It seems, however, that I was mistaken. The Bill was introduced in order that all who wish to have the law of the country settled could have an opportunity of appealing to the courts. That being the minister's idea, the Bill is so admirably drawn for the purpose he desires, that it would be cruel to change it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is a Bill for the purpose of providing business for lawyers.


Duncan Graham: I am glad to see my hon. friends so very anxious that no business shall be provided for the-lawyers.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We want legitimate business.


George Perry Graham: But this Bill is intended to prevent what the hon. gentleman seems anxious to get in. He is trying to provide something for the lawyers. Section 360 has been on our statutes some years, and we are not attempting in this measure to put anything on the statutes which is not in force and operated under this board. To say otherwise is altogether contrary to the fact. If this clause 360 were so objectionable, it is strange that did not strike the hon. gentlemen befoi'e.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How long has it been on?


George Perry Graham: Some two or three years. And this clause is merely what is in the statute now.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The interpretation clause in the statute of 1903 is entirely different.


George Perry Graham: The only difference Is in the application. We have telegraph and telephone companies in now and we had not before.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The whole construction of the clause is different.


George Perry Graham: The clause simply means what it says. I cannot get any other meaning into it though legal men can. It is not hard to understand unless these legal gentlemen make it so :
8.	All contracts, agreements and arrangements between the company and any other company, or any province, municipality or corporation having authority to construct or operate a telephone system or line, whether such authority is derived from the parliament of Canada or otherwise, for the regulation and interchange of telephone messages or ser-

vice passing to and from their respective telephone systems and lines, or for the division or apportionment of telephone tolls, or generally in relation to the management, working or operation of their respective telephone systems or lines, or any of them, or any part thereof, or of any other systems or lines operated in connection with them or either of them, shall be subject to the approval of the board, and shall be submitted to and approved by -the board before such contract, agreement or arrangement shall have any force or effect.
The English language cannot be plainer. If two telegraph or telephone companies amalgamate, the agreement between them must be ratified by this board before it goes into force.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Even if both are provincial?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend raises the question as to whether provincial telephone companies are under the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament. I cannot be dragged into that. For the purposes of this Bill, everything that comes within the jurisdiction of this parliament shall be subject to the board; and any one who takes exception can take it. This parliament takes power to deal with the matter, and the objector must raise the objection ;
On section 8, 26a :
26a. W-hore it is complained bv or on behalf of the Crown or -any municipal or other corporation or any other person -aggrieved, that any company has violated or committed a breach of an agreement between the complainant and the company-or by any company that any such municipal or other corporation or person has violated or committed a breach of an agreement between the company and such corporation or person,-for the provision, construction, reconstruction, alteration, installation, operation, use or maintenance by the company, or by such .municipal or other corporation or -person, of anv structure, appliance, equipment, works, .-renewals or repairs upon or in connection with the railway of -the company, the board -shall hear -all matters relating to such alleged violation or breach, and shall -make such order as to the board -mar seem, having regard to all the circumstances of -the case, reasonable and expedient, and in such order -may in its discretion direct the company, or such municipal, or other corporation or person, to do such -things as are necessary for the proper fulfilment of such agreement) or to refrain from doing such acts as constitute a violation or a breach thereof.
Mr.. GRAHAM. In the second line after the first word ' section,' I think it advisable to insert the word ' immediately.'


William Barton Northrup: This clause is brought down by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), and again I shall have to trouble him to ask what, in his judgment, it means. It may be within the knowledge of the House that I had occasion some time ago to refer to the condition of affairs in one of
the counties of this province, at which time the grievance I complained of was admitted by the Minister of Railways and the First Minister. The Minister of Railways said he was seeking an opportunity to remove this grievance; he said it shduld be removed; and I understood that a Bill would be brought down for that purpose. I would ask him if he thinks that this particular clause would touch the case of an agreement being made by a railway with the government, money being paid by the government to the railway under that agreement and it turning out afterwards that another railway had fraudulently used the name of the first, obtained the money, failed to carry out the agreement made in the name of the second railway, leaving the government, apparently, powerless, and the people powerless, to do anything in the matter? I have asked the minister if this clause is intended to meet a case of that kind, or if it. is the intention of the government, later on during the present session, to bring down a clause to meet such a case.


Mr GRAHAM.: This does not meet the case outlined by my hon. friend (Mr. North-nip). That is the case of a road in the county of -Hastings whose name has, for the moment, escaped me


William Barton Northrup: The Belleville and North Hastings.	.


George Perry Graham: Yes-which company got a charter and received, I believe, both municipal and government assistance. This was a great many years ago. The road afterwards passed into the hands of the Graud Trunk. There seems to have been some difference of opinion. The money was received-I believe my hon. friend says, fraudulently; well, I leave it to the late government to explain how they came to pay out that money under the circumstances. This Bill does not deal with that case. I am afraid we cannot undertake, in an Act which we bring in, to regulate, as well as we can, matters of the future, to make the legislation retroactive, to any great extent at all events. The company in the particular case to which reference has been made has an answer,-whether good or bad in equitv, good, as I understand, in law-that the legal limit of any obligation it may have been under has been passed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is no limitation against the Crown.


George Perry Graham: But there is a legal limitation, -I understand, against anybody who wishes to get the money back, perhaps not against the Crown. But, I think that if the hon. gentleman looks up the statute providin'*' for the contract under which the money was paid, he will find that 1 am correct. In any case I would leave it to the House whether we should pass an Act to refer all cases of that kind for years past to this board.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What harm would it do ?


George Perry Graham: I think it would not be good legislation. My own opinion is that we are laying on this board absolutely all that it can attend to in dealing with affairs of the present and the future. If we are to pass legislation to refer to it all these cases of years gone by, we cannot expect them to undertake the work we are now referring to them.	,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No limitation runs against the Crown. And, if this was, as is contended, a fraud, there will be no harm in making the company make amends for that fraud. It is hardly reasonable to say that we are going to load upon the board too much when we ask them to investigate matters and decide whether or not money was wrongly obtained from the Crown. It is just as reasonable to refer this to them as any one of the hundred and one other things that are to be handed over to the Railway Commissioners, whose working power, it is said, will be so greatly increased by doubling their number.


William Barton Northrup: I would not express my own opinion in answer to that of the Minister of Railways. It happens that on February 10 last, two gentlemen, whose opinions carry weight in this House expressed themselves on this subject. And I am sure that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Graham) will not claim that the conduct of these gentlemen since that time has been such that those on their own side at least should have lost confidence in them. I venture to give the real facts of the case and the hjghest opinions that can be had on the case in the language used on February 10, last


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: Mr. Chairman, is it in order to refer to a past debate ?


William Barton Northrup: When the matter is exactly the same, and when it has been referred to by the minister and myself in the present debate, I believe I am quite in order, in discussing a different subject, one has no right to refer to a past debate. But, as it has been referred to by the minister, and as the object of the legislation is to meet cases of difficulty arising, it is the same subject.


Mr. BRODEUR.: Precisely. But it is not permitted to refer to a previous debate, for the very purpose of preventing a discussion of the same thing twice. I think the point of order is well taken.


William Barton Northrup: Well, if the ministers are ashamed of what they said on the 10th of February


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Perry Graham: Mr. NORTHRUP-and if their followers object to having their language quoted, I shall bow to their wish. But it is not contrary to the rules.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller).: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Northrup) is quoting from a previous debate, but not concerning the same Bill, I should think that, probably, he is out of order.


Mr. HAGGART.: He is discussing a question of legislation which was predicated or promised "by a minister of the Crown, and reading the remarks of the minister referring to that legislation.


The CHAIRMAN.: Not this legislation.


William Barton Northrup: The first question I asked the minister was : Is this legislation a carrying out of the promise he made to the House, and the minister went on to explain that he would not be able, in this legislation, to carry out that promise. I propose to show, and lay before the House on the third reading, a clause that will meet the hon. gentleman's objection and make it perfectly possible to do what be proposes. In doing this, I thought I should be conferring a favour upon him. Now, if I am at liberty to read


Charles Marcil: I think the hon. gentleman is not in order.


William Barton Northrup: Then, I will not press that further. I call attention to the fact that the clause before the House is open to several objections. First, it is open to the same objection that was urged and urged at some length, with regard to a previous clause,-the word ' company ' in the definition applying to this Act. I submit that in this clause again we are dealing with companies which may be exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. But I will not deal with that further. Then the clause professes to give a very broad operation,-but how far does it really go?
Where it is complained by or on behalf of the Crown or any municipal or other corporation or any other person aggrieved, that any company has violated or committed a breach of an agreement between the complainant and the company-or by any company that any such municipal or other corporation or person has violated or committed a breach of an agreement between the company and such corporation or person

Committed a breach with regard to what ?
-for the provision, construction, reconstruction, alteration, installation, operation, use or maintenance by the company, or by such municipal or other corporation or person, of

Of what ? Of the railway itself ? No.
-of any structure, appliance, equipment, works, renewals or repairs upon or in connec-* tion with the railway of the company-

I submit that a clause of this kind falls short of the very object which the minister must have in view when it does not relate to the road ifself, but simply these structures on the road and the maintenance of these structures. One can understand a case arising in which the company had made an arrangement with the government and subsequently sold out to another company. Surely, it seems reasonable, in legislation of this kind, that the government should wish to protect the people, and, if it thinks it right to protect itself against the company with which it deals and against the company to which the other may sell out. Otherwise, every opportunity for fraud is afforded. One can easily see that in case that might be said of one of the great railways, all the railway would have to do would be to come to the government to obtain this bonus, to have the money paid, and then to form a new company, it might be of exactly the same individuals, and then convey the property of the first company to the'second ; and so far as this clause is concerned, and I think so far as the powers of the government at the present time are concerned, it would be impossible for anything to be done to redress that wrong ; and surely it is a wrong if money obtained by a railway company on that ground is not returned. I submit that the minister, in bringing down this clause, either intends to meet all these difficulties, or else he intends to meet the particular difficulties to suit himself. I intend to move an amendment which will meet all the difficulties. But I would like to ask the minister why it is that when he has to admit that the people have been robbed of $21,000 .-he rather demurred to my using the words ' fraudulently obtained ' ; there can be no doubt that it was so obtained-if another railway comes along and uses the name of the first mentioned railway and obtains $21,000 of the money of the people, and having obtained it, fails to carry out the contract, even after the contract was duly signed, sealed and delivered in the name of the company which had ceased to exist, surely in a case of that kind the minister should not be deterred by any statute of limitations. In the first place, 20 years have not elapsed, and in the second place there would be fraud. But apart from everything else, as to the question of fraud, I think the minister is not doing his duty if he does not attempt to meet a difficulty of that kind. There was a time when it could be said that the government was not to blame, when one could fairly say that this government was not aware of what had taken place, and therefore up to this date they are not to blame. But if, after their attention was called to the fact, the government knowing well that a railway company has robbed the people of $21,000, knowing that it is within their power, by a few words in this very clause,
to compel the railway which improperly holds this money to pay it back to the people, if the government then refuse to add the few words that would give power to the government, or to a municipality, or to any one concerned, to compel the restoration of this money, then the government cannot stand in the same position as it did at an earlier date, when, not having made a contract by which the company should pay over the money, they were not to blame for not having it repaid. The government has said that this was under another government. That is true, but the circumstances show that the former government was victimized, and the people lost their money. But to-day this government is not victimized, this government knows the facts, and it can compel the Grand Trunk Company to pay back the $21,000 by adding three or four lines in connection with this very clause. The Minister of Railways would have to say, and the Minister of Justice would have to admit, that in the clause I propose to move there is not a single right which can he taken away from the Crown, or from the municipality that is conferred by this parliament. On the other hand, the right would be given to the Crown to remedy a serious wrong. Now supposing one could imagine a government arising in this country, and an honest member of that government could say this :
There ought to be some method by which the Dominion, the province, or some other power would be able to make the railways who took Dominion or provincial _ subsidies or municipal bonuses carry out their part of these contracts.
Supposing that could be said, couid any one object to it ? Would anybody believe that a person who used such language did not intend to prevent justice being done ? Supposing this argument could be used :
We get our share of the return in the form of a good service, or we do not get it at all.
I am heartily in accord with all that is said in favour of making the companies live up to their obligations.
Surely that is a reasonable doctrine, that any man might state and subscribe to it. But supposing this also could be said :
Up to the present time I have not been able to discover machinery by which these Contracts can be enforced after the railways have received the money. If a portion of the subsidy was yet due the railway we could of course retain it, but the company having received the money, having complied with nil the conditions under the contract, it is not so easy, and I must say that I have not yet found a way by which we can compel these roads to carry out their contracts in this respect. I will say further that I will not be satisfied until I do find some way. I do not believe that a railway company has a right to take the money of the people of Canada and then not carry out its contract, any more than it would have a right to take my money

and not carry out a contract entered into with me.
If I should lay down such a proposition as that in this House, I appeal to the Minister of Railways, and I ask him if he would not be epnvinced by a statement of that kind as applied to the very case to which I alluded a moment ago, a case in connection with the Belleville and North Hastings Railway. There is much that could be said on this subject.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is working it in all right, notwithstanding.


William Barton Northrup: I am glad that my hon. friend seems to have heard these words before, and I can assure my hon. friend that it is not out of any disrespect to him that I am working in these words, because they are words which, if they were uttered by him in this House, he could well bo proud of ; and I think he would be surprised himself, and I should be surprised if now, when this Bill is before the House, and when there is an opportunity to avail himself of the very remedy which he so yearned after on a previous occasion-I would be surprised if he did not take advantage of the opportunity afforded. Therefore I venture to move an amendment to strike out clause 26a, and to insert the fol-1 lowing in its stead :
w*!fre it is complained bv or on behalf of the Crown, or of any municipal, railway or other corporation, or of any person aggrieved that any agreement with the Crown, or between corporations or persons, for or in respect of the providing, constructing, reconstructing, altering, installing, maintaining operating or using any railway which is under or has become subject to the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, or for or in respect of the structures, appliances, safeguards equipments, renewals or repairs of the same or m connection therewith, has not been or is not being complied with, or where it is so complained that any statutory or other duty or obligation in regard to any such matters aforesaid, has not been or is not being complied with, then in every such case of failure to comply with, fulfil or observe such agreement, obligation or duty, either by a contraot-lng party or by any person or corporation which has acquired or owns or is in possession or occupation of, or is operating The railway-the board shall hear all matters relating to such agreements, obligation or duty, and to such alleged violation or breach or non-compliance, and shall make such order as to the board, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, may seem reasonable, expedient and just, and in such order, may in its discretion, direct the company or person or corporation which made or violated or failed to comply with such agreement or which has acquired or owns or is in possession or occupation of or is operating the railway, respecting which such agreement was made, or such obligation or duty exists, to do such things as are necessary for the proper fulfilment of such agreement, duty or obligation, or to refrain from doing such acts as


William Barton Northrup: constitute a violation or breach thereof or non-compliance therewith.
I may say that probably the Minister of Railways Is aware that sometime ago the solicitor general spoke to me, and I handed him a copy of this amendment, so that I am not springing it on the government without due notice. The minister also will remember that I wrote him shortly after the debate saying that I had drawn up such an amendment and would submit it to him if be eared to take it into consideration. I think the minister will find that there is no right whatever included in clause 20a of this Bin, that is not safeguarded in the amendment that I have the honour to place in the hands of the chairman. I think it will he found that except in one or two points such as making it clear that the railways are under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada and that the Crown have the right, if they see fit in any such case as I have referred to to take steps before? the Railway Board in order to recover its money, as there would clearly be a shrinking from taking criminal proceedings in such a ease, my amendment embodies ail the Minister of Railways wished as expressed in the clause now before tile House and ail he might have been supposed to have said on the subject if it had been presented before, and that I can appeal to him to accept it.


George Perry Graham: There is no conflict between what I said on that day and what I say now, but when we are asked to pass retroactive legislation going back over twenty years and affecting agreements then made, it is a dangerous kind of legislation and I adhere to every word I then said. It is asking parliament to take quite a long step. If you establish such a precedent you may be asked to-morrow to interfere with contracts made ten or fifteen years ago, with which this parliament cannot deal. I submit again that it is not wflsdom to pass retroactive legislation unless under extraordinary circumstances. My hon. friend asks us to pass a law to affect an agreement of many years ago. No action has been taken by any municipality or by this or any previous government, although this arrangement was broken many years ago. If to-day the government of Canada have an action against any of these companies, there is no necessity of putting it into this Bill because it has its recourse in court. If they have not this action we are asked to place on the statute-book a provision which will give some persons a right which they do not now possess. It is dangerous legislation. As far as I remember I have not seen the proposed amendment. If it were an addition to this clause, of course we could pass the clause and consider it, but

as I caught it, it is a rewriting of the clause, so we had better let this subsection stand until the Minister of Justice can look into the clause.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I would remind the minister that when the Hamilton Radial Bill was before the House I gave notice of an amendment to section 10 with the intention of penalizing the company if they did not specifically perform certain agreements that had been entered into between the municipalities in the county of Halton and the Hamilton Radial Railway Company. The amendment of which I gave notice was :
Provided that in the event of the company at any time failing to conform to, or to carry out any of the provisions contained in any such by-laws or agreements as are herein referred to, or as may be hereafter made between the said company and any municipality, then the powers of operation granted to the company, or vested therein, shall cease and be null and void, so long as said company fails to conform to or carry out such provisions as aforesaid.
The Minister of Railways will perhaps remember that he advised me not to press that amendment at that timm assuring me that he would bring down aSjJill at a later stage of the session which would cover all that I wanted. I have examined, section 8 of the Bill now before us, clause 26a, and after reading it and rereading it I have almost come to the conclusion that possibly this is what the minister intended, but I am something like the hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. Owens) I am at a loss to determine exactly what it means. I remember on one occasion I asked the Minister of Railways if this was the clause to which he had reference and he told me it was. I then made some remarks with regard to the peculiar construction and the indefiniteness of the clause, and the minister admitted that it was very wordy and hard to understand, but he felt pretty sure it was the clause because when it came from the hands of the Minister of Justice who either drafted it or revised it, there was written across the margin, * specific performance ' and he knew when these words were ]j>ut there what the intention of the clause was. I had not an opportunity of seeing the original draft and had not the same means of knowing that it was intended as a special specific performance in the case I refer to. Is this the clause to which the minister then referred and does he think this clause will cover what I desire, namely to give power to the Board of Railway Commissioners to compel the Hamilton Radial Railway Company to specifically perform the conditions contained in the bylaws and agreements made between that railway company and the various municipalities in the county of Halton ? If he thinks this clause is sufficient I have nothing more to say, but I confess I have a great deal of difficulty in seeing the point.


George Perry Graham: This whole clause, -section 26a, has to be taken together to answer the question of my hon. friend. It is very drastic and it provides for the enforcement of agrements, or what we call specific performance, and if my hon. frieud will read subsection 2, 3 and 4 he will see how it is done. I think the Bill cannot be drafted in any better way than this in order to bring about the result aimed at. In reference to this particular Bill to which my hon. friend has referred, I think we placed in that charter a clause which compelled the company to take over all existing agreements. Clause 2 of 2fia is for the specific purpose of enabling the board to see that these agreements are carried out on behalf of the municipality and the com* pany, one as well as the other. If my hon. friend will read it carefully he will have no reason to find fault that the clauses are too liberal; as a matter of fact, they are very stringent.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: While the general statement of the Minister of Railways is all right, it must be limited by the section to certain things. The breach must be the breach of the agreement: ' For the provision, construction, reconstruction, alteration, installation, use, or maintenance,' and it must be with regard to ' structure, appliance, equipment, works, renewals or repairs.' If what my hon. friend from Halton has in mind is not covered by that language then he is getting nothing by this legislation.


David Henderson: That was one of my difficulties in reading this Bill. It seems to cover part only of what I want. There was an agreement between the Hamilton Radial Company and the municipality of Burlington, and I think other municipalities, with regard to the rates to be charged on the road. I fail to find anything in these clauses that will compel the company to carry passengers at the rates they agreed to carry them for years ago. That is oue instance wherein I think this clause does not reach all I intended. Possibly there may be something in the wording that will compel them to adhere to their former agreement with regard to rates, but I have been unable to discover it. I fear it does not go so far as the Minister of Railways led me to believe it would go when he asked me to abandon my amendment and to depend upon him for an amendment to the Railway Act that would give me all I desired.


George Perry Graham: I think the word ' operation ' makes it pretty wide.


David Henderson: Would that cover 'tolls' under the Railway Act?


George Perry Graham: The words used are :
For the provision, construction, reconstruction, alteration, installation, operation, use or maintenance by the company, &c.
The operation must refer to the railway. Of course the whole question of rates is in the hands of the Railway Board, the Hamilton Radial being a Dominion railway. Outside of the agreement the question of tolls rests with the board. I imagine that if it were shown an agreement had been made to carry passengers for a certain rate and that it is stated in the charter that the company gets a renewal subject to all the agreements then existing, the board would certainly apply it to the rates.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Suppose you simply said that when there was any breach of an agreement between the company and such corporation or person, leaving out the limiting words as to what the agreement should be about, would that not be the better way? What sort of an agreement is it that the board should not have the right to investigate? When they break any agreement why should they not be bound to go to the same tribunal for investigation no matter what the agrement is about ? Is not the whole crux that the company did not do as it agreed to with the people of Canada represented by the Crown, or with the municipal corporation, or with some other company? Why should not the agreement no matter what it is about be subject to investigation? Why not let the board investigate any agreement that is violated between these different parties?


George Perry Graham: The suggestion of my hon. friend would leave the clause so wide open that the lawyers would spend half their time finding out what the agreement was and what construction should be put upon it. We tried to include in this Bill every kind of an agreement so that there would be no loophole and so as to provide against all that kind of nonsense. It reads :
For the provision, construction, reconstruction, alteration, installation, operation, use or maintenance by the company or by such municipal or other corporations or persons, of any structure, appliance, equipment, work, renewals, or repairs, upon or in connection with the railway company.
I think that covers everything you could put in the Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Put the word * tolls ' iu.


George Perry Graham: The reason why the word ' tolls ' is uot in is because the board has full power to deal with tolls under the Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But you are not dealing with a branch of agreement in regard to tolls and you are allowing the board to deal with a lot of other matters that are not half so important as the tolls. If the hon.


David Henderson: gentleman wants the legislation to he practical he will allow the hoard to investigate an agreement, no matter what it is about.


Mr. BLAIN.: The municipalities having made agreements will of course be interested iu what the agreements are. I do not think there is any clause In any of the agreements in which they will have as much interest as in the one regulating tolls and charges. I cannot see why the minister would not agree to the request made by the hon. member for Halton and the hon. member for Lincoln, and insert a clause providing that the board shall have the right to regulate tolls and charges.


George Perry Graham: For the simple reason that the board has already the right under its constitution to regulate tolls. A company cannot impose a tariff of tolls until it is approved of by the board. If a municipality has made an agreement with this company, the extention of time we granted was made subject to that agreement. If my hon. friend will read the Bill all through, he will find that the board has the most complete power in reference to tolls.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The minister seems to be avoiding the issue raised by the hon. member for Peel. The whole of this section is aimed at a special provision for specific performance. 'The fact that the Bill iu another part deals with tolls has nothing to do with the case. Other parts of the Bill deal with operation, construction and other things entirely outside of this section; but this section is for the specific purpose of compelling the carrying out of agreements. Therefore to say that it should not deal with tolls because other parts of the Act give the board power to deal with them is begging the question. This Bill is aiming at giving power to the board to compel the companies in a drastic, specific and quick way to carry out their agreements. Well, they make an agreement or an order is made in regard to tolls, and they do not carry that out. Why should this section not apply to that as well as to other matters?


George Perry Graham: I am strongly of the opinion that the word ' operation ' will include everything. Any violation of an agreement as to operation must include the rates to be charged. My hon. friend talks a good deal about tolls. I was pointing out that the question of tolls came within the purview of the board completely-that they had full power under section 26a to do all that my hon. friend asks. However, this may all be in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for East Hastings, and we had better let this clause stand and we will consider the question of tolls in connection with his amendment.


David Henderson: I was just going to ask the minister to allow the matter to stand. In order to refresh his memory in

regard to the Hamilton Radial Railway Bill, I may say that there was a clause which bound the company under the new arrangement to perform all the conditions and agreements that had been entered into between the company and the various municipalities through which the railway passed. But the reason I asked for an amendmeut to compel specific performance was that I was informed that there was no law to compel specific performance of an agreement between a railway company under Dominion jurisdiction and a municipality. The people of that county are looking to me to see that a provision of this kind is put in th e Bill, and I hope the minister will not overlook it. There is a provision in the by-law of the municipality of Burlington, which I understand has been ratified and accepted by the Hamilton Radial Railway Company, that passengers shall be carried from Hamilton to Burlington and return for 25 cents. I am not sure that even the Railway Commission would insist on as low a charge without any previous agreement; consequently I would not want to rely entirely on the board to fix the tolls. They might fix a highei rate than that, whereas the people of Burlington expect,' in return for concessions which they have given, to get all the privileges that were agreed to ten or twelve years ago. This clause may only have operation from the present time, but I want to make sure that it will be retroactive and affect agreements made in the past. However, I think the minister is now seized with the whole situation, and I hope that in any suggested amendments he will see that the matter I refer to is absolutely covered.


William Alfred Galliher: I agree with the hon. minister with regard to the word ' operation.' I believe it includes tolls; but even if that were not so, take subsection 5 of section 11 and we see that the company can charge no toll whatever until its tariff has been submitted to and approved by the board. It says no toll shall be charged until approved of by the board.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The section before us is to apply a special remedy and compel a specific performance, but what the hon. gentleman is talking about is the power of the board to establish a toll. This however is a special remedy to see that the order of the board is carried out.


William Alfred Galliher: That applies to these very matters mentioned in this section, but the question of tolls is different. They cannot charge any toll until their tariff has been approved.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Suppose they charge more than the commission order, why should I not have the right to have that investigated by the commission ? The company cannot legally charge more but suppose they break the law, why not have
special legislation in regard to that just as much as in regard to operation or anything else ?


Mr. GAL LI  HER@: I do not see the fo.'ce of my hon. friend's argument. Here you have the specific declaration that the tolls must be approved of by the board; and no doubt in considering what should be proper tolls, the board will take into consideration every agreement the company may have made with any municipality.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Supposing any railway company, which has made an agreement with a municipality providing for certain tolls, should afterwards amalgamate with another company and both are under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission? That commission is not going to make one toll for the one company and another toll for the other, but will make a standard toll which will apply to both. Then trouble arises with regard to the transfer of passengers from one road to the other, and the company, which had agreed with a municipality for a certain rate, violates that agreement, under its amalgamation and the general order of the board for a toll for the whole distance. Why should not that be a subject for investigation, and why should we not give the board the power to investigate in a summary way and apply a remedy ?


George Perry Graham: WO are giving this board more power than is enjoyed by any other such board in the world. Most of the complaints against the legislation is that we are placing too much in the hands of the commission.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I never heard that.


George Perry Graham: I have heard it very often, and my hon. friend, if he had charge of the Bill, would have heard of it also. We are placing little things in their hands that no one ever thought of placing in the hands of any such commission on the other side of the line. The difficulty between my hon. friend and myself is this, that he cannot see that the question of tolls is an essence in this very section while I say that it is. If ' operation ' does not take in the question of rates, a great many of our statutes will be found defective.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The word 'tolls' is defined specially in the interpretation clauses of the Railway Act and the word ' operation ' is not. Why then should we jump at conclusions as to what the word ' operation ' means ?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend wants a legal interpretation of the word ' operation.' If this were a high court of justice, perhaps that would be necessary.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is the highest court in the land.


George Perry Graham: This is a tribunal for equity and speedy justice and the equitable adjustment of differences. There can be no question that the accepted view of the meaning of the word ' operation ' would be the one taken by this commission, and that is that everything in connection with the operation of this line is subject to the board. In the Hamilton Bill there was an extension of the charter, and there is a clause in that Bill providing that every agreement made with any municipality must be carried out. This board has power to see that all such agreements are carried out, both as to construction, repairs, maintenance, reconstruction and everything imaginable. My hon. friend will not argue that such power does not include everything connected with the operation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then the hon. gentle-mna would make his meaning clear by striking out these particularizing words and saying ' any agreement with regard to the working of a railway.'


George Perry Graham: Everything in connection with the working of a road would not be satisfactory.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why not ?


George Perry Graham: Because there are repairs to structures and construction which are not working the road. Nothing is omitted but everything possible is included so that there is no opportunity given to any one to come before the tribunal and say : Well, the agreement was not as to this point. The phrase suggested by my hon. friend ' any agreement as to the working of the road ' would not be satisfactory. There might be some disagreement regarding the construction or reconstruction in a certain place or as to the rebuilding of a station, and that would not be the working of a road.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I did not say the working of the road alone, but I said with regard to these words the hon. gentleman is using.


George Perry Graham: I submit in all fairness that nothing is omitted.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will my hon. friend [DOT]say that anything would toe omitted by using general instead of specific words ? '


George Perry Graham: There might be, and we are trying to get the power given this Board of Railway Commissioners to cover everything and avoid any advantage being taken of any municipality through any technicality. If we said ' an agreement as to the working of the road, there would be some of these other things that would be held technically to apply to the working of a road. I call the attention of the committee again to the wording of this section, and I think that it will be seen that, in all fairness, we have gone to the Mr. LANCASTER.
extreme limit in trying to provide that nothing shall be left out of the Bill to the prejudice of individuals or municipalities. It covers a grievance not only for the provision of these structures and works, but for their construction, and, in case that might not be enough, reconstruction, and not only that but the alteration, installation, alteration, use or maintenance. I think that everything conceivable has been done to protect the municipality and to provide means for compelling the carrying out of agreements made. Then, when you take the other provision for tolls in the last portion of the Bill, I think you have complete protection.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I wish to to say that the minister does not seem to have understood me yet. If the minister had simply provided for agreements between the municipalities and the companies, he would have accomplished what he so strongly professes he desired to accomplish. But by mentioning these particular subjects of agreement, he excludes everything else. The difficulty will arise through the companies contending that the particular matter under investigation is not included in these words, and they will argue-and argue successfully-with the court that everything not mentioned is excluded. If the hon. gentleman wishes to cover everything, let him not limit it.


Mr. LALOR.: I am free to admit that I know very little about this Bill. But I may be pardoned for not altogether understanding it when we find the lawyers differing as to what it means. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has my sympathy, for, though not a lawyer, he seems able to hold his own fairly well with the lawyers debating this, matter on both sides. I would like to ask with regard to one matter affecting my own constituency. We have a rural telephone company in Haldi-mand. Will the Bill compel the Bell Company, for instance, to afford connections with that line, and, in that case, would rates be left to the Railway Commission to decide ?


George Perry Graham: Part 1 of the Bill refers to telephones and telegraphs, and distinctly provides that the connection of the local company with the trunk line shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the board. The board can compel the Bell Telephone Company or any other to connect with the local line, and the tolls to be charged are subject to the board.


David Henderson: What I fear is that the provisions of this Bill will only apply to the future, and will have no reference to agreements previously made. The provision contained in the Hamilton Radial Bill referred back to agreements made twelve or fourteen years ago. The clause

was put in that Bill providing that the company was bound to give effect to those agreements. I trust that, whatever alteration the minister makes in the measure, he will see to it that it compels specific performance of agreements, however long ago they may have beep made. I understand he is going to look into the matter with the Minister of Justice and I think he is fully seized of the situation to which I refer. I confess a good deal of sympathy with the view expressed by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) ; 1 think that only the special things mentioned in the section will come under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission, and unless the question of tolls is covered by some of the words used in the section, I fear that one of the most important agreements made by the people of Burlington and Oakville and the township of Nelson with this railway company will be nullified altogether. Certainly, that was not the intention. When we passed the Hamilton Radial Bill, the intention was stated by the minister-and he gave us his assurance

to bring down a measure that would compel specific performances of these agreements. I look to the minister in this matter, and if the case is not provided for, he will have to bear the censure.


Charles Lewis Owen: As the minister seems to be the only member of the House who understands the meaning of this clause, I decide to ask for information. I call his attention to the first part of the clause referring to ' municipal or other corporations or any other person aggrieved.' Do I understand that any person will have the privilege of laying his grievance before the Railway Commission ?


Mr. HAG  GART@: Yes.


Charles Lewis Owen: That may mean a great deal of work for the Railway Commisison. Many people think they have a grievance when they have none. Would it not be better to provide that these matters should be laid before the municipality to be investigated, and then, if it is found that the person has ground of complaint, the municipal council can draw attention to the grievance.


George Perry Graham: I think that, in practice, that will be done. But the object is to leave the door open for every person. A person may have a grievance that the municipal council may not regard as such- his claim may be one in conflict with the interests of the municipal council as well as of the railway ; he might have a grievance because the municipality was not keeping its share of the bargain with the company. It was thought better, therefore, to leave the door open for any person with a grievance to complain.
On subsection 2 of section 26a enforcing order of board ; taking possession of railway ; receipt and payment of money by board


George Perry Graham: These words 'as in ' in the fourth line of subsection 4, just transpose them and make them read ' in as.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In subsection 3, supposing he takes possession, how is he going to get these employees of the company to obey the orders of the board unless he pays them wages ? They are not going to wrork for nothing.


George Perry Graham: When the Board of Railway Commissioners takes possession of the road, it wall be their duty to apply the receipts of the road to pay the running expenses.	.
Mr. LANCASTER, This clause does not say so.


George Perry Graham: If the old employees do not wish to work, the board can get somebody else.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But you say here that it shall be their duty to obey the orders of the board, whether they want to work or not.


John Graham Haggart: Where do you get a clause of that kind ? It seems to me an extraordinary power to give the Railway Commission, to take possession of a railway and work it.


George Perry Graham: The only possible way to make this Act effective is to provide some penalty for people who do not keep their agreement. The procedure is that if a company does not keep its agreement with the municipality, this board can seize the road.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But you are putting a penalty on the the working men, not on the company at all.


George Perry Graham: That is the first step- the Board of Railway Commissioners may take possession of the road. To take possession of the road and then tie it up, would be doing a great injustice to the community. So in addition to giving them power to take possession of the road, we have to give them power to run the road for the convenience of the public.
Upon the board so taking possession of the railway and property of the company, it shall be the duty of every officer and employee of the company to obey the orders of the board.
But if they cease being employees of the company, of course they would not have to obey the orders of the board.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But the railway has been taken possession of by the board, and every one of the employees of the company has got to obey the orders of the board.

without being their servants. The hon. gentleman should put in a provision that the board may re-employ these officers.


George Perry Graham: It must be an arbitrary act in order to get out of it any results for the people. You say that the commissioners may take charge of your railway, then if there were not some such clause as this, your ^company and its officers could shut up all avenues of information and everything else, and they could order their employees not to work for you. But this clause is for the purpose of placing the board in the same position the company was in before the board seized the company's property. If you were putting in a receiver, he would take the place of the company, and the officers would work for the receiver. Of course the section must be read with some common sense.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On subsection 26a of section 8-jurisdiction of board as to agreements,


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I have had an opportunity of examining the amendment suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup), and as far as I am able to appreciate its provisions, while it has recast altogether and put into diffei'ent form of language what appears in the Bill as printed, it seems to repeat in that different form the provisions which are already contained in the Bill as presented, and then to add a provision that wherever a complaint is made of breach of an agreement on the part of any company which has acquired or owns or is in possession or occupation of or is operating a railway in respect of which some predecessor in title has made an agreement, then the board shall have jurisdiction to direct the company which made or violated or failed to comply with such agreement or the company which has acquired or owns or is in possession of or is operating the railway, to carry out such obligation. That, no doubt, is what the hon. gentleman intended, as he told us his object was to cover the particular case which he brought to the attention of the House some months ago, where a railway company which had entered into an obligation with the Crown and in respect of that agreement had received a subsidy, had afterwards transferred this property to some other company, or become amalgamated with some other company, and some other company therefore had come to be in enjoyment of the property of the company which was under the legal obligation.
The hon. gentleman is proposing by the amendment to impose upon a company which has not entered into any obligation, Mr. LANCASTER.
the duty of fulfilling the obligation which rested upon some previous owner of property which that company has acquired. That would be an altogether new and somewhat startling step to take. In the situation which my hon. friend has described, a railway company has received from a previous government a certain sum of money, as a gift or subsidy it is true, but none the less because it has complied with or has been supposed to have complied with the contract pursuant to which that money was paid. The company entitled to a subsidy from this parliament must earn that subsidy by compliance with whatever condition may be attached upon it when it is granted. I am not acquainted with the details of the particular case in question, but I take it as a first principle that no government would have paid over a subsidy voted by parliament to any company without seeing that the terms upon which that grant was made had been Complied with. I understand, that in this particular case my hon. friend's view is that these terms required not merely the building but also the operating of the line. For what length of time that operation was to continue the hon. gentleman has not stated. I would scarcely suppose his contention is that the company was to operate that particular road to all eternity and without regard to whether or not the traffic upon it would warrant its continuance in operation as a business enterprise. However that may be, the company which received the grant earned it before it received it by the construction of the road, and I should think it altogether probable that if it came to be litigated it would be found that the company had complied with the terms of its contract before it received the necessary certificates which would enable it to be paid the subsidy. The question for the consideration of this committee is simply whether or not it would be wise to insert a special provision in the law applicable not merely to a particular case but applicable to all cases which may arise in the future or which may have arisen in the past in which by the amalgamation of companies or by the transfer of the property of one company to another, some company which now owns or occupies or is in possession of a railway property has thereby come into possession of the property of a company which has made some default in the performance of its subsidy agreement with the Crown. The proposition is that in all such instances there should be put, by the strong hand of this parliament, upon the company which has so acquired the property of the company in default an obligation to carry out all the terms of the agreement which their predecessors in title had made. That proposition needs only to be stated to meet its own answer. So far as I am concerned I should not be prepared as a member of this House to sup-
10682

port any sucli general proposition. It seems to me that if any man pays his own debts he performs his duty in life fairly well, and, the fact that he may have bougliti property subject to no eneumberance or pledge should not put upon him the obliga-< tion to pay the debts of the former owner of that property. If there is no debt here then the case falls to the ground; but if there is any debt or any breach of obligation on the part of the company which re-1 ceived this money that is a personal obligation of that company. The whole complaint, as I understand the case stated by my hon. friend is: that that company which has committed the breach is not now possessed of moneys wherewith to jjay the damages. The fact that it can be ordered to pay back the money if there has been a breach of this agreement is I suppose not open to question. I have in mind a case- which my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup) as a practising lawyer will recollect and which my hon. friend from Halton will have a vivid remembrance of-in which the county oi Halton by an ordinary suit in the courts recovered from the Grand Trunk and the Hamilton and Northwestern Railway Company money which had been paid to the Hamilton and Northwestern Company by way of bonus, upon a breach having taken place in the conditions upon which that money had been originally granted. If there has been in this case a like default by the company which received this money, and if there is no answer in the way of lapse of . time, or otherwise, I presume there can be no reason why a judgment for repayment of that money cannot be obtained by suit against the company which has been paid the money but did not earn it in accordance with the terms of its agreement. But, the proposition to make some other company pay that debt because it has since come into possession of the property of the company in default seems to me to be entirely opposed to the ordinary principles of the administration of justice in the courts. So far as the phraseology goes I would prefer the language of the section as printed in the Bill. It is not my own language at all, but having studied the two as best I could in the couple of hours since six o'clock it would seem to me the language of the Bill is preferable. I scarcely know why my hon. friend .thought it advisable to repeat the phraseology in the slightly, or substantially, different wording which he has adopted. On the main question, for the reasons I have stated, it would seem to me advisable to adopt the original rather than the amended clause.


William Barton Northrup: r sincerely hope the Minister of Railways and Canals will allow this section to stand until the next meeting of the committee. I do not care to answer the argument just made by the Minister of Justice; I cannot answer it because I am
thoroughly in accord with about everything he has said. The only objection I can raise to It is that evidently the Minister of Justice has not been informed as to the amendment I have moved. It is a different case altogether from that to which he has spoken, and what he said has nothing whatever to do with the reasons why I moved the amendment. I hope the Minister of Justice will read the debate of February 10 last, and see the facts that were before the House then. It is perfectly evident he has misunderstood the point in the case, and so I would rather the clause should stand than to have to answer the speech of the Minister of Justice which is based entirely on a misunderstanding. The hon. gentleman has evidently been misinformed as to the facts which were laid before the House on February 10 last.


David Henderson: X desire a little more specifically to draw attention to the matter I discussed this afternoon. I would remind the Minister of Railways of what I regard as a solemn pledge made to me in the month of Mlarch last when the Hamilton Radial Railway Bill was before the committee. At the risk of perhaps violating the rules of the House for half a minute, I am going to read what the minister said. After I had moved my amendment, which was intended to penalize the company for the non-performance of the agreement it had entered into with the municipalities in the county of Halton, the hon. minister said :


George Perry Graham: It is perhaps out of order to discuss a Bill that is not down, yet I want to say to my hon. friend that I expect to provide in the Railway Bill to be brought down, for what is known as specific performance of contracts, which will, I think, cover the question as fully as it can be covered by legal enactment.
On the strength of that assurance my amendment was allowed to be negatived, and there was no division taken upon it. I allowed the amendment to go on the promise of the minister that he would in the Railway Bill which is now before the House provide for everything that was requisite in this case. Now, I wash a little more specifically to draw attention to the nature of the agreements to which I have reference, and which I do not think are covered by the Bill now before us. A synopsis of them would be as follows : in the village of Burlington, to run at least six passenger cars per day over the road, having regard to the convenience of passengers, to construct sewers under certain conditions, to run early trains to and from Hamilton, to stop cars at certain places, to make repairs on streets, to remove ice and snow on certain conditions, running rates, price of tickets to Hamilton and return, to employ careful conductors ; with

regard to Oakville, to undertake to macadamize certain streets, to pay certain damages,. to carry school pupils at special rates, cars to have certain headlights, the rate of speed limited, to supply electric current for the people of Oakville. Here are a host of conditions that are contained in solemn agreements made between the Hamilton Radial Railway Company and the municipalities of Oakville and Burlington, and I believe there are other agreements with other municipalities. What I expected from the minister was that he would provide in the Railway Bill a clause that would compel specific performance of all these agreements, in terms of the Bill which was then before the House. Here is what the Bill said that the company was to undertake, provided it was given the powers that this House could give it. Section 10 of the Hamilton Radial Railway Bill provides :
Nothing in this Act contained, or done under or by virtue of the powers hereby granted, shall alter or affect the provisions contained in any by-law of any municipality heretofore passed relating to the company, or to any portion of the company's railway heretofore or hereafter constructed, or contained in any agreement between any municipality and the company; but all such agreements and by-laws shall continue and remain in full force as between the municipality and the company as continued and incorporated by this Act; and in case of any inconsistency between the provisions contained in any such by-law or agreement and the provisions of the Railway Act, the provisions contained in the by-law or agreement shall prevail, and all such iby-laws and agreements and. all rights, franchises, privileges and exemptions of the company thereunder are hereby confirmed.
What I did expect from the Minister of Railways was that he would provide in the Railway Act a clause as broad as this section that would compel specific performance under the direction of the railway board of all these agreements and by-laws and conditions to which I have referred ; hut I fail to see in the words of the Bill now before us any assurance that these agreements would come under the operation of this Bill or that the Railway Commission would have power to compel specific performance of them. I may have been wrongly informed before, but I know that was impressed upon my mind that whilst compliance with these agreements and conditions was a condition on which this parliament granted a charter to the Hamilton Radial Railway Company, there was a doubt as to whether there was any means of compelling specific performance of these agreements owing to the fact that they were now a contract or an arrangement between a company that had a charter from the Dominion parliament, not from Mr. HENDERSON
the Ontario legislature, and a municipality. Of course, if the law is strong enough to compel specific performance of the conditions of section 10 of the Hamilton Radial Railway 5Bill I do not know that anything further will be required ; but all the legal advice that X have been able to obtain bas been to the contrary effect. I repeat that I assented to the negativing of the amendment which I had moved to compel specific performance, and which I thought was a very strong clause, intended to penalize the company by taking away from it its powers of operation if it failed to do these things -I consented to that, on the assurance of the minister that he would provide a remedy under this Bill. Now I must ask for specific performance of his promise, and I hope he will not allow the clause to go through until every doubt is removed about these various agreements being covered by the Bill. I can supply the hon. minister with copies of these agreements and bylaws if he desires to see them, in order that he may frame a clause that will cover them all. I think some general clause could be framed by the addition of a few words to what is already contained in the Bill, that would settle the whole matter, which has been a grievance in the country between Toronto and Hamilton, a part of the country which I am sure the minister would not want to treat unfairly.


George Perry Graham: All I can say is that the opinion of the framer of this Bill, the opinion of the Minister of Justice, and I am sure my opinion is that everything the hon. gentleman wants or could desire is included in this paragraph of this Bill. I do not see that we could make the Bill any stronger or make it more completely answer the requirements of my hon. friend than we are doing at the present time.


David Henderson: Do I understand the Minister of Railways to say that the Minister of Justice agrees with him on that point, after hearing what I have read with regard to all these minor matters, particularly the rates ?


George Perry Graham: The Minister of Justice thinks there is not any question as to the rates.


David Henderson: Of course, I 'would not like to put my opinion against that of the Minister of Justice, but I want to have assurance made doubly sure.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I do not know whether I understand the difficulty that presents itself to the mind of my hon. friend; but perhaps I can in a word make clear at all events what I understand this clause provides. It does not profess to refer to the Board of Railway Commissioners every agreement that a municipality may enter

into, under which, for instance, there is an obligation on the municipality to do something, and which obligation the municipality was committing a breach of. Suppose a municipality agreed with a company to exempt that company from taxation for twenty years and within the twenty years committed a breach of the agreement by proceeding to tax that company, the redress of the company would be, not before the Railw'ay Commission, under this clause, but before the courts. This clause is not drawn to confer on the commission any new jurisdiction regarding municipalities but simply, the jurisdiction necessary and consequent on the power this clause confers on it of enforcing agreements with municipalities, when such agreements impose obligations ou a company. Consequently the language of this clause is limited to agreements which concern railway companies in the various forms so often referred to-constructing, reconstructing, repairing and operating lines, &c., in so far as agreements are made by companies with either the Crown, individuals, municipalities or other corporations ; any person agrieved or complaining may come before the board and ask that such agreement be specifically carried out, and the board has power to enforce it. With regard to agreements as to rates, I take it -and I do not consider that my opinion is any better than that of any other member of' the House-that an agreement which would bind a company to levy or collect only a certain rate within any municipality for any particular service would be an agreement concerning the operation or use by such company of its works, and so fall within that general language; and it would therefore be placed, by this clause, under the jurisdiction of the board. But if there be any question about that, it is surely covered by the 'final clause of the Bill under which a company is forbidden to collect any tolls unless and' until those tolls have met with the approval of the board. If a company presented to the board any schedule of its tolls and that schedule exceeded the rate which the company had agreed with any municipality to levy, surely that municipality, or some one. would bring that circumstance to the notice of the board. Aud if the complaint were well founded, it is not to be thought that the board would not say at once to the company : Here you have agreed to collect only a certain toll and now you propose to exceed it, we will not approve your schedule because it goes beyond your agreement. The board would then order instant compliance by the company with the agreement it made.


William Barton Northrup: Does the government propose to oppose the amendment I have moved on the ground urged by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Certainly, speaking for myself, I am taking the position, 339
as a member of the House, which I have just indicated. For that reason, so far as my vote is concerned. I should prefer the clause as printed to the one proposed. My hon. friend remarked that in the particular case which he had in mind, the cheque for the subsidy had gone to the Grand Trunk Railway itself. As well as I recollect from reading what he said four months ago, that occurred only in this sense, that the persons who endorsed and cashed the cheque' for the subsidy were also officials, in some capacity or other, of the Grand Trunk Railway. Not that I think that that circumstance can make the least difference in the legal rights of the respective companies because if the cheque had been cashed literally by the company which was selling out to the Grand Trunk, if it had been payable to that company in its corporate name and had been cashed by it, there would be nothing to prevent that company at once handing that money over to the Grand Trunk Railway or anybody else; and the circumstance that the money which was paid by the government, in discharge of its obligation under the subsidy contract, found its way to the Grand Trunk Railway-if that be the case- does not vary the situation at all.


William Barton Northrup: X am sorry to have to refer to this matter again, but I deem it my duty to do so, inasmuch as apparently the government are going to stand on the speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth).
I have twice appealed to the Minister of Railways to hold over this Bill until the Minister of Justice has the opportunity of reading the debate and learning what the question really is, but my request has been refused.


George Eulas Foster: There is some difficulty in this matter which my hon. friend, the Minister of Railways, will easily see. A gentleman proposes an amendment based upon certain facts, which were recited some time ago, and then makes an argument in favour of his case. The Minister of Justice is not in a position to appreciate the argument because he cannot catch it. He gets what stray points the Minister of Railways may be able to give him, which is satisfactory, so far as it goes, but does not go very far. If there is an amendment at all important, I think it would be only fair that the Minister of Railways should let this Bill lie over so as to allow the Minister of Justice to read the argument in print which my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrop) has given. It will not in the end delay the legislation, but it is pretty hard that this amendment should bo refused without the person who rejects it having been able to follow' the argument in its favour. ' Hansard ' will be out to-morrow, the Minister of Justice can then read the reasoning of my hon. friend as well ns the statements upon w'hich he bases that



reasoning, and lie will then be better prepared to say whether or not he considers the position taken by iny hon. triend a sound one.


William Barton Northrup: It is not a case for argument at all. I am simply trying to get justice done. I do not wish to take any unfair advantage. The government is prepared to oppose my amendment on a certain statement of facts presented by the Minister of Justice. That statement is altogether unfounded, as the right hon. gentleman the First Minister will remember. If I were merely arguing a case and the minister and I were differing in our views, I would not ask for delay. But when the government stands committed to oppose my amendment on a certain statement which is not founded on fact, I merely ask that the Minister of Railways should wait until the Minister of Justice had had the opportunity to read my statements of fact. Then, if he should still object, it will not be on account of the alleged facts he has laid himself before the House but on other facts altogether. I would rather therefore that the minister should consider the matter on the facts as they really are. The Minister of Justice should be made acquainted with the facts before he finally decides to reject my amendment.


George Perry Graham: There seems to be a little misunderstanding. There is no desire on the part of the government to interfere with full discussion of this amendment. The case of my hon. friend from East Hastings was made in his speech delivered on February 10. I understood ' that the Minister of Justice had read that speech and knew the contention that was made. I am quite willing, if desired, to leave the Bill in committee, that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Northrup) may discuss the matter again. But I had a conversation with my hon. friend, and I thought we had understood that we would take the Bill out of committee and let it stand for third reading, so that he could discuss the matter and move his amendment on third reading. I do not wish to rush through the third reading of the Bill. If it is desired that a change should be made, it can be sent back to committee ; if not, we can have the amendment and the discussion can go on record.


William Barton Northrup: I am sure the hon. gentleman will not suggest that I am trying to take advantage of the government. If he will agree to give me notice when the third reading is to come up, I shall be quite ready to have the matter go as he suggests. But I would not like to hang around indefinitely, as things are now, waiting for the third reading. I have an answer to the speech of the Minister of Justice, which I would like to present. But, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Graham) will agree to


George Eulas Foster: give me notice of the third reading, I am quite willing that it should be postponed.


George Perry Graham: I assure my hon. friend that the Bill will not be gone on with unless he has the notice or is in the House.


Charles Marcil: Is the amendment withdrawn ?


William Barton Northrup: It may as well go on.


George Perry Graham: It may be declared lost with that understanding.
Amendment negatived.
Bill reported.


Mr. MONK.: I have an amendment I wish to propose on the third reading. Since the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has been kind enough to say that he will give notice of the third reading to my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), will he include me in that notice ?


George Perry Graham: Yes. There is another amendment in the hands of my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) which I have promised to allow him to insert. If the hon. gentleman is not present when the third reading is taken up, I will move it myself.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Can the hon. gentleman tell when the third reading will .take place ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Will to-morrow be convenient for my hon friend (Mr. Monk) ?


George Eulas Foster: At the afternoon session ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: All right.



SUPPLY-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
George Eulas Foster: I thought the announcement last night was that we would go on with a certain Bill. . The list of the Bills that the government was to take up has not been exhausted. A good deal of time has been taken up with the Railway Bill.


Mr. FIELDING.: It was supposed that we would dispose of these Bills during the morning and afternoon, and be free to take up Supply in the evening. That is the explanation.
Mr. TAYLOR Run them through. It won't take long.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no desire to press Supply to-night if hon. gentlemen opposite desire


George Eulas Foster: Whatever the government find best for the prosecution of their business.


Wilfrid Laurier: If hon. gentlemen are prepared to go on with the Bills referred to, we are ready



YUKON-THE PRINGLE CHARGES.

[Stage Direction]
>
Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey). I desire to draw attention to the fact that there is evidently one letter omitted from the correspondence laid on the table by the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) relating to the moral and social reform Council of Canada in connection with the' Pringle matter. I desire to ask the Prime Minister if we cannot have this supplied. The first letter says * With reference to my letter to you dated April 20, permit me to say,' and so on. The letter referred to is not included.
Wilfrid Laurier: I brought that correspondence in answer to a request of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) who asked for the production of the correspondence alluded to by Mr. Shearer as having taken place with me recently in the month of May or thereabout.
I brought the correspondence asked for. I did not look at it to see if it was complete.


Mr. SPROULE.: One letter is omitted.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is dated in April. I brought the letters asked for. But I will look into the matter.



PROPRIETARY AND PATENT MEDICINES.

Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Referring to the measure of the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) relating to Proprietary and Patent Medicines, I may say, without suggesting any reproach of my hon. friend, that I mentioned to him that I desired to be present when this Bill was gone on with. I happened to be absent when the Bill was read the second time and referred to a special committee. The hon. minister told me that I should be appointed on that committee, but I find that my name is not included. I do not grumble about that, however, for the Bill will come back and I shall have an opportunity to say what I wish to say about it. But I would like to ask that this special committee be called to meet as soon as possible. This session will not last for ever, and I am afraid that the committee may not make its report in time to discuss the Bill before the session closes. I am very much interested in this Bill and desirous that there should be no unnecessary delay.


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue).: It is intended that the committee shall meet on Tuesday. I met to-day the representative of the Pharmaceutical Association of Ontario-or of Canada-and, discussing the matter with him, he said that Tuesday next would be an opportune time for him. He has certain amendments to suggest. I think there will be ample time to discuss the Bill this session. We should get through in one sitting 339i
of the committee. The reading of the Bill the second time in the absence of my hon. friend was a circumstance, of course, over which I had no control. My hon. friend will have full opportunity of discussing the Bill after the committee has reported. There is no desire on my part to press the Bill without affording ample opportunity for consideration. If that meets the views of all parties I will call the committee together on Tuesday, in order to allow manufacturers and others concerned to have an opportunity of being present.
Motion withdrawn.



ADMISSION OF BOYS TO REFORMATORIES.

Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 1G6) to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act in so far as the same affects the province of Nova Scotia. He said : The general effect of this Bill is to make an alteration in the age at which a boy may be received in the reformatory institutions of the province of Nova Scotia, and there are certain provisions as to release under articles of apprenticeship, and otherwise, of a boy upon good behaviour. The present statute on the subject of prisons and reformatories, chapter 148 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, consists in the first place of what is called i>art 1 of the Act, of general application, the first 40 sections of which have application to all prisons or reformatories throughout Canada. Then part 2 of the statute contains a series of provisions which have application only to the province of Ontario, some 37 in number. That part is followed by part 3, a series of provisions which in the same way have application only in the province of Quebec. Then follows part 4, containing a number of provisions, some 23 or 25. which have reference only to the province of Nova Scotia. This Bill relates to the part dealing with the province of Nova Scotia. In that province there are two reformatory institutions' for boys, the Protestant reformatory, called the Halifax Industrial School, and the Roman Catholic, called the St. Patrick's Home, Halifax. This Bill in the first place changes the age at which a boy may be sent to these two reformatories. At the present time any juvenile offender under the age of 18 may be sent to either of these institutions as a reformatory school. Those in charge of these reformatories have learned by experience that once a boy has passed the age of 16 there is not the same prospect that the discipline of the school will be effectual in the reforming purposes for which the lad is sent there. Not only so, but it is said that if boys above the age of 10 are sent to the institutions, a bad effect is produced upon younger boys. If these boys after the age of 17 or 18, are admitted to the institutions, their character

and habits have become set, by reason of their less immature years, and an evil influence is frequently exercised upon the younger lads, and the good purposes of the institution thwarted or seriously impaired. In the other provinces the age has for some reason been made 16, and it was thought in the senate that there was no reason for making a difference in the age, that 16 was the better age at which to limit the sending of hoys to these institutions, and that change is accordingly made. Then another change on similar lines is as to the minimum period for which a boy may be sentenced. He may now be sentenced to any term not less than one year and still sent to the reformatory. Those in charge of the reformatories say there is no use sending a boy there for less than two years, that to send to their institution a boy who has been sentenced to 15 or 18 months does not afford time within which they can do the work which such an institution is calculated and intended to perform. Accordingly this Bill makes its provisions applicable only to boys who have been sentenced to terms of not less than two years. There are other provisions as to apprenticing boys to any one who will take them, under the terms detailed in the statute, and some other provisions, the details of which are self explanatory, and the effect of which will be seen on reading the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: On this Bill coming into my hands it struck me as rather strange in its provisions. The first part of the statute is plainly of general application, in fact it is so stated on the face of the statute as it stands : * Part 1, General.' Then follow some 40 sections which ! think any one examining could scarcely fait to understand as applicable to all parts of Canada. Those sections are immediately followed by several succeeding parts not applicable to the particular province. Therefore, this clause seems to me to be entirely unnecessary. The provisions of part 1 already, without special direction in that behalf, apply to all Canada. Moreover, if that clause were to remain in the Bill the title would have to be altered because it would no longer be an Act relating to Nova Scotia. I pointed these things out to the hon. member of the other House who introduced the Bill and in discussing it with him he quite agreed that it would do no harm to omit that first section. I propose, therefore, that it be struck out of the Bill.
Section struck out.
On section 3, subsection 1,-power to sentence Protestant boy to Halifax Industrial .School.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: 


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: That subsection simply repeats the present section 90, changing the word ' eighteen ' in the second line to ' sixteen ' and the -words ' one year ' in the last line to ' two years.'
On section 3, subsection 2,-notice to municipal authorities as to receiving bovs so sentenced.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: That subsection is now applicable to the St. Patrick's Home, Halifax, but for some reason has not been made applicable to the Halifax Industrial School. It is by this clause being enacted with reference to the Protestant institution as well as with reference to the Roman Catholic institution.
On section 3, subsection 3,-conditional release on license.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: That section also is now applicable to the St. Patrick's Home, but not to the Halifax Industrial School.
On section 3, subsection 4,-apprenticing of certain boys.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: This subsection now appears in the Act as section 65, applicable to Ontario. It is now sought to make it applicable to Nova Scotia as to both institutions. There is a similar provision in the next subsection with regard to the Roman Catholic institution.


Robert Laird Borden: Have the persons in charge of these institutions been consulted with regard to the particular provisions which affect them?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Yes, the superintendent of the Protestant institution has written approving of this measure if he cannot get something which he likes better. He is not altogether satisfied with the Bill, but these provisions meet with his approval.
I have had no communication myself with the Roman Catholic institution, but Senator Power, who had this in charge in the other House, was, I understood, speaking in their interest.


Robert Laird Borden: I know that Senator Power has taken a great interest in that institution and I have no doubt that any thing he thought would be proper legislation would meet with the approval of the persons in charge of that institution.
On section 3, subsection 9,-arrest and remand if license is contravened or apprentice's conduct is bad.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Who will be responsible for the cost in connection with the arrest of such boy?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The question of expense did not occur to me. The expense would be very trifling and I presume that, like any other part of the administration of criminal justice, it would have to be paid by the provincial authorities.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Would it not be better to Insert a provision placing it beyond doubt how the expense would be met ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: It would not occur to me there was any more propriety in providing specially for the case of a conviction under this Act than for the case of a conviction under any other statute. This clause provides that the boy who breaks the condition may be arrested, brought before a magistrate and if found guilty the magistrate has power to send him back to the industrial school to serve the remainder of his term. Once this statute passes that would be done under the ordinary proceeding of a magistrate's court.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Suppose the boy were arrested in Ontario or in New Brunswick upon whom would the expense fall of returning him to Halifax ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: These things probably pretty well even themselves up in practice. The expense falls upon the locality where the offender happens to be when any offence is committed. If we have a circus travelling through the country and if an offence be committed by some one of that travelling aggregation of talent, the expense of the prosecution would fall upon the locality where the offence happened to be committed.


Mr. W. ROCHE (Halifax).: I think by the law of Nova Scotia the number is limited ; has there been any consideration of that fact ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: That has not been interfered with; those clauses of the statute remain untouched.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



THE USE OF TOBACCO BY YOUNG PERSONS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 173) to restrain the use of tobacco by young persons-Mr. Aylesworth -read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1

penalty on furnishing tobacco to young persons-
Henry Horton Miller: I would like to suggest that this clause be amended by striking out the word ' sixteen ' and substituting therefor the word ' eighteen.' I think that every reason that can be urged for preventing the use of tobacco by a boy of sixteen will apply with just as much force to a boy of eighteen. I do not think that a boy of eighteen has usually much better judgment than a boy of sixteen, while very often a boy of eighteen is subject to greater temptation than a boy of sixteen. I do not think that any long argument is necessary to strengthen my contention.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The selection of the age limit of sixteen years which appears in this Bill was of course more or less an arbitrary selection, so far as I was concerned. In preparing the Bill I realized the necessity of fixing some age limit. The Bill was intended to apply only to young persons, and the whole question was at what age a young person might be emancipated from the restraints which this Bill imposes. After giving the subject as careful consideration as I was able, I thought that sixteen years was the highest limit one could properly fix in such a connection. The Bill itself is somewhat of a new departure. It is rather drastic in its provisions. It will be noticed that it absolutely prohibits the sale of cigarettes or cigarette paper to any young person under whatever age is fixed by the statute, whether for the use of that young person or not. It also prohibits the selling or giving to that young person of tobacco in any.other form, if the person who sells it or gives it knows or has reason to believe that such tobacco is for the use of that young "person. Accordingly, it is not only a pew departure, but rather a strong provision of the law that no dealer in tobacco shall vend or shall give to a boy tobacco in any other form than cigarettes if he thinks or has reason to think that such tobacco is for the use of that lad, or cigarettes, whether for his own use or not ; and just because the provisions of the measure struck me as going quite a distance for the first step in the way of legislation, it seemed to me that the inclination ought rather to be to the earlier than to the later age. Then, there was the benefit of analogy. The Bill which we have just been discussing reduces the age at which a boy who offends against the law may be sent to a reformatory with the hope of working some reformation in his character, from eighteen years to sixteen years. The age of sixteen is applicable, of course, as this measure is applicable, to each of the sexes. Speaking of the boy alone, I think one may say that after a boy has passed the age of sixteen years the average young healthy male has fairly well come to assert his approaching manhood and to have emancipated himself to a considerable extent from maternal if not also from paternal control. A boy who has come to the age of sixteen may perhaps not be at all ripe for the use of cigarettes or of tobacco in any other form, but it does seem to me that when you consider the penalties which we are by this measure proposing to impose, not only on the lad himself, but also upon the dealer who sells and who may perhaps run the risk of being deluded as to age in the sale, we are going as far as would be reasonably safe when we say that he must not so deal in tobacco with a young boy who is or who appears to be under sixteen. It was not, I can assure you, without as careful con-

sideration as I was able to give the question, that I Inserted the limit of sixteen years in the draft Bill. I may say, as hon. gentlemen know, that there are two 'sides to this question. The dealer, the manufacturer and the user of tobacco think it is a very strong encroachment upon individual liberty to apply a provision of this nature even to a boy of fourteen or fifteen, and in selecting the age of sixteen as the limit, it seemed to me that I was as nearly as possible preserving the golden mean between the entirely immature boy, the child, and the adolescent young man.
Mr. MU,LEU. I think the use of tobacco by a growing lad is either an evil or it is not. If it is an evil, I do not think the manufacturer or dealer in tobacco ought to be considered to any extent whatever. I think a boy of eighteen is liable to be injured physically by the use of tobacco, the excessive use at any rate, as an older person is not. I should think that a boy of eighteen has not nearly reached his maturity physically, and is just as likely to be injured by the use of tobacco as a younger boy. Boys of eighteen are at the age when they desire to appear manly. They are leaving the public school or the control of their parents and are getting into temptations which at the age of sixteen or younger they did not have. Then, who is to tell the real age of a boy buying cigarettes. In many cases the boy will be likely to sav that he is older than he is in order to obtain the cigarettes or, tobacco in another form. If the age limit is left at sixteen, many a boy of fourteen or fifteen will purchase cigarettes. If it is made eighteen, it will still be that many a lad of fifteen or sixteen will obtain tobacco by misrepresenting his age. I quite agree with the Minister of Justice that this legislation goes further than any legislation which we have yet had in Canada. But in many states of the union the use and the sale of cigarettes are prohibited entirely even to adults, and in many of the states where an " age limit is fixed at all, it is fixed at twenty-one and not merely sixteen or eighteen. I trust that the House will agree that the limit should be made eighteen, though I should prefer twenty-one.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT.: I certainly think the age should not be under eighteen. From my experience as a school teacher I find that the boys will, until they are eighteen, always try to convince the vendor that they are older than they are. If you make the age limit at sixteen, you will find a large number will say they are over that age in order to buy cigarettes, but if you make the limit eighteen that will have a wonderful restraining influence in preventing the sale to boys of sixteen. If the law is applicable to boys of sixteen, it is equally applicable to boys of eighteen.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: 


David Henderson: I am quite in favour of this Bill, but to my mind to fix the limit at sixteen is fixing it too young. My impression is that a great many people who are as old as twenty-five require to be restricted somewhat in the use of cigarettes. I do not think that cigarettes are good for anybody and would be pleased to see the prohibition extended to the age limit of twenty-one years. A boy is not considered a man until he has the right to vote, and he should not be allowed to smoke cigarettes until he is able to exercise the franchise. Anything which will tend to decrease the use of cigarettes, which is so pernicious especially to the young, ought to have our support. It affects those of immature years much more injuriously than those who are full grown, but there is a difficulty in determining just when a lad is fourteen, sixteen or eighteen, and by making the limit twenty-one we would be better able to prevent the use by those who are at any rate under eighteen.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I understand there is an amendment to make the age limit eighteen. That certainly would be an improvement. Whatever may be the effect of tobacco upon adults, there can be no question at all that it is very injurious to young men or boys until they have finished their growth. I could give experience of actual cases in which the use of tobacco has very much interfered with the growth of young men. A young man is not completely grown even at the age of eighteen. I would like the limit extended beyond eighteen, but it should not be less. This question is of far greater importance than many think. Probably the commei'cial aspect is the only objection that can be raised against this legislation. But do not let us make any mistake about this matter. If we are going to legislate at all against the use of cigarettes by young men and boys, you should certainly extend the age limit to that pei'iod when a young man has received his full growth. I would make it twenty-one if I had my way.


Mr. AVERY.: 
Mr OWEN.: I notice that in section 2 it is provided that if the constable finds any boy under the age of sixteen years smoking or about to smoke in any street or any public place he shall take away his cigarettes or tobacco. Now, let me tell the Minister of Justice that boys of that age who smoke do not smoke on the street or in public places ; they go behind the barn or in the woodshed or down in the woods.


Charles Marcil: I would remind the hon. gentleman that we are still on section 1.


Mr. BLACK.: I have very strong reasons for supporting the amendment of the hon. member for South Grey fixing the age at eighteen years. I would rather have it twenty-one years. It is so easy, at eighteen years, to misrepresent the age, that I think it is better to put the limit as high as possible. I think that if it were put at man's majority, twenty-one years, it would be much safer. I am satisfied to stay by eighteen if the majority wish, but I think that anything below eighteen would not effect the object we have in view. I endorse everything said by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) and the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) with regard to the deleterious effect of cigarettes on boys. And this is true not only of cigarettes, but of tobacco in any shape. I
have always maintained and still maintain that a cigarette is no more harmful than tobacco in any other form. The tobacco pipe is quite as injurious as the cigarette if not more so. A cigarette consists of tobacco, and, as a rule, of nothing more. It is injurious, but no more injurious than the pipe. I am strongly in favour of nobody under the age of eighteen being allowed to use tobacco in any form-to chew it, or to smoke it in the pipe, in a cigar or in a cigarette. There are very few people who have observed the effects of tobacco on children but understand the deleterious, the injurious, the demoralizing effect tobacco has on the physicial health of the young; ' and not only on the physical health but on the moral health as well. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) suggests : How about young girls ? In the country in which I live, young girls, or old girls-do not use cigarettes ; Nova Scotia women do not smoke. Not only is the effect of tobacco so demoralizing on the moral and physical health of the boy, but the effect extends to the next generation. It unfits a man for proper physical or moral manhood and unfits him to be the parent of a generation with vigour and stamina. For the sake of our national health, for the sake of the prosperity of which that health is the first necessity and foundation, I raise my voice and will record my vote in favour of prohibiting persons under eighteen years from using cigarettes.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think it is the sense of the House that there ought to be legislation on this subject. It was, in that view I prepared this Bill ; and my only desire, upon a question of this character, which is, of course, not vital to the principle of the Bill, but is an incident, a detail, is to meet entirely that which is the general view of the House. Let me point out, however one or two circumstances that, it seems to me, ought to be taken into account in coming to a conclusion as to what age is the proper limit to fix. We have legislation on this subject already in all the different provinces of the Dominion except Manitoba and Quebec. We have a great deal of variation on this very subject of age. The highest age is eighteen years. This is fixed by the statutes of Ontario and New Brunswick, and the legislation of these two provinces in the lines of this legislation does unquestionably fix the age of eighteen years as the limit under which no one shall sell cigarettes to a minor. But in the other provinces a lower limit is taken in every case. In Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, the age limit is sixteen years and also In the new provinces of the Northwest Territories, and in British Columbia it is fifteen years. So, we have two provinces out of the seven that

have legislated on the subject which have selected eighteen years, one fifteen and four sixteen years. In these circumstances, it seemed to me that I was not only following the middle course-in which, it is said, there is generally safety-but that I was also conforming more nearly to the average view throughout the Dominion than if X had taken the extreme high limit of eighteen years or the extreme low limit of fifteen years. I may say also that in a Bill which was introduced some few weeks ago in the Imperial parliament on this subject, the age of sixteen years is taken. I do not know what the fate of that Bill has been ; I have not seen whether it has finally passed or not. But in the measure as introduced, the age fixed was sixteen years. There is just this further consideration, and it is, perhaps, of more practical importance : the second section of this Bill proposes to provide for the confiscation of smoking material which a constable finds in the possession of a boy under the age limit.
Now many a strapping boy or young man of 18, if he finds that his property is being taken away from him by force and arms on the part of a minion of the law, is liable to give a stiff resistance. If we go to the age limit of 18 years I think we are imposing a considerable task upon the constable whose duty it is to confiscate the smoking materials found in the hands of any young man under the age of 18 years. But apart from that altogether, let me point out that the first clause of the Bill, the one under discussion, absolutely prohibits the giving of tobacco in any form other than cigarettes to any person under this age for the use of that person, and it makes that offence, no matter how trivial in its character, punishable by a substantial fine of $10 for the first offence, or not exceeding $10, and an increasing amount for subsequent offences. Now I ask hon. gentlemen to think of their own boyhood days. I remember my own boyhood, and I remember, when I was certainly not 10 years of age, how I used to run to the knees of a venerable grandmother and beg for a pinch of snuff, and the good old lady would often indulge me for the mere amusement of seeing me sneeze. Now under this legislation we are proposing to make that transaction penal, and to make any one who gives a boy under 18 even a pinch of snuff, liable to a fine of $10. It is going a considerable distance, and it certainly would seem to me that 10 was as high an age as we should make it. But as I said before, if the sense of this committee is to make the limit 18, I am perfecly agreeable, because so far as I am concerned, I am certainly past 18.


Richard Blain: I think this Bill is a compromise of the position that members of Mr. AYLESWORTH.
this House have taken in years gone by. For myself I am in favour of an amendment of this Bill to prohibit the importation, sale and manufacture of cigarettes in Canada, and I may take an early opportunity of moving an amendment to that effect. I think at the present time we have on the statute books of several provinces legislation similar to that contained in this Bill. There may be a question as to the age, but it is only a question of a year or two in the age of a boy, or a girl. I do not think a Bill of this kind, whether passed in the present form or with the amendment of the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller), would be effective. I do not think that it would measure up to the wishes of the people of this country, and judging from the expressions given in the House and the votes taken in the past, it would not measure up to the ideas of the members of this House. While I will not enter into a lengthy discussion, I wish to say that I am in favour of a Bill to prohibit the importation, sale and manufacture of. cigarettes rather than the Bill introduced by the Minister of Justice.


George Eulas Foster: This section says with reference to cigarettes.
Every one is guilty of an offence who sells or gives or furnishes to a persou under the age of 16 years any cigarettes or cigarette papers, whether for his own use or not.
And with reference to tobacco it says :
Or sells or gives to such person tobacco in any form other than cigarettes, which tobacco he knows or has reason to believe is for the use of that person.
What is the reason of the distinction here ? Why do you say knowledge or reason to believe in the second part, and not in the first ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Simply because the intention is to prohibit the giving of cigarettes to a boy under this age, whether for his own use or not. One boy may send another boy to buy them, and the intention is to prohibit that absolutely.


George Eulas Foster: Why not the same strength of purpose in the second case as in the first case ? The cigarette is only one form of tobacco, and the idea is to prevent the sale of tobacco whether in cigarette papers or tobacco.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The reason is simple. Many an honest workingman, after his day's work is done, sends his boy to buy liis ounce of tobacco. It is not intended to prohibit that, it is tobacco, not for the use of the boy, but for the use of the father. Under this legislation, if the father is a consumer of cigarettes, he must bhy his own cigarettes; he cannot send his son under the limited age to buy cigarettes for him, but he may send his son to pur-

chase tobacco in any other form. It is not intended to prevent the working man from sending his child to the tobacconist for his supply of smoking or chewing tobacco.


George Eulas Foster: The moment you say that the person who sells is left free if he can show that he did not know, or did not have reason to know, that it was for the use of that person, it makes conviction difficult.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Personally I do not think the Act will be of much use. The laws we have on the statute book at present do not seem to restrain the youth very much from smoking cigarettes or tobacco. You can see boys in almost every village or town of the country below the age, using both tobacco and cigarettes. Another habit which I have frequently seen is that one boy over the age limit buys it to distribute to others. This legislation will cover a case like that. But I do not think the law is likely to be effectual. It would be more likely to be effectual if you put the age at 18 instead of 16. I think some people will discover this to be an inconsistency in our legislation. We allow a boy 18 years of age to go into the Northwest, take up a homestead and manage and cultivate it for himself, and then to say that we will not regard that boy as having attained his majority and allow him to exercise tin-same freedom as men, will seem a very obnoxious restraint on him in so far as it is effectual as a restraint. I think it would be more effectual as a restraint if we made the age 18 instead of 16. I agree a good deal with the remarks of my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), I think the better plan would be to prevent the manufacture, importation and sale of cigarettes. I was not aware that the Ontario Act made the age limit 18, I thought the old Mowat Act was 16. However. I believe that law has been practically a dead letter and I am afraid this will prove the same. This has the advantage of applying to all the provinces so that it will be more readily known than the existing provincial laws. If there is to be any change I would say to make it IS. With regard to the statement of the Minister of Justice that if this law had been in force in his youth he might have been in trouble for taking snuff from his grandmother, if his grandmother instead of giving him snuff had given him a liberal dose of the slipper, he might have been a better man.


Mr. JOHNSTON.: Was it the absence of the slipper that left the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) in the condition he is?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I am content to accept the amendment making the age limit eighteen.


Mr.   R.@: Tj. BORDEN. What is the object of using ' furnish ' in the first part of this section and omitting it in the second?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I must in all candour say I am unable to account for the distinction. unless it is simply a lawyer's ordinary desire to use two or three words to express the meaning of one.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought there might be some better reason, I would suggest that it be made uniform.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: It has occurred to me as a possible meaning to the word ' furnish ' in addition to ' gives ' that it would cover a lending, and the intention is of course to prohibit the delivery for his own consumption of the cigarette to a boy under the age of eighteen. That intention does not exist with regard to tobacco in any other form.


Robert Laird Borden: But in the latter part of the section it is intended because it is-suggested it shall be for the use of the particular person. If the word * furnish ' has the signification suggested by the minister you could, notwithstanding the second part of the clause, furnish to a person under the age of eighteen tobacco which you knew or had reason to believe was, for the use of that person. I do not know why you should import that qualification into the criminal provision.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: There is no objection in the world to inserting the word 'furnish' after the word 'gives' in the second case.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 2,-penalty on juvenile smoking.


Charles Lewis Owen: I wish to make the same remarks I did a few moments ago; that should be enlarged to read ' in any street or public place or anywhere where a boy is found smoking.' You will not find them smoking in any public street.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I would not care to go the length of authorizing a constable to invade the privacy of a dwelling house to seek out a young man who is smoking a cigarette in his bedroom. Surely it is going pretty far as it is. It is authorizing a constable to confiscate tobacco which a young man is using or about to use In a street or public place. That is a pretty wide phrase. It has been the subject of judicial consideration in connection with other statutes. It is difficult to draw the line between a place which is a public place and which is not, but we can all understand the objection there would be to authorizing a constable to override all the usual safeguards that one throws about one's dwelling house and, without a warrant, to enter that house because through a window lie may have seen a young man smoking.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister see any ' difficulty in the way of the constable de-

ciding when the hey is about to smoke? What would be the particular signs in the horizon or round about? Shall the boy be asking for matches or finding a place to strike a match?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: That will be a question of fact, I presume, to be determined like any other question of fact by the tribunal appointed to inquire into it.


Mr.   POSTER@: Supposing the minister had to inquire what would be the indicia? '


Robert Laird Borden: There is another aspect; this phrase deals with the present and the future, but not with the past. Should it not read 'smoking or about to smoke or having smoked.' Why should that not be added?


Mr. MACPHERSON.: Do I understand that the amendment making it 18 years has been carried ?


Charles Marcil: Yes ; the minister accepted the amendment.
Mr. MACPHERSON Well, I am very sorry he did. I was making my own living when I was 15 years of age and I smoked. I don't see why in the world this parliament should waste its time passing such foolish legislation. My good friend (Mr. Kennedy) and I do not agree on that, but I say that a boy who is making his own living at the age of 15, or 1G, or 17 ought to be a judge of what he may do about smoking.


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, no.


Robert George Macpherson: My hon. friend says ' Oh, no,' but he has no son of his own and does not know anything about it.


Mr.   POSTER@: He was a boy himself once.
Mr. BLAIN I suppose it is not the intention of the minister to press this Bill to its third reading to-night. I am considering an amendment prohibiting the importation, sale and manufacture of cigarettes, and if the minister will consent to the third reading being deferred, I will not detain the committee now.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Very well.
Bill, as amended, reported.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 162) to amend the Post Office Act-Mr, Lemieux-read a second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX Postmaster General). This section of the Bill provides for a one cent postage rate in cities and towns where there is delivery by letter carriers. Formerly the one cent rate on what are commonly known as drop letters extended all over the Dominion, whe-
George Eulas Foster: ther there was letter carrier delivery or not, but when a change in the law was made the rate was made two cents in cities and towns where there was delivery by letter carriers and it remained one cent at other post offices. This makes a universal rate of one cent for drop letters.
Mr. FOSTER Can the minister say to what extent the revenue will be affected by this ?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: We have been influenced to make this change from the fact that iu large cities and towns the departmental stores, the manufacturing establishments and other concerns which do a large postal business, use the messenger service to dp-liver their letters as they found it cheaper, and in this way a large amount of revenue was lost to the post office.


George Eulas Foster: Is that on account of the cheapness altogether or on account of the speed of delivery?


Rodolphe Lemieux: On account of the cheapness of the service. For instance, several firms will amalgamate their messenger service, employing, say, five or ten boys, to whom they will pay one cent or half a cent for each letter, and in that way they will make a profit. Of course, this action on their part is illegal, but it is one of these illegalities that we can hardly prosecute, and we thought it was better to adopt a uniform one cent rate, which we had formerly.


Mr. COCKSHUTT.: Do I understand the minister to say that it is illegal for a merchant to deliver his accounts by his own messenger?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, in cities.


David Henderson: Provided only that they are sealed, not if they are delivered openly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly. My hon. [DOT]friend asked a question regarding the revenue. I will first lay down the principle that in all countries-Great Britain, Germany, France, the United States-whenever there has been a reasonable reduction in the rate of postage, there has been an immediate increase in the revenue. If the House will allow me I will give a few figures.


George Eulas Foster: 
George Eulas Foster: Of that postal revenue how much was derived from the two cent rate? .


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the report of last year it is stated that the stamp issue for the nine months ended the 31st March, 1907, represented a total of $5,094,347.75. a lit le more than half of our revenue. I should say that three-fourths of that amount is the product of the two-cent stamp, which is the one mostly used by the public. The stamps we have are half a cent, one cent, two cents, five cents, seven cents, ten cents, twenty cents and fifty cents.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Can the minister give ns any information as to the amount of money collected from the drop letters *delivered in the cities?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No. We have no statistics of that. We take the numter of letters that are received in the city post
offices, but we could not differentiate unless we took special statistics for one year.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How does the minister come to make the statement that the bulk of all this money is taken from the cities? I can quite understand that the letters are posted in the cities, but take the city of Winnipeg, which gives to the post office a revenue of over $500,000, a large share of that is for mail going to the rural districts.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then the hon. gentleman was trying to show that the rural districts are giving no revenue to the Post Office Department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The letters are posted to every section of the country, but it is in the cities where the revenue is collected. Let my hon. friend examine the offices in the last fiscal year. Take the offices' which give a revenue up to $1,000, the rural mail service is there carried on at the cost of a deficit of $143,723. Take the offices having a revenue of say $750 per year, they show a deficit in the mail service of $210,447.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the hon. minister think that is a fair comparison ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is out of the revenue obtained from the large cities that we pay for the maintenance of the rural service. How many offices do we not open in every section of the country just to accommodate small sections of the communities? Such offices give but little revenue, and the mail service costs a large amount because the distances are long. The revenue of the rural post offices do not compensate for the expenditure and maintenance of the rural mail service, but of course we have to maintain that service. To maintain it we get the money from the large cities. The cost of the mail service in the Yukon district is not far from $200,000 a year and the revenue is much below that figure.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not quite understand the minster's reasoning. He seems to take the position that if we had no rural districts, we would he better off financially speaking. But he would not get anything like the revenue he does from the large cities were it not for the rural districts. I would like to have an estimate of the amount paid for stamps and postage in the cities on mail matter that goes into the rural districts. If you take the statistics of the United States, you will find that 70 per cent of the mail in the rural districts originates in the cities. Take the city of Winnipeg, with its $500,000 or $600,000 income, if we were only distributing the mails in the city, there would not perhaps be half that amount brought into the Post Office Department. While the minister grants the

cities this drop letter system, whereby their letters can be delivered at one eent, he gives the rural districts no benefit. Why does he make the statement that the postal revenue would not be depreciated by the position he takes in connection with this measure? If the revenue is not going to depreciate to any extent, and he has had $1,500,000 of surplus the past year, what Will he do with the revenue?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Expand the service.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: In what way? He will tell us that in some places he is establishing post offices every two miles, but does he think that will be of such wonderful benefit to the people of thickly settled districts? Would it hot be more reasonable to give those people rural free mail delivery?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not opposed to it but I say it will entail an immense expenditure.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. minister is opposing it as much as he can, and the Minister of Agriculture has been telling the people what a staggering load free rural mail delivery would impose on them; and to bear out his argument he compares sparsely settled districts like the Yukon with the United States. I would like the minister to be fair in this matter and give the rural districts a square deal. If you are going to reduce the rates in the city to one cent, why not reduce the rate in the rural districts to one-half cent ? If you are going to have a million and a half that you do not know what to do with, and if you are not going to give a better service, why reduce the postage?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am only giving to the cities where they have the letter carrier system what is already in existence in the rural districts. Every town, village and hamlet where they have not the letter-carrier system, have a one cent rate for drop letters. My hon. friend says we should do something for the rural districts. He knows that no reasonable request is refused, and, if he can trust me, he will find that no reasonable request will be refused in the future, for the rural section. The hon. gentleman speaks of the surplus. It is true, we have a surplus. I take some credit for keeping it. I am the trustee of the people-it is not my own money. I am not going to waste it uselessly, and be criticised by my hon. friend afterwards. I am going to spend it legitimately and honestly. Wherever a fair request is made for a better service in the country I will give it. I have already reduced the distances between post offices, and I intend to reduce them still further. I have increased the postmasters' salaries so that the minimum instead of being $25 is $35. I have increased the frequency of mail service-where a tri-weekly


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: service was found insufficient, I have made it a daily service, .and where a daily service was not enough, I have made it semi-daily. And I intend to go on in that way. My hon. friend speaks as though I were opposed to rural mail delivery. It is a splendid system, one that I admire greatly. If the Post Office Department in Canada had the means to give the people free rural mail delivery as they have it in the neighbouring Republic, I would give it with pleasure. But, with a territory as large as that of the United States, we have not the population, and we have a climate that is more severe. Besides we have not the revenue. But, step by step, the system will be established in Canada. There is a step towards rural mail delivery that is probably known to my hon. friend-it is the system known in the United States as the star route system. I do not say that I will not, after a careful examination, and after. consulting with my colleagues, try that system. But as I have told my hon. friend, we must not discriminate in the postal service. If we establish rural mail delivery, or the star route system in, say, the thickly-settled portions of his district in Ontario, how can I resist the demand that will be made by the members from the far west? The gentlemen who represent the far west in this House are just as much entitled to the system as those who represent the older districts of the east. However, that is not the question immediately before us. To answer my hon. friend as to the estimate of the revenue to follow this reduction, let me point out that the postage on domestic letters and letters to the United Slates was reduced from 3 cents to 2 cents on January 1, 1899 ; and, practically co-incident with that, at Christmas, 1898, the rate to Great Britain and the British colonies was reduced from 5 cents per half ounce to 2 cents. Tlie result of these reductions can be shown in a few figures. The revenue for the year 1898 was $3,527,810. In 1899, the revenue was $3,182,931, a reduction for the first year of the lower rate of postage of $344,879. But, in 1900, the revenue showed an increase of $1,053 above that of 1898. In 1901. tlie increase was $237,208, and in 1902. $466,934. Since then, it has increased by leaps and bounds. So, our experience is that a reduction in the rate of postage means an increase in the revenue. That is the experience of other countries also- there is no exception amongst progressive people. As I said a few weeks ago in answer to a question, there have been two great reductions in Canadian postage. In 1851, the rate was reduced from an average of 18 cents a letter to 6 cents per half ounce ; and, in 1868. it was reduced from 5 cents per half ounce to 3 cents per half ounce. In the former case, where the rates were reduced from 18 cents to 6 cents, the course of the revenue was as follows:-In

the first year, 1852, there was a decrease in the revenue of $131,436. But in 1853 there was an increase in the revenue of $47,000 in round figures; in 1854, $41,000; in 1855, $48,000. In 1868, after the reduction from 5 cents to 3 cents, the results were as follows In 1869, one year after, there was a decrease in the revenue of $51,646. But in 1870 and the following years there was a steady increase ; in the first year, $37,000, in the second year, $69,000. So although there was a reduction of 40 per cent, the revenue recovered itself in three years. I am quite positive, and that is the view taken by the oldest members of our staff, that even with the reduction, with the present prosperity in our large cities, we will get a material and substantial increase in our postal revenue, which increase will be used for the benefit of the rural sections of the country.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: While the minister is making his explanations, perhaps he will tell us whether this financial superintendent is a new office.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.
(Mr. URIAH WILSON. Would the hon. gentleman give us a full explanation of his duties, and tell us whether one man is expected to do all this?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will first speak of the post office superintendent. According to our Post Office Act, a man who is appointed to the office of post office superintendent must have been in the service during a period of 10 years. We had decided to reduce that period to 5 years. We believe that a young man who has served five years is just as good and perhaps better fitted for that position than a man who has been 10 years in the service. But no man can be better fitted to fill the office of post office superintendent than the able gentleman is now filling that office, in the person of Mr. Ross, of Toronto, one of our oldest officers. I think it is a measure of prudence for the future to make this change. Now, as regards the question put by my hon. friend (Mr. Uriah Wilson) at present the financial inspection of the post offices, not only in the large cities but in the rural districts, is made part of the duties of our inspectors. As long as this inspection is confined to the rural sections of the country, our post office inspectors can do that work easily enough. But when it comes to the large offices in cities like Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg, the case is different. The bookkeeping and generally speaking the collection of the revenue in those offices is much more complicated than it is in the rural sections of the country; therefore we find it desirable to appoint a man specially to have surveillance of those large offices, in order to protect both our revenue and our employees. We have several sources of revenue in those large offices; we have die
postal notes, the money orders, the amounts paid for transmission of papers and printed matter, and it taxes the ability of our inspectors, whose time is all taken up to the neglect sometimes of the rural districts.


Uriah Wilson: Will one man do all this ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We will have one man in Ottawa, and that man is at my left hand just now. He has been in the service for over 30 years. He was appointed by the Mackenzie government, and is one of the most expert accountants we have in the country. In view of the large revenue we are going to get, we think it necessary, in order to protect that revenue and to protect the employees in the city offices, to appoint a man to have direct surveillance over those matters.


William Foster Cockshutt: I desire to say a few words with regard to this section. In the first place, I am in full accord with the minister's proposition to reduce the drop letter rate in cities. 'For my part I think that it never should have been raised. To my mind it is preposterous to charge two cents for the delivery of a letter across the street, and to charge only the same rate on a letter to Great Britain or to any of the colonies. It needs no argument to prove that. The basis of value should be service, and the delivery of a letter In the same city in which it is deposited should not be charged for at the same rate as when you send it across the continent or to a foreign country. It is only in recent years that this change was made. Take the city of Brantford where I live. Up to a few years ago our drop letters were one cent, and always had been. But seven or eight years ago the change was made, and the rate was advanced to two cents. At the same time the merchants continued to hold their boxes. We paid from $2 to $10 per annum rent for those boxes, and carried our own letters all the time. I myself, along with many other merchants, have always continued to carry our letters. We never see a postman on our premises from one years' end to the other. For reasons that are evident, we can get five or ten deliveries a day by carrying them ourselves. At the same time we continue to hold our boxes, and so we have been paying double rates. So in this respect the minister is only doing an act of justice. But in making the proposition he did tonight, I think he has misled the House, whether intentionally or not. But I wish to call the minister's attention to the laws and regulations of the postal department. I hold in my hand the Postal Guide, and I would direct his attention to page xxxv., clause 203. A few moments ago I asked him if he meant to say that it was an illegal act for a merchant to deliver his own accounts, and the minister promptly

replied that it was an illegal act. I did not think I misunderstood the minister. It was news to me but I did not like to contradict so eminent an authority without referring to the postal regulations. Clause 203 of the regulations reads:	.
The Postmaster General has the sole and exclusive privilege of conveying, receiving, collecting, sending and delivering letters within Canada; and (except in the oases hereinafter mentioned) any person who collects, sends, conveys, or delivers, or undertakes to convey or deliver, any letter within Canada, or who receives, or has in his possession any letter for the purpose of conveying or delivering It, otherwise than in conformity with the Post Office Act, for each and every letter so unlawfully conveyed or undertaken to be conveyed, received, delivered or found in his possession, is liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty dollars. The term letters as used in ths Act, is held to include circulars in the form of letters.
The following are the excepted cases:
ta) Letters sent by a private friend in his way, journey or travel, provided such letters be delivered by such friend to the party to whom they are addressed.
' (b) Letters sent by a messenger on purpose, concerning the private affairs of the sender or receiver.
(e) Commissions or returns thereof, and affidavits or writs, process or proceedings^ or returns thereof, issuing out of a court of justice.
(d) Letters addressed to a place out ot Canada, and sent bv sea and bv a private vessel.
.(e) Letters lawfully brought into Canada, and immediately posted at the nearest post office.
(f) Letters of merchants, owners of vessels of merchandise, or of the cargo or loading therein, sent by such vessel of merchandise, or hy any person employed by such owners for the carriage of such letters, according to their respective addresses, and delivered to the persons to whom they are respectively addressed, without pay, hire reward, advantage, or profit for so doing.
It is quite evident that the merchant is within his legal rights when he employs his own clerk or by bimself delivers his own bills or private letters or dunning letters. Tens of thousands are delivered in this way in the cities and it is perfectly legal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I agree that the exceptions my hon. friend has just read only prove the excellence of the general rule. What I had in mind was the clubbing of merchants, manufacturers and insurance men In the cities to have a messenger service for the delivery of their letters and accounts. That is clearly illegal.


William Foster Cockshutt: I was going to support the minister, but be took the ground away from me by his statement that the practice of delivering letters in this way, which I myself have followed, was illegal. I think he is right in this proposal and that he is justified in the hope that a large amount of mail matter now delivered in Mr. COCKSHUTT.
this way will be posted. The bulk of the postage after all originates in the cities, although, of course, much of it goes to the country. The average citizen of the town or city writes five or ten letters to the one written by the man in the country. The postage on the monthly accounts and the circulars sent out by merchants comes to a tremendous amount and no doubt much more of tbis class of matter will be sent under tbis reduction. We can deliver these letters at half a cent, and merchants will still probably deliver a considerable portion of this class of correspondence because a boy can earn $2 to $3 a day delivering letters or accounts at half a cent apiece The Postmaster General is doing an act of justice in this and I trust his estimate of returns will be fulfilled.


David Henderson: I am quite In sympathy with tbis proposed reduction. I cannot agree with the Postmaster General's statement that the city revenue pays for the country service. Without the country the city revenue would not amount to much.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not deny that.


David Henderson: Consequently his statement Is not fair to the country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. member is quite right in saying that no distinction should be made between the rural sections and the cities; what I have in mind is that the revenue originates in the cities. Certainly a large amount of postage stamps are bought to send letters into the country districts. Take Eaton in Toronto, one of our best clients, who buys probably $100,000 worth of stamps, all his postage is for the country districts.


David Henderson: The city revenue would certainly not be so large were it not for the country custom which the city people have. Looking at it in that light, whilst I justify the Postmaster General in the reduction he proposes on city letters, I contend that in all other districts where there is no such delivery there should be a corresponding reduction and it is my intention, when the Postmaster General has adopted his clause reducing the postage on the drop letters in cities, to move an amendment which will have the effect of reducing the postage in the rural districts and in all places where there is no delivery by mail carrier, from one cent to one-half cent.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Going us one better.


David Henderson: I think the proportion is fair, that the country is entitled to that if the city is to get the other. The Postmaster General may think I come from the country. Possibly I do and I am not ashamed of it. I have respect for the people who live on the land and I want to stand for their rights. I think the Post-

master General should have conceded this point at the same time as he conceded the other. This is not the first time I have called his attention to this matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) to be good enough to withdraw his amendment and to leave the rural section of the country to my tender mercy. Let us first try the one cent drop letter, and if as a result the revenue increases, as I feel quite certain it will, then I shall give my hon. friend's amendment yer- serious consideration. Will the hon. gentleman trust me for one year or perhaps two?


David Henderson: I would gladly take the suggestion of the Postmaster General if I were sure he would be Postmaster General next year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If I am not, my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) may be, and then he will carry out his own policy.


David Henderson: I made up my mind some time ago that when the opportunity arose I would move this amendment. I would like to know what the House and the country thinks of it, and the Postmaster General will also learn the feeling of the people on the question, a fact which may be of advantage to him. I would gladly accept the suggestion of the Postmaster General, but I made a promise to myself to move this amendment and although I have every respect for the hon. gentleman still I must respect myself. My amendment is :
Moved by Mr. Henderson seconded by Mr. Elain-
That section 48 of the Post Office Act is amended by inserting the word 'half' after the word ' one * in the third line of said section, and by inserting in the fifth line the words ' in cases where there is no delivery by letter carrier.'
The net result of the amendment is that outside of the plnces where there is a letter carrier delivery there shall be a half cent rate instead of a one cent rate as at present.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. triend leave this as a notice of motion until next year? I fear it is I who am the Conservative to-night and that my hon. friend is the Radical, for we must not all at once revolutionize the whole postal system. Let us wait for a year or two to see what the result of the present reduction will be and if the increase of the past few years continues it is my intention to give further postal reductions. Of course as to that I would have to consult my colleagues.


Mr. LAKE.: I entirely disagree with the view expressed by the Postmaster Genera] to-night that the larger proportion of the postal revenue originates in the towns and cities. In my opinion nearly all of the revenue which the towns contribute comes from the country. The correspondence from the city is addressed to the people of the country and the parcels are sent to people living in the country, and in the long run it is they who are the producers of the wealth who pay the postage. I would be much more disposed to depend on the assurance of the Postmaster General if I thought he had a proper idea as to the proportionate contributions between the towns and the country districts to the postal revenue. I believe the proposal of the hon. gentleman from Halton is a proper one and I trust the minister will seriously take it into consideration.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: In this proposal the Postmaster General is most certainly discriminating against the rural districts. When he says that Mr. Eaton, of Toronto, is returning to the postal department a revenue of $100,000 per annum he must remember that a large proportion of that comes from the people of the rural districts to whom he sends his goods and his circulars. As to a rural mail delivery the minister does not seem to realize that the thickly settled portions of the rural districts of Canada are not any different from the thickly settled portions of the United States and that in the United States there are sparsely settled districts as there are in Canada. The minister knows they do not have rural free delivery in the sparsely settled districts of the United States, and why he basis his argument on the 6,000,000 people in Canada and the 80,000,000 in the United States I cannot understand.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I want to make a suggestion to the Postmaster General as to better rural mail delivery than we have. He is making a change in the postal arrangements for the benefit of the cities; but, while I am in favour of every reduction in the postal rates, whether it be in the city or the country, still I think the Postmaster General might direct his attention to improving the rural mail service. In my own county there are some sections which only get a mail twice a week; so I am informed in letters from my constituency. 1 think one of the aims of the Postmaster General should he to rectify grievances of that kind. I think every section of Ontario should have a daily mail wherever it is possible.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is the first time I have heard any complaint in regard to the mail service in my hon. friend's riding. Whenever he can point out any deficiency in the service. I shall be only too pleased to rectify it.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I appreciate that very much and I will make inquiry and if I find that the grievance which I have mentioned is a reality, I will call the Postmaster General's

attention to it in the hope that he will rectify it.	,


David Henderson: After having heard the very strong assurance which the Postmaster General has given us, I think that my purpose will possibly be more likely to be accomplished by not pressing my amendment than by pressing it. X have no desire to embarrass the Postmaster General in this matter. I might perhaps gain a little political capital by pressing it; but my desire is to get the reduction in postage, which is of more importance than any petty party advantage I might gain. Therefore after the Postmaster General's statement, I am quite willing to allow the matter to stand over.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I can assure my hon. friend that my promise to take the matter into very serious consideration is not a vain promise, and my hon. friend may remind me of it at any time. I am only too pleased in postal matters to give the best possible facilities to the people; and if any further reduction can be given, which is reasonable and acceptable to the government and the House, I shall certainly bow before public opinion.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: A few days ago there was a little discussion regarding the mail service on the Murray harbour branch of the Prince Edward Island Railway, and the minister promised to confer with the Minister of Railways and Canals in reference to it. I think this would be a fitting opportunity to put the question again.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and I am pleased to embalm the answer in the columns of [DOT] Hansard.' The other day my hon. friend called my attention to the wretched mail service on the Prince Edward Island Railway, and the day afterwards I made clippings of the matter from ' Hansard ' and wrote a letter to the Minister of Railways and Canals. I have received an answer from him, and if my hon. friend will put a question on the Order Paper or move for that correspondence, I shall be pleased to bring it down. The Minister of Railways and Canals has promised me that he will take up the question as soon as he visits Prince Edward Island, as he intends to do this summer. There is not only the question of the mail service; there is the question of the whole rearrangement of the railway service. As regards the mail service, we are prepared to give the best service possible provided we are helped by the Railway Department.


Angus Alexander McLean: Will the minister lay the correspondence on the table of the House, as I cannot move for it at the present time?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will let my hon. friend have a copy.


Mr. LA  LOR@: 


Mr. WHITE.: I understood the Postmaster General to say that the distance between rural post offices had been reduced. What is the distance now?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will not say that there is a fixed distance; but the average distance was between seven and eight miles. When I have an application at a distance of three miles or even two miles, where there is a dense population, I grant the request by giving the post office apd extending the service.
On section 2,


Richard Stuart Lake: Will the Postmaster General state exactly what this second clause is to cover ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The post office superintendent, Mr. Ross of Toronto, has filled that office quite ably for thirty-five years. He has the general supervision of all the post offices of the Dominion. He travels from one end of the country to the other. His powers are second only to those of the Deputy Postmaster General. In fact, he acts for the Deputy Postmaster General all over the Dominion. I may say that Mr. Ross is filling the position quite ably, and hope he will continue to fill it for a long time. But at present we have to take an officer who has served at least ten years in the Post Office Department to fill that position.
I wish to reduce that to five years, so that for the future we can avail ourselves of the services of younger men, when we select a successor to Mr. Ross.


Richard Stuart Lake: I do not think that is in the interest of the service. It takes away from civil servants who have learned their business, and worked their way up to be good and efficient servants, the opportunity to fill one of the highest offices in the service. I think it is a great pity to make such a change as this.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We are only reducing the number of years in the service. A man must still be taken direct from the department. When a man has been in the department from the age of thirty years to the age of forty years, he may have lost his grip. I am in favour of young men in the service as much as possible. If after five years service a young man is not able to show his ability, he will not be able to show it any better after ten years.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Mr. TAYLOR.: What business to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: A Bill of the Minister of the Interior respecting Chinese Immigration; a Bill in my name respecting Dry

Docks ; a Bill in my name respecting the pledging of the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific and one or two others in my name and then, if we reach Supply, the Public Works estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.38 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 17, 1908.