1910-05-02

Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I have a matter to which I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. King). I received a letter from Boissevain concerning men coming across the line to work on the Great Northern railway. The employers are dismissing all the Canadians along that line from the boundary to Brandon and substituting for them Greeks imported from the other side. This has been giving us trouble for some time, and I would like the Minister of Labour to look into the matter.


Mr. KING.: If the hon. member (Mr. Schaffner) will send me the communication to which he refers, I will make the necessary inquiry.



WESTERN GRAIN TRADE.

Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I wish to put on ' Hansard,' for the benefit of the Department of Trade and Commerce, a letter I received this morning. It is from Mr. R. McKenzie, secretary of the Grain Growers' Association of Manitoba, and is as follows:
Winnipeg, Can.,
April 28th, 1910.
Dr. Schaffner, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
My dear sir,-
In further reference to the subject matter of my telegram to you, as you will no doubt know, the stock of the different grades in store in the terminal elevators was weighed in August of last year, and immediately on the close of navigation Inspector Gibbs made an estimate of the quantity in store of each grade by measurement. There is a report current that this estimate showed that the amount of high grade wheat shipped out far exceeded the amount received and as a consequence the Department of Trade and Commerce ordered the warehouse commissioner to institute an investigation. This investigation has been going on for some time and culminated in three of the terminal elevator companies being fined on information sworn out by Mr. Castle on the 22nd inst. Report has it that the solicitor representing the elevator company and the solicitor representing the department and Mr. Castle had arranged that the charge should be that of making false statements rather than the more serious charge of mixing grain. Be that report true or not, the fact remains that in place of the former being tried in open court, the solicitor for the terminal elevator companies met Mr. Daly in Mr. Hudson's office (Mr. Hudson being Mr. Castle's solicitor), and pleaded guilty, and was fined, the object apparently being to prevent the matter from coming before the public.
We think that this ' star chamber ' method of holding court should not be tolerated. If these terminal elevators are offenders against the law they should be treated as other offenders. It is a matter of common knowledge that practices in contravention of the law and against the best interests of the country were indulged in in these elevators for many years, and when the offenders were once brought to justice there should be no effort to endeavour to minimize the effect it would have. A simple fine is no punishment to these people. Publicity is what they are afraid of.
In the few days you have at your disposal before the House prorogues, will you, in the interests of the farmers, do what you can to get Mr. Castle's report and all correspondence brought down so that the public may know what has been done. I do not think at all that the Department of Trade and Commerce want to conceal anything, and there should be no disposition on the part of anyone to protect those who are accused of tampering with our grades. Our government undertakes to deliver our grain on the world's market according to specifications defined by statutes. Their inspectors compel the farmers to meet the requirements of the specifications and they should see that their inspectors should also compel those who handle our grain to comply with the require-

meats of those specifications in the handling of our grain.
Yours very truly,
r. McKenzie,
Secretary.


Mr. OLIVER.: Following up the subject which my hon. friend (Mr. Schaffner) has just laid before the House, I may say that Mr. Castle's report on this case was laid on the table on Friday.



TREATMENT OF STEAMSHIP PASSENGERS.

Frank Oliver: I would like to read a report from the superintendent of immigration on the subject brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) some days ago:
With regard to the letter read in parliament on the 26th instant, by Mr. Lennox, M.P., I beg to state that full inquiry had been made into the question of the delay of passengers ex SS. ' Corsican ' before the matter was brought up in the House.
Under date of April 4, M. J. V. Lanta-lum, our agent at St. John, wrote giving his reasons for the action he took. According to his report the ' Corsican ' entered the dock at ten minutes to six o'clock, having on board 16 saloon, 364 2nd cabin and 250 steerage passengers. Mr. Lantalum's contention is that had the passengers been landed it would have been very late in the night before their baggage could be checked and passengers started on their railway journey. In support of his contention that it would be very late before the passengers would be able to get away from St. John, Mr. Lantalum mentions the fact that although landed at 9.05 a.m. Sunday morning, it was 3.30 in the afternoon before they got the first train away, and 4,15 when the second train left, seven hours and ten minutes from the time of landing until the last train left. Mr. Lantalum points out that if it required seven hours and ten minutes to check the luggage, &c,, during daylight on Sunday, it is only reasonable to suppose that it would have required a much longer time at night when the passengers were tired and other circumstances not so favourable. He also contends it would have been a hardship for the women and children to remain awake while the preparations were being made. It is evident there was a difference of opinion among the passengers as to what should be done, many being of the same opinion as Mr. Lennox's correspondent, that they were undergoing a hardship by being delayed. On the other hand Mr. Lantalum says in his report:
* Many of the passengers were very much pleased at being kept on the ship all night as they said they had a good night's rest which would enable them to stand the long rail journey. One head of a family thanked the immigration authorities warmly for it.'
It is quite evident that Mr. Lantalum's action was taken solely in the interests of the passengers, and while I personally think it would have been wiser to have landed them,
I do not think Mr. Lantalum is open to any censure for the action he took. I am, how-


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: ever, notifying him in future that when boats whose passengers had been examined at Halifax reach St. John before 8 p.m., he is to allow them to land, providing the steamship and railway companies desire him to do so.



W. D. SCOTT,

[Stage Direction]
Superintendent of Immigration.
Mr. LENNOX.: I understand that this is not likely to occur again.


Frank Oliver: Not at St. John.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. FOSTER.: I desire to ask the government for three returns as follows:	One
ordered by the House on December 1 with reference to the British and United States agreement on the great lakes; the second ordered by the House on January 17 with reference to the commissions issued by this government, and the third ordered by the House on February 28 showing the employees in the civil service. I would like very much to get these returns.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: With regard to the last named, I think it has been brought down. I will make inquiries. As to the agreement on the great lakes, I suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) refers to the Waterways Treaty?


George Eulas Foster: No, to the agreement con-cering naval armaments on the great lakes, the Rush-Bagot arrangement.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will inquire into that.



SURVEY IN ST. JOHN RIVER CHANNEL.

Mr. CROCKET.: I call again the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the returns in connection with the survey in the channel of the St. John river. I am anxious to have that brought down before prorogation.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I have made inquiries, and was informed they had gone to the Department of the Secretary of State. I presume they will reach here to-day or tomorrow at latest.



SCRIP TO SOUTH AFRICAN VOLUNTEERS.

Mr. HUGHES.: I wish to ask the Minister of the Interior a question, and to get some information. On their way to South Africa a number of soldiers died, and I understand that the friends or legal representatives of those soldiers in many cases are denied the right to scrip because the soldiers did not land in South Africa. But the representatives of two, if not three, of those soldiers have been given their scrip, and I would like to know from the minister

how he makes fish of one and flesh of the other.


Frank Oliver: I think that probably my hon. friend's question should be addressed to the Minister of Militia and not to the Minister of the Interior, as it is the Department of Militia which decides who should get scrip, and we only issue a land warrant on receipt of the bounty warrant from the Militia Department.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I will look into this matter. All these matters have to be attended to by Col. Smith, wlm is an extremely careful officer. I have given no instructions to make any discrimination between applicants.


Samuel Hughes: In case it is found that the representatives of two or three of these men who died before reaching South Africa, have received their scrip, may we expect that others in the same case will be dealt with in the same way?


Frederick William Borden: I can hardly make any promise of that kind. If there has been an unintentional discrimination of the kind, I think that some remedy will have to be applied. I will look into the matter.



DELAY IN MAILS BETWEEN MONTREAL AND LOWER PROVINCES.

Mr. EMMERSON.: I would like to invite the attention of the Postmaster General to the subject of the transmission of mails from Ontario to points east of Montreal, particularly to the maritime provinces. Letters mailed in Toronto or at Ottawa, or at any other point in Ontario west of Montreal, in the evening of any day, reach, in the ordinary course, Montreal on the next morning. They are there held apparently until the evening of that day, and are then sent out in the Canadian Pacific railway mail train to points east. Apparently, the Post Office Department is not aware that there is a mail train leaving by the Intercolonial at 12 o'clock each day, and if these letters and other mail matter were transmitted by that Intercolonial train, they would reach Moncton and other points east much earlier, and reach the recipients fully a day in advance of the time when they actually reach their destination. The difficulty appears to be in connection with the transfer of mails at Montreal. It seems to me that the letters should be sent forward by the Intercolonial at 12 o'clock, instead of being held in Montreal until 7.25 the same day.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That would apply only to mail for the north shore counties in New Brunswick.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The mails for Fredericton and St. John of course reach St. John
about the same time if they go by the Intercolonial. But the complaint arises in connection with the mails for Moncton, and points east on the Intercolonial in Nova Scotia and at other points in New Brunswick.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I am glad my hon. friend has called my attention to that defect in the service. He saw me the other day, and immediately I wrote to the Montreal postal authorities to see that all mail destined to the lower provinces arriving in Montreal in the morning, should be forwarded by the noon train. There is no reason why the mails should not be transferred at once. A letter leaving Ottawa at night, even late at night, reaches Montreal at 8 o'clock in the morning by the western train. There is no reason why the mails should not be transferred from the Windsor station to the Grand Trunk station between 8 or 8.30 in the evening and 12 o'clock next day. There is something wrong in the service there, and I will give the necessary instructions that the complaint be remedied at once.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I hope the Postmaster General will not think of making the change in regard to all the portions of the maritime provinces. If the arrangement proposed by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) were adopted, it would cause a delay in the arrival of mail at. St. John and Fredericton which are served by the Canadian Pacific railway sooner than by the Intercolonial.



FOREST RESERVE AT OKA RIVER.

Mr. CAMPBELL.: I wish to call the attention of the departments interested to a matter which I brought up earlier in the session; I refer to a petition that was sent by the people of the municipality of Oka river complaining that, owing to the fact that the forest reservation was immediately south of that municipality, the water backs up there and gradually overflows the lands, and prevents the farmers from putting in their crops in the vicinity of that reserve. I wrote to the Minister of the Interior asking favourable consideration of this matter, also to the Minister of Public Works and to the Prime Minister. I think it is only a moderate request on behalf of the people of that municipality that they should be aided in some way to build drains to take care of the water that overflows their land from the timber reserve.


Frank Oliver: Speaking for the Department of the Interior which is responsible for the existence of the forest reserve, I do not understand that the existence of that reserve has any particular bearing on the undesirable presence of the water. It is because of the topographical condition, for

which the department is not responsible, and therefore it seems to me that the department or the government cannot be called upon to make good a damage which does not exist because of the action of the department or of the government; it is something for which no department of the government is responsible. While I am speaking on this subject, I may be permitted to say that I think the subject of drainage is one that is essentially a provincial matter; under these circumstances I do not think it would be right and proper that the federal government should undertake to do that which is essentially a provincial work.


Mr. SPROULE.: How can the province drain through Dominion lands?


Glenlyon Campbell: I realize that the minister is right in a great measure when he says that drainage is essentially a matter that appertains to the local provincial governments, but when they form a drainage district the lands within that district are charged with their share of the expense. It is impossible, as I understand, to charge Dominion lands and I just ask as a matter of fair play to the municipality that the Dominion contribute in some way towards the draining of this land which is absolutely necesary owing to the fact of the wooded country being immediately south of the municipality.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I may say to the minister what my hon. friend contends for has been adopted by this House as a principle in regard to Dominion railways. The Dominion railways could not be made to contribute to the cost of draining their lands as well as the adjoining lands by provincial authority, but we saw the evil and we agreed to amend the Railway Act a few years ago by providing that we would make the Dominion railways which are under the control of this country contribute, under the provincial authority, in the same manner as my hon. friend contends that Dominion lands should.
I think that parliament, in order to be consistent, should adopt the same system of legislation as that which was adopted in regard to the Dominion railways and for the same reason that Dominion lands should contribute as contended for by my hon. friend.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to ask


Mr. SPEAKER.: It is not permissible at this stage to discuss the question. It may be done on going into Supply.


Samuel Hughes: I am only going to ask a question. Is it not the damming of the Ochre river cause by the debris, logs, timber, &c., from the forest reservation, and is it not the minister's plain duty to see 1


Frank Oliver: that this debris is cleared out of the forest reservation so as not to dam the river?


Frank Oliver: The reason is because the land in the Dominion reservation is high and on a slope and the land through which the Oka river runs is flat. The water runs down on the flat land and the river does not run fast enough to carry it away for which conditions the Dominion government is in no sense responsible. In regard to what the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) said, the subject which he mentioned is a matter for consideration, but I submit it is a matter for legislation rather than for administration.



ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE CADETS- VISIT TO OTTAWA.

Samuel Hughes: I understand that the cadets of the Royal Military College are to visit Ottawa to-morrow or next day, and I desire to ask the Minister of Militia if any arrangement has been made whereby the members of parliament could have an opportunity of viewing these young men. I think it is very proper that they should be brought here, and that the representatives of the people should have an opportunity of seeing them the first time they visit the city of Ottawa.


Frederick William Borden: I think there will be no difficulty in making an arrangement. I am not aware that any special arrangement has been made. it has been understood generally that parliament was likely to prorogue before the day of their arrival but if there is any desire of the kind intimated by my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes)
I will see that some arrangement is made to have them parade here.



WESTERN GRAIN TRADE.

Frank Oliver: 

COAL SUPPLY FOR NOVA SCOTIA LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS.

['I have exactly the same view as my right hon. friend, but it seems to me that the Speaker must decide. Otherwise there would require to be a motion put to the House as to whether or not the amendments are important. The House can only decide that by motion, and the motion must be carried. However, perhaps you can accomplish the same result in another way by moving that it go to the committee. In matters of this kind the Speaker ought to be the person to decide in the first instance. It may be that there should be an appeal from him, but I think it would be much more convenient if such matters were left for him to decide.']
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: 
James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman cannot discuss that question now. He can only put a question.


Mr. GERVAIS.: Well, I would like to ask the government, and the Secretary of State more especially, if it is their intention that the necessary orders shall be given to the King's Printer to bring about compliance with the request contained in that resolution?


Mr. FIELDING.: I will call the attention of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to my hon. friend's question. I would not care to answer it immediately.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: I will be very pleased to give my hon. friend an answer, and if, in the meantime, my hon. friend will permit me to have that paper or me-[DOT] morandum-as 'Hansard' will be out too late in the morning-I will have an answer for him to-morrow morning.



Mr. G. V. WHITE.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) to have the return brought down that I moved for on the 14th February last.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend ithe Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) has the matter in course of preparation. There are some documents which were sent to the Prime Minister but the return will be down to-morrow.


DETENTION OF MR. ALEXANDER LYONS AT ELLIS ISLAND, N.Y.
Mr. WALLACE.: I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) to a despatch which I see in this morning's * Citizen,' and which reads as follows:
Mr. Alex. Lyons, former vice-president of the Amalgamated Carpenters' Unions of Toronto, lias been detained by the immigration authorities at Ellis Island, N.Y., and pre vented from coming to his home in Toronto. As a result the local labour men are indignant. Mr. Lyons left for Toronto during the winter to visit the old country and to work at his trade for a while. He was on his way home when he was stopped by the authorities. It is understood that the amount of money sufficient to pay his fare to Toronto was not in his pocket at the time he landed and that is the excuse on which he is held. The local unions are taking up the case at once.


CANADA GAZETTE-PUBLICATION IN FRENCH LANGUAGE.
Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I would like to ask the government if it is their intention to comply with a request which I find contained in a resolution passed by the hon. the Senate on the 14th April, 1910, reading as follows:


TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT OF RAILWAY MEN.
Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I have had placed in my hands a copy of the approved uniform code of rules for Canadian railways, approved by the Railway Commission.
I find in the general notice a clause which says that employees in acepting an employ-



ment assume its risk. I understand that such a code or rules as are approved by the Railway Commission are virtually the law of this country. I would like to know from the government if such a clause as this is to deprive the workmen on railways of their rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Is it the intention that this rule shall become the law of the land?


William Stevens Fielding: I should not imagine that a mere order of the Railway Commission could override the laws of the lahd. I would not care to discuss the question, but I shall call the attention of the Minister of Railways to it and ask him to give an answer tomorrow.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 210) to incorporate the Retail Grocers' Association of Canada.-Mr. Gervais.
On section 1, incorporation:
Henry Robert Emmerson: I was unfortunately prevented from being in my seat on Friday evening when this Bill was under discussion, otherwise I would have taken occasion to express my judgment on it. It seems to me that this legislation properly belongs to the provincial legislatures, and that at this stage of the session certainly the time of this House should not be taken up with it. We have had similar legislation before parliament this very session. I understand this legislation is designed to protect the retail merchants in the several provinces. We have had legislation proposed with a view to protect the consumer, and that legislation met with but scant courtesy at the hands of parliament. This legislation, I am sure, is not any more entitled to consideration. I wish to be placed on record as entirely opposed to the measure in its general principles and also in detail. It is not necessary for these men to apply to this parliament for legislation to govern any association which they may have. While I can understand that there may be some reason for the wholesale merchants having Dominion incorporation, the same reasons do not apply in the case qf a retail merchant whose business horizon is necessarily a very narrow one, certainly not extending beyond his own province. Many of them do not go in their business transactions beyond the the community in which they reside. The retail merchants should go to their provincial legislatures for incorporation. It cannot be argued that the provinces have no jurisdiction over such matters. There is too strong a tendency for the Dominion to en-Mr. J. A. CURRIE.
croach on the provincial jurisdiction, and we should not permit these gentlemen to take up the time of this House. I feel that this committee should at this moment take a very determined stand against advancing this Bill any further during the present session at least.


Mr. NEELY.: I had hoped the Prime Minister would be in his place when this Bill came up this morning, because I wanted to make an appeal to him, but as the Minister of Public Works is apparently leading the House in his absence, I would appeal to him. When the Bill first came up, a motion was made that the committee rise after the first section had been defeated by a considerable majority, but in deference to the feelings and wishes of the promoter that motion was withdrawn and the committee also consented to reconsider clause 1, the understanding of those who had voted against the Bill being that the promoter wished to withdraw it. This is the third time the Bill has been in the Committee o'f the Whole House. It took up the whole of the hour for private Bills on Friday- night. A large number of the members have gone away, as the session is drawing to a close and numbers of those who had voted against the Bill are not present. I appeal to the fairness of the promoter, and I ask the minister of Public Works if it is a fair proposition to press this Bill to a conclusion after we have had a division of the committee, now to bring it forward the third time, when a large number of the members are not here to vote.


William Pugsley: I might remind my hon. friend that this is a private Bill, and I do not think the government should be urged to take any charge of the committee upon it.


Mr. BEST.: I am surprised to see this Bill again before the commitee. A few days ago we passed an Anti-Combine Bill. This morning, after discussing this three times, we are asked to pass a Bill that may lead to the formation of a huge combine. I cannot see where this Bill will help either the producer or the consumer, and I want to be placed on record as being straight against this Bill. I think it is unfair to bring it before the House at this time. The Bill was voted down and out the first time it was discussed, and now, when many members are away, it is brought forward again when we expect to prorogue in a short time.
Some hon MEMBERS. Vote.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Before the vote is taken I wish to say a few words. I have been listening to the so-called arguments

of the hon. gentlemen on three different occasions, on itwo nights and one day, and I think I am entitled to say a few words as a rejoinder of issue. The hon. gentlemen have tried to bring forward some arguments, tout I can assure you that nothing tout fiction, imagination, and something else which I shall not qualify has been advanced in support of the rejection of this Bill. Who are the promoters of this Bill? The retail merchants of Canada who are deserving so great consideration in Canada. I have been sitting in this House for seven years. In that time we have incorporated companies right and left at the request of groups of five persons. Provided five persons have paid $200, a fine of $100 sometimes, and sometimes a fee of $1,200, charters have been granted for the incorporation of companies of all kinds, so-called railway companies, so-called banking houses, so-called trade unions, so-called benevolent societies

as a matter of ract any group of five men in the land coming before this high court of parliament, the highest of Canada, has been granted a charter. Surely, before this parliament I can appeal under better circumstances than before any lower court, any Superior Court or Court of Appeal in my province and any group of men should be given a fair hearing in this parliament. In this particular case the retail merchants of our country should be granted a fair hearing, ^ as fair as the many hundreds of corporations that have ibeen created since confederation. I am now rather surprised to see so many hon. members of parliament speaking so lightly or slightingly of the retail merchants of Canada, the promoters of this Bill. As a matter of fact v'bo are the retail traders and wholesale traders of Canada? They are well known deserving and progressive people, they have done more for the benefit of Canada than most all of the workingmen of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Yes, yes. That may be a surprise to you, but if you read the latest discoveries of social history you will find that the traders of the world have done an immense work for the progress and advancement of humanity. This has been the case in Canada and hon. members should not speak so disparagingly of the traders of Canada.


Mr. TOLMIE.: What about the farmers?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: The farmers have done their part of the work. What do you find in clause 1 of the Bill? That well known merchants all over Canada, numbering 272i
about 100, are now asking this parliament of Canada just to give them a charter to enable them to enjoy the powers and rights which are granted to any corporation under common law, under the civil law, under the law of confederation; because before all, I challenge any opponent of this Bill to point out to the House one paragraph, one sentence, one word, tending to show or of the nature to show that from the incorporation of this company a monopoly will toe created, or a so-called combine or that any illegal act will be committed, I repeat, it is fiction, it is imagination-I do not want to give out the third epithet-it is fiction and imagination to pretend that through the instrumentality of this Bill a monopoly will be created or a combine will be brought into existence. As I said, I am surprised to see how the retail merchants of Canada are being treated toy some hon. members of the House. The hon. member for Humboldt on Friday night last, tried but failed to advance reasons why we should not incorporate the Retail Merchants Association of Canada.
This House of parliament is a high court of justice to hear such demands as are made here and to grant them. Those demands or requests are framed in accordance with the constitution of 1867 and in accordance with the rules of parliamentary procedure. The Retail Merchants' Association of Canada have presented to this House a petition which has been properly signed. They have made the required deposit, given the necessary notice, and the Bill has been introduced in due form.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is no petitioner outside of Quebec and Ontario.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I beg the pardon of the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Em-merson). This incorporation is being sought for by the general traders of Canada. This Bill is not being forced upon this House by the association of retail merchants of but one province only. It has been presented in proper form with due notice; it has been reported to the House, which, I claim, is in duty bound to pass it. There is no reason for the rejection of the Bill. I challenge any lawyer in the House, and if the Minister of Justice were in his seat I would ask him to give his opinion, to say that he can find anything in the Bill which can be interpreted as trespassing upon or invading the rights of anybody or to show anything in the Bill which would create anything like a monopoly, combine or commercial company. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) has told the House that the Retail Merchants' Association if incorporated would tend to create a monopoly or combine of

the nature which the House declined to accept in the Co-operative Societies Bill, If you read over the Bill relating to the so-called co-operative credit societies, you will find that the societies which sought to incorporate under that Act were asking powers to borrow money or to lend money. I was a little aggrieved to see so many members not of the legal profession putting a construction upon the Bill which cannot be justified by the general rules of interpretation. I call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that there is no danger of any monopoly, trust or combine being created for the very simple reason that the association will have no power to buy goods or to sell goods or to borrow money. They will have no power to do any trade of any kind and they will be powerless to make any of the 20 contracts which are known under common law and under the civil law of the province of Quebec.


William Pugsley: What about section 6?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Under section 6 the association is merely authorized to borrow a few dollars on its notes or acquire a little property for its offices.


William Pugsley: There is no limit.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: There is a limit. It is only authorized to borrow a few dollars for the realization of purposes as defined in clause 2.


Henry Robert Emmerson: How about section 8?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: The limit is this, that they cannot use that money except for the purposes mentioned in section 2, and if any member will read over section 2 he will find that the association is powerless to make any contract or do any trade of any kind. My hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) is too clever a lawyer not to understand that under section 2 the association is powerless to make any contract, do any trade or any banking. He knows quite well that if they did, there are common law remedies, and the association could be brought to terms in any court of the land by a writ quo warranto on information. I repeat that this mischief feared by some hon. members is not possible under the provisions of the Bill, as the moment the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada tried to open a store, they could be enjoined by a writ quo warranto, while if they formed any combine they could be brought before the criminal courts and forced to account for their action. For, as we all know, there are provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada which have a very important bearing upon conspiracies in restraint of trade. Should any group of retail merchants use this association for the purpose of making what is known as a combine or monopoly, anybody in the land-anybody Mr. GERVAIS '
-can bring those offenders before the criminal courts. All fears of combine or monopoly through such a measure as this fade away the moment I draw attention to the fact that anybody in Canada may become informer and bring before the criminal court, not merely one man, but even all the members of this Retail Merchants' Association of Canada, to force them to withdraw from an illegal combine should any such be formed.
Then, there is a third remedy, and a very good one. Should the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada form a combine, the law which has just been enacted at the instance of the Minister of Labour can be made use of to prevent the continuance of any such anti-commercial organization. Thus, we have the three remedies, legal and complete remedies, should this Act of Incorporation be taken advantage of for the purpose of forming a combine in restraint of trade: first, idle quo warranto on information of the Crown; second, the anticombines law; and, third, bringing before the criminal courts the merchants accused of maintaining a combine.
Some hon. members of this House call for the rejection of this Bill but without showing any reason for such a course. I have said, and I think I have shown, that the retail merchants of Canada are entitled to some little consideration from this House. And all they ask is the same consideration that is given to any group of five men, which groups have been incorporated right and left by this parliament, the only conditions demanded being, proper notice for one month, a deposit of $200, and the following of a procedure established under certain rules. The Retail Merchants' Association of Canada, are, purely and simply -yes, and I say exclusively-requesting this House to give them a charter of incorporation. Is there any good reason to dismiss such an application? I wonder if the opposition to this Bill can arise because two Bills relating to the incorporation of co-operative societies which have claimed the attention of the House for the last two sessions have been dismissed ? But it is rather queer to note that the most rabid opponents of the. Bill.now before us, who oppose it on the ground that its promoters have been fighting the co-operative Bills, never attended the sittings of the Banking and Commerce Committee before which the arguments for and against the co-operative Bills were brought out. This I believe, is true of these gentlemen with one exception. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely)


David Bradley Neely: I am not a member of the Banking and Commerce Committee.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: But as amicus curiae, as one interested in the matter, perhaps the

hon. gentleman might have brought to the committee the supply of information which had been given him by an employee of this House. As we all know, everybody was welcome to appear before the Banking and Commerce Committee, and everybody who had information to give was well received and attentively listened to. I am surprised that the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) was not good enough to give the Banking and Commerce Committee the benefit of his extensive data and information in relation to co-operative societies and the marvellous things they have been doing in foreign lands-though they have brought nothing but disaster in Canada. I have acted as legal adviser for five or six co-operative societies in the course of my experience as a lawyer, and, so far as I have observed these societies, they have resulted only in failure, fraud and bankruptcy. It is foT this very reason that I did not feel disposed to give my support to a general law to incorporate co-operative societies-a blanket Act under which any group of seven persons can form a trading society, a wholesale society or a banking society, if they will! put up $1 apiece, making a capital, to begin business, of the magnificent sum of seven dollars. Is it because I stated before the Banking and Commerce Committee that I did not believe in any such financial theory that I find that in this House the supporters of these Bills make it a crime for me to have acted according to the dictation of my conscience and the warnings of my experience of twenty-five years? Fortunately or unfortunately, I have been the legal adviser of most of the co-operative societies established in Montreal within the last twenty-five years, and I could myself furnish a few data to the hon. member for Nanaimo who seems so well supplied with all kinds of information on this subject, taken from his head and from abroad and from his-


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: Mr. Chairman-


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I have not yet concluded my remarks. Every hon. member in this House has plenty of time to support his own request which he makes in this House; and I think that the many thousands of retail merchants of Canada, the retail merchants as well as the wholesale merchants, are entitled to a few hours of our attention in this House. These retail merchants' associations will have something to say when the election comes on, as well as the wholesale merchants, and I think these retail merchants' associations deserve to be heard.


Ralph Smith: This matter has been before the committee for some time, and I feel sure every member on both sides of the House is well informed in regard to it. I beg therefore to move that the
committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. BOYCE.: This House has voted several times on this Bill already, therefore, I do not think it is advisable that it should be permitted to delay the business of parliament any longer. I am opposed to the principle of the Bill, because I think it belongs to provincial jurisdiction. I think it. is extraordinary that legislation of this kind can be introduced and take up so much time, when we have a Minister of Labour who is supposed to look after these things, and who persists in staying away while this Bill is under consideration. The Minister of Labour was not here this morning, this is the first order on Private Bills, and as soon as the order is called the minister goes out of the House. I say this Bill would not have taken up so much time if the Minister of Labour were here and had told us : In my opinion, as having regard to the Combines Bill, this legislation ought not to pass. I think it is unfortunate that this Bill has been brought up when we have not an opportunity of consulting with the Minister of Labour, to find out how far this Bill will affect the legislation he has introduced already.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: The hon. gentleman who has just sat down complains that we have not the advantage of consulting the Minis-ter'of Labour on this question. Well, I will read to him the opinion of the law clerk of the House of Commons, which has been confirmed by the Minister of Justice, and I think that the opinion of the law clerk is more pertinent on this question than even the opinion of the Minister of Labour.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Dispense.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: No, I think that opinion will be useful to the committee.


Ralph Smith: Take it as read.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: No, I will not, I will read it. You are in need of it.
April 29, 1910.
H. Gervais, Esq., K.C., M.P.,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Gervais,-With reference to Senate Bill S, to incorporate the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada, in the form in which it passed the Senate on the 13th instant.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We have not got to the 13th instant yet.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: (reading);
Replying to your question as to whether, under this Bill, the association has a power to do a banking or loan business, or to engage in retail or wholesale business, or to create a monopoly of any kind.
Mr. Chairman, I appeal to you to keep order. I am reading the opinion of the law clerk of the House of Commons.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: As the hon.
member has appealed to me for order, I ask hon. gentlemen not to indulge in conversation to any extent.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Without having been able to give very careful consideration to the above, I can, however, reply that the question of doing a banking business is prohibited to the Association under the Interpretation Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 1, section 30, subsection 2, which says:
' 2. No corporation shall be deemed to be authorized to carry on the business of banking unless such power is expressly conferred upon it by the Act creating such corporation/
Then the law clerk continues:
There would appear to be no authority in the Bill


Ralph Smith: Is this not a private letter, and did not the writer of that request the hon. member not to read it in this House?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: No, and I told him I would read it. The opinion is not given in a private letter, but it is the opinion of the law clerk of the House of Commons. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) can examine it if he wishes.


Ralph Smith: Then what right ' has the hon. gentleman to Tead it? *


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I know the rules of etiquette as well as the hon. member for Nanaimo, I know them well enough not to make use of a private letter. The letter was given to me to be read in the House. Then the law clerk continues :
There would appear to be no authority in the Bill, either expressed or implied, which would enable the association to carry on a loan business. Clause 8, which has been called to my attention, relates >to the drawing, endorsing, etc., of bills and notes, but does not in my opinion give loaning powers.
I do not find any words which would indicate power to carry on a retail or wholesale business. Clause 2 says ' the objects of the association shall be: (a) the promotion of the industrial and commercial interests of the retail merchants of Canada/


Henry Robert Emmerson: By what means?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: The law clerk will answer the hon. member for Westmorland.
I think that if the association attempted to carry on a wholesale or retail business under tne authority of this clause, they would be acting without authority, and could be enjoined in the proper way. I also observe that there is no capital stock, without which it would seem improbable that any such business could be engaged in.
We know that the way to enjoin this corporation is by writ of quo warranto, or Mr. GERVAIS.
by a writ of injunction, in those provinces where such a writ exists.
* This apparently is intended to be covered by clause 9 of the Bill, which says that the existing constitution and by-laws of the voluntary association, in so far as they are not contrary to law or this Act, shall continue to be the constitution and by-laws of the association.
This letter is signed, 'Faithfully yours, A. H. O'Brien.' That opinion is just as good as the opinion of any layman who may attempt^ to interpret the Bill according to his wishes, and irrespective of any questions of law which are involved in that Bill. Section 1 may be carried, and then if there is any amendment needed to any objectionable clauses, they can be amended and put in proper shape. But I state it as a legal _ proposition, that this House cannot take it upon itself to refuse incorporation to any body of men who are asking for incorporation in accordance with the laws of the land, and with the forms of procedure of this House. This House is a court of law as well as a court of legislation.


Ralph Smith: I did not intend to move that the committee be directed to sit again. I simply move that the committee rise.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: I have listened to a good many of the speeches 'against this Bill, but there has only been one argument of any force that has been brought forward by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) and that argument is that the whole of the petitioners are from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. There has been no point made against the Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will the hon. gentleman tell me the reasons from the public standpoint why this Bill should pass?


Robert Bickerdike: It should pass for the same reason that any similar Bill has been passed by this House. The Bills incorporating the Manufacturers' Association, the Shipping Federation and dozens of others were on exactly the same footing. Why should this Bill be killed?- because it is introduced by the hon. member for Montreal-St. James?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Robert Bickerdike: Or because the
members of the association belong principally to Ontario and Quebec?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No. no.


Robert Bickerdike: These are very
strange reasons. The merchants of Canada are asking for this Bill. They are an important body, and they are simply asking for what the wholesale grocers asked for and which you gave to them. They are

asking what the Manufacturers' Association and the Shipping Federation asked for, and which you gave to them. For some reason or other some of the members of this House are determined to fight this Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman asked why this association should be given any less consideration than the Manufacturers' Association. Does the hon. gentleman say that the Manufacturers' Association is incorporated by Act of the Dominion parliament?


Robert Bickerdike: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What year?


Robert Bickerdike: I cannot tell from memory just what year, but I myself introduced the Bill to incorporate the Shipping Federation, and it passed this House unanimously.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does my hon. friend say that the Manufacturers' Association was incorporated by Act of the Dominion parliament?


Robert Bickerdike: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to see the statute.


Robert Bickerdike: I cannot give it to the hon. gentleman at a moment's notice, but, as I say, I introduced the Shipping Federation Bill myself. There *is no reason given why this Bill should not passt, except that these people are from Ontario and Quebec, and the gentleman who introduces this Bill has offended the Cooperative Association. Surely this House is not going to stoop to anything of that kind-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question, question.
Mr. BICKERDIKE-for the sake of persecuting the hon. member for St. James. I hope that every member of this House will vote for the Bill.
Motion (Mr. Ralph Smith) negatived. Yeas 30, nays 36.
On section 1,


Henry Robert Emmerson: It seems to me that the objection is very strong 'against this legislation being passed1 by this parliament. By looking at the names of the incorporators in the Bill it will be seen that on its face it is not of general application), that it does not relate to the whole Dominion, that there was no petitioner from the west and none from the east asking incorporation. To meet the description of a Dominion organization there should be representatives from every section of the Dominion. That shows that the country has not asked for it.


Samuel Hughes: Are there not enough names for an incorporation? Five are all that are needed.


Mr. M. CLARK.: If my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) will allow me, I would like to tell him that of my own knowledge there are numerous retailers in the west who wish this legislation.
On section 8, promissory notes and bills, liability of officers in respect of notes and bills.


William Pugsley: I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Gervais) that section 8 should be struck out. This association has no capital stock, and I do not think it should be allowed to accept bills, of exchange and make promissory notes.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: This Bill will have to go back to the Senate, and any amendment means that the Bill may be killed. As a matter of fact, the law clerk says that there is nothing objectionable in the Bill. The association want simply .to discount notes for their own little business. There is a limitation in clause 2. If you wish to carry the Bill, it will have to go through now, because prorogation will take place on Wednesday and we will not have time to have the Bill amended in the Senate. Anything in violation of the tendency of clause 8 is limited by clause 2, and I assure the committee that proper remedies will exist at common law. I ask that clause 8 be left as it is for the time being.


Mr. TURRIFF.: That clause 8 is not-necessary and should not be carried as. part of the Bill. I do not think the Bill should be carried. If the legislation is right, it should come from the provinces. Judging from the experience we have had with this sort of legislation in the west, that clause should be struck out, because the only purpose for which such a power as that contained in clause 8 was used by the Lumbermens' Association was' the quashing of competition. If this association wants money and wants to discount notes for the purpose of getting money, it can only be with that object in view. The promoter of the Bill says that it is not going into business, either retail or wholesale. It must be for the same purpose as that for which the Retail Lumbermen's Association in the west wanted money, and that was to get the men engaged in that business into a combination so that there will be no competition. I move that clause 8 be struck out.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would suggest to my hon. friend the promoter of the Bill (Mr. Gervais) that if he is anxious to have this Bill passed, he had better accept the amendment, The object of the Bill is such that if you give power to this com-

pany, which has no capital at all, to incur liabilities you adopt a very dangerous principle, and, moreover, if my hon. friend expects this Bill to go through at this stage of the session, he had better accept the amendment, and let it go to the Senate. It will come back from the Senate to-morrow, and it can be amended again if necessary.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: This association simply wants the general power that is conferred upon any company to issue promissory notes.


William Pugsley: But there is no capital.


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend is anxious for the Bill to go through especially at this stage of the session, I would suggest that he allow' that clause to he stricken out.
Amendment (Mr. Turriff) agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


OTTAWA AND MONTREAL POWER AND TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 178) to incorporate the Ottawa and Montreal Power and Transmission Company, Limited-Mr. Perley.
Mr. CONMEE.: It was agreed in com-mitee that the word ' power ' should be stricken out of the name of the company; it is now a transmission line only. "


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The proper time to change the name is on the third reading.
On section 8.-Powers.
Mr. ^ SEALEY. It was distinctly understood in the committee, that this company, was to have no powers except those incidental to the purposes of a transmission line. If the words of this section give the company the right to acquire water-powers it is not what was understood in committee.
Mr. BO/CE. This clause is for the purpose of enabling them to lease power or force for the purpose of transmission.


Mr. SEALEY.: That was the intention.


James Conmee: My recollection is that the words ' or other power ' were to be stricken out of the Bill wherever they occur. The company was to get power to transmit electrical energy or force, but this clause would seem to give them the right not only to transmit power which they might acquire in any way, but also to create power. There is nothing in the clause that would prevent them from dealing with hydraulic power as well as with other powers and that was not the intention.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Hydraulic power was stricken out of the Bill.


James Conmee: The- words 'or other power 3 should have been stricken out too. The Bill is inconsistent if they are allowed to remain in it, I move that they be stricken out.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: This Bill w'as considered by the committee, referred to a subcommittee and carefully considered there, and it was finally agreed to. My hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) stated this objection before the subcommittee and I do not think it is fair at this late stage of the session to move an amendment which may have the effect of killing the Bill for this year. The clause is not capable of the construction which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) gives to it. He knows perfectly well that everything in this Bill that in any way gave rights as a wafer-power company has been eliminated, and that the intention is to make it purely a transmission company. Had there been the powers of a water company given these words might have effect, but these powers being eliminated the words have absolutely no other meaning than to carry out the object of a transmission line.


James Conmee: I did raise this point before the committee, and the committee agreed upon the Bill, and then the promoters in reprinting it have put into it just what the committee -struck out of it.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Oh, no.


James Conmee: I say, yes.


Mr. PERLEY.: This clause is copied from the St. Lawrence Power Bill and these words are inserted just as they are in that Bill. It is not right for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) to suggest that the words have not been put in as agreed to by the committee.


James Conmee: I understand that, but the clause in the St. Lawrence Power Bill would not be applicable in this Bill without the phraseology being remodelled. My hon. friend knows that the clerk and the promoter of the Bill were to change it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is not that what they say they have done?


James Conmee: But they did not do it. That is what I am finding fault with. They did not strike out these words as they should have done. What are the words:
(a) For the purpose only of transmitting electricity or electric or other power, current or energy.
There is no objection to them having as many words as they please for the transmission of electric energy or current, but there is objection to the word ' power \

That is from my point of view, and if they said the words were to be struck out. then they ought to live up to that agreement.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


George Halsey Perley: This Bill stands in my name, but I wish it understood that I have no personal interest in it whatever. There is no person who is more anxious to have it put into proper shape than I am. Those gentlemen who are asking for the legislation have already got a water-power in Hull which has been in active operation for iseveral years, and they own other water-powers on rivers running into the Ottawa from the north, and all they want now is the right to a transmission line. Anything that is needed to put this Bill in proper shape I am prepared to accept. The hon. member for Eainv River (Mr. Conmee) suggested that the'word 'power' in line 27, and also the word ' power ' in line 30 might be misconstrued. Although I dq not agree with him, at the same time I can see no objection to their being left out.


James Conmee: Would the hon. member strike out the words in the third line ' or other power then it would read ' electrical current or energy '. If the hon. gentleman wants something wider, then put it in.


George Halsey Perley: The word ' power '. with a comma after rt, in the nineteenth line, and the word ' power ' in the twenty-seventh line, and the word ' power ' in the thirtieth line might come out; but the word * power ' in the twenty-ninth line would have to stand, because that .has another application.


James Conmee: Would the hon. member put it in this way ' light, heat, or electrical power '?


George Halsey Perley: That will be satisfactory.
. Mr. CONMEE. I was discussing this particular section at 1 o'clock, and I made a motion. Now, after hearing the remarks of the hon. member, I wish to withdraw that motion, as I understand these words are to be struck out. Now, I wish to point out to the committee what I think is an objection in this particular clause. As the Bill was originally printed, clause 12 provided for the consent of a municipality by by-law; as the Bill now stands, the consent of the municipality is to be obtained subject to section ,247 of the Railway Act, which does require consent by bylaw, but by by-law of the municipal corporation only. In the previous section it provided that they should not enter cities without the consent of the city. In this case they are empowered to enter without the consent of the city, because if they
cannot agree with the city, then the Board of Railway Commissioners fix the conditions. I do not object to that provision, but I am merely calling the attention of the committee to what I think ought to have been the provision, namely, that in case of cities the by-law should not only be a by-law of the municipal corporation, but it should have the assent of the qualified-ratepayers.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why have a different franchise in cities from any other municipality?


James Conmee: For my part I think it would be a fair provision for both cities and towns. My hon. friend will say: Why in cities and towns, and not elsewhere?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And in a village which may be bigger than a town.


James Conmee: It could be put, perhaps, on the basis of population; we should have some general provision governing. that, but we have not, the reason is that in rural municipalities through which these lines pass there is not the same interest to protect. The line can go through without doing a great deal of harm, and we all know that its construction and operation does a great deal of good, it is a public utility in that sense. But I am not raising the question with an idea of taking objection to it, I am simply calling the attention of the promoter of this Bill and some other hon. gentlemen opposite, just to. show where I think they are inconsistent with their previous position when they support this Bill. Here is a Bill which gives power to go to a great city, a Bill which is purely provincial in character. The gentlemen asking for this Bill did not ask for the power, in their notice, or in their petition, to cross the Ottawa river or to enter Montreal now. They have got powrer in the Bill to ctoss the Ottawa river, and to enter Montreal, but they have no right to it, they did not ask for it in their petition. Now, I am not objecting to it from my point of view. But hon. gentlemen have taken up a great deal of time in this House combatting other Bills which less invaded provincial rights than this Bill does. Here is the situation :	That because an hon. member in the ranks of the opposition has this Bill in charge, their theories of provincial rights have all vanished, so far as we have any evidence at present. Now, I have objection to clause (c) in this Bill, which reads this way:
Acquire such lands, easements and privileges as are necessary for the purpose of its undertaking.
In a further amendment subsection 5 of section 16 there is a provision which

confines them in the taking of land required for a transmission line only. I think this subsection (c) is inconsistent with section 16. If they are to have the power to expropriate land for purposes other than a transmission line across the bed of the Ottawa river, then I have serious objection to it. We in the west expect that some day the Ottawa river will be made a navigable stream to a much larger extent than it is to-day by the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, and no obstruction should be placed in the way of that undertaking, when it can be reasonably avoided without any injury to the promoters of this Bill. I would like to know from the member in charge of the Bill if, in view of the provisions of subsection 5 of section 16, he would consent to have section (c) struck out.


George Halsey Perley: The great distinction between section 8 and subsection 5 of section 16 is that section 8 gives them power to buy lands, etc., by private purchase. But section 16 is an expropriation section, and what they can expropriate is limited.


James Conmee: I think the Bill has to be read as a whole, and that this cannot be separated from the meaning of the statute. It gives wider power, I am afraid, than is intended.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is moved that in line 19 of section 8 the word 'power' be struck out. Carried.
It is also moved that in the 27th line where the word 'power' occurs it be struck out. Carried.


James Conmee: In subsection (a) of the third line the words, 'or other power,' should be struck out.


George Halsey Perley: No, the word 'power.' The chairman has declared that carried.


James Conmee: I did not hear it.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I understood the motion to be simply to strike out the word 'power.' If I did not understand it, that point can be explained. It was also moved to strike out the word 'power' in the 27th line. Carried. It is also moved to strike out the word 'power' where it occurs in the 30th line. Or, perhaps, it would be better to take up an amendment in the 29th line-before the word 'power' to insert the word 'electrical.' Carried. Also to strike out the word 'power' where it occurs in the 30th line. Carried.
On section 9. disputes to be decided by Railway Commission.


William Oscar Sealey: I agree with the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) that subsection (c) of section 8. perhaps, was not definitely dealt with. The hon. member (Mr. Conmee) had Mr. CONMEE
a suggestion that that subsection be struck out. I am not sure whether he put it in the form of a motion or not, but I think it would be quite proper.


James Conmee: I suggested it, but it was not accented. The section has been carried.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: All I can say is that if my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Rainy River proposes that section 9 be struck out


James Conmee: I do not. It is subsection (c) of section 8 that I referred to. As to section 9, I think that in its present form it does not convey what was intended, and I hope the hon. member in charge of the Bill will accept the suggestion I have to make. The section now reads:
B* case of any dispute or difference as to the price to be charged by the company

And so on. I think it should read:
In case of any application for power, as herein provided, as well as the price to be charged by the company.
And so on. It is not a question of dispute, for the section goes on to provide that the government of the Dominion or of the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario, _ or any municipality, may make application to have the prices and terms fixed. These parties would not have a dispute. I do not think it is intended to defeat the latter part of the section by the language of the first line or two, and I would suggest to the hon. member that it would not weaken the position in any sense to amend it as I have suggested, and it may prove a possible difficulty. I would recommend the adding of these words:


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What words?


James Conmee: 
George Halsey Perley: That suggestion is all right. Let it read 'produced or transmitted'. The other suggestion is for a merely verbal change. This section was discussed at length in the committee, and it appears as reported. Except for the addition 'or transmitted', which is reasonable, the section should stand as it is.


James Conmee: Then, we are agreed, all but one word. Let me point out that the section goes on, that in case of dispute or difference as to method of distribution, the time within which the ipower is furnished or the -quantity or conditions, that dispute or difference shall be settled by the Board of Railway Commissioners for 'Canada 'on the application of any user of or applicant for ipower or electrical or other eiiergy produced toy the company, or upon the application of the company'. That seems to be the end of the sentence. Then, this section goes on:
The said board, on the application of any person or municipality, or on the application of the government of Canada, or the government of the province of Ontario, or of the government of the province of Quebec

It is intended that the government, or a municipality, may, without dispute, and of their own motion, for the benefit of their citizens, make an application. But after the word 'and' they proceed: 'The said board has acted as is already provided, it may be argued that the board would have exhausted its jurisdiction.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I do not know that the promoter of this Bill has any very serious objection to the proposal of the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee), but I do feel at my duty to point out that my hon. friend was a member of the subcommittee appointed by the Private Bills Committee to investigate this Bill, that he sat there for several days, that this clause was the subject of very serious consideration by the subcommittee, that he proposed -several amendments, that upon several of these amendments this clause was put into its present shape, that the -amendments agreed to by the subcommittee were just the -same as they are now, that this clause was moulded in accordance with my bon. friend's suggestions to the subcommittee, and that the hon. gentleman was perfectly satisfied, or he did not express any dissatisfaction therewith. The subcommittee reported the clause to the Private Bills Committee. The Private Bills Committee reported it to the House, and now the hon. gentleman, within the last hours of the session, endeavours, according to my way of thinking, rather unfairly, to obstruct the passage of this Bill
by pressing amendments absolutely contrary to the position which he took in the Private Bills Committee-. Personally, I have no objection to them, I do not think they amount to anything, I do not suppose that the promoter of the Bill -objects, but I desire to emphasize -my very strong objection to the hon. gentleman, at this time, taking a position inconsistent with that which he took before the -subcommittee of the Private Bills Committee.


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman is not warranted in making the statement that I am taking a position different from that which I -took in the subcommittee. This clause was to be drafted. I had no opportunity of seeing it printed until to-day. I was not here on Saturday. I was not at the committee meeting, although I attended at the hour at which it was called. I tried to get a copy -of the Bill, but the clerk said that the print had not reached him; I could not remain all the afternoon. I believe the committee did -sit afterwards and pass the Bill but I am not responsible for that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


William Oscar Sealey: I v7ish to suggest that there be inserted as the first line of section 9 that ' the company must supply applicants nearest the source of development first.' My reason for suggesting this is that -western Ontario and in the Niagara peninsula we have two transmission companies in operation and another will be in operation in a very few -day-s, I expect. They transmit from the source of supply to large centres like Toronto, Hamilton and other places, tout they decline to consider the applications of people who wish to use their power in the intermediate territory. The people of the intermediate territory have to submit to -all the inconveniences and dangers of the transmission lines passing -their places, sometimes on the roadway, at all events crossing the roadway in many places, and in quite a number of places in front of their doors or between their doors -and the street or highway. It is only fair that if they have imposed upon them all the dangers and inconveniences they should be entitled to the benefits and conveniences that accrue to the central points. In the case of this particular company it will be very much more advantageous, if, betvreen Ottawa and Montreal there should spring up a hundred towns where manufacturing industries will be established, where workmen can live in comfort and with healthy surroundings free from the disadvantages which generally afflict the congested communities in the great -cities, than it would be to have this power transmitted In 'bulk to Montreal, there to develop that city's industries and increase its population by 100,000. The de-

centralization of population from the great cities could be effected to a wonderful degree by these transmission lines. These transmission lines may be useful in building up .thriving communities throughout the country without continuing to further stimulate the centralization of everything around large cities. For that reason I think it is in the interest of the particular community and for the welfare of Canada generally, that the company should be obliged to give power to the applicants en route, and upon terms not any more expensive or difficult to comply with than at the centres. I believe that if that line were inserted at the beginning of section 9 it would cover the condition that I would like very much to see provided for.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: My hon. friend proposes an amendment which is already in the clause. My hon. friend, at least three times in the subcommittee and in the Private Bills Committee, proposed the same amendment, and it was pointed out to him that it was contained in this clause. The condition as to price, methods, time, quantity, and all conditions upon which the power shall be supplied to everybody, are all referred to the Bailway Commission, and my hon. friend was satisfied in the committee that everything that he contended for was done by this clause. My hon. friend spoke about twenty people making an application for power. I pointed out to him that twenty people or less might make an application for power under clause 9. But, suppose that only three people on this line want power. They simply have to apply to the company, and if the company refuses to give them power on terms which are satisfactory to them, all they have to do is to go to the Kailway Commission under the clause as already framed and as amended by the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Bainy Eiver (Mr. Conmee). Under that clause the question is not as to twenty people, but one mart may apply and the whole question will be1 decided by the Bail-way Commission. First, there is the question of price; second, methods of distribution; third, time within which the power shall be finished; fourth, the quantity to be furnished, and fifth, the conditions upon which it shall be furnished. Anything .further that my hon. friend might engraft upon this clause would be mere surplusage. His suggestion was, considered by the subcommittee of the Private Bills Committee. His objection -was Taised there, and it was pointed out that the addition that he proposed would be surplusage. I am satisfied that it is surplusage and, therefore, I appeal to him to allow the section to go through as it- is, because the objections which he has Taised have alreadv been met. When he raised Mr. SEALEY.
those objections, I considered them carefully, and we looked at this section so as to see that it included all that my hon. friend was contending for. Any one who wants power and disputes as to the price or the conditions may go to the Bailway Commission and have it settled.


William Oscar Sealey: It is quite true that this question did come up in the subcommittee, and that my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) said that these provisions were embodied in the section. The company are not obliged to supply power to any one, but the provision is that any application may be referred to the Kailway Commission, and the Bailway Commission may so order if they wish and they are permitted to so order upon the circumstances and conditions! which are shown. The circumstances and-conditions as shown will be that it costs so much more to tap the line between here and Montreal and to give a number " of applicants the power that the Bailway Commission would in all probability determine that the power should be supplied at ten times what it would cost in Montreal. This would immediately put the applicant out of business, as he would not be able to pay any such price. If our friends are sincere in what they say, then it is only right that the Bill should be put in the language which -would make clear what we intend. From the best information I can get, a number of individuals who would make application for 25 horse-power would not be able to get it except on terms that the company would deem to be profitable to them. If hon. gentlemen are right in saying that the language suggested would only be repeating a good thing, then let us repeat it.


Mr. DEPUTY  SPEAKEK@: There has been no notice of any amendment to this Bill in committee except that by Mr. Sealey with regard to clause 9.


James Conmee: I understood from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Perley) that he would accept the change I have suggested in the first line of section 9.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. gentleman must have misunderstood me. It would seem rather ridiculous to suggest that a man who is able to make an agreement with the company privately for the supply of power, should not be at liberty to do so. If there is no difference between the two what is the necessity for going to the Bailway Commission? The clause provides further down that if the user of power is unable to agree on terms with the company he will have power to apply to the Eailway Commission to get the terms fixed. I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee).
*8609


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The suggestion made by my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) does not make the wording grammatical. The Bill as reported from the subcommittee says:
' In case of any dispute or difference as to price,' and the hon. gentleman suggests it should read:	'In case of any application as hereinafter provided as to the price to be charged by the company for power, etc,' which would destroy the sense. Besides I take the objection that no notice has been given of this proposed amendment.


James Conmee: I do not think that notice for such an amendment is necessary, and if the words suggested are not correct we can easily find other words to express the meaning. The Bill as drafted does not carry out the intention of the subcommittee. This clause is taken from the St. Lawrence Power Bill, under which the board is empowered to act either for the purchase or sale of the power, and if this clause means anything it means that the board on the application of the government of Canada, or the governments of Ontario and Quebec, or of a municipality, may fix a price. These governments or municipalities referred to may not be consumers of power, but they are to have the power to act on behalf of those they represent, and the clause as it stands now may defeat that object. I see in it a difficulty, and there is no reason why that difficulty should not be removed by inserting some such words as I suggest.


William Oscar Sealey: If I may be permitted,
I wish to add a few words to the amendment of which I have given notice. I have my clause proposed as an amendment in a wording here which I think is slightly better than that contained in the printed amendment.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman, having given notice of this motion, he had better adhere to it.


William Oscar Sealey: I would like to have the amendment of which I have given notice read in this way, the words in parenthesis being added:
Provided, however, that in any case where the quantity of power or en'ergy applied for (anywhere along the main transmission line) exceeds twenty-five horse-power per annum (the company must supply it and), the price to he charged therefor shall not exceed the minimum price per horse-power (for the same or any less quantity of power, than is), charged to any other user of the company's power or energy, whether supplied directly by the company, or by any other company selling and disposing of the company's power and energy for use.
In view of the custom of the House, I think I should be permitted to insert these words, but if the Chair rules against
that, I will move the amendment in the words in which the notice is given.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I am not *able to at once decide as to the seriousness of these proposed changes, and I shall be bound to accept the notice of motion as the hon. gentleman has placed it on the order paper, unless the committee unanimously accede to his desire.


George Halsey Perley: I must object very strongly to this amendment by the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Sealey). I think this Bill should be safeguarded in every possible way, so as to giye these gentlemen the right to build their transmission line and at the same time preserve the rights of the public. This clause 9 provides that in every case the Railway Commission shall have full authority to decide any disputes between the company and those who wish to use the power, as to price, as to whether a sufficient number ask for this power in any particular place to warrant the companv in giving them a service and as to whether 25 horse-power is sufficient to warrant the company in supplying it. It is no use for us to decide these matters here. This is simply making an exception to the general power given under clause 9 to the Railway Commission, and I think we ought to have sufficient confidence in the Railway Commission to trust them to give the ..public justice. This amendment ties their hands and practically makes an exception to the powers given in section 9.


James Conmee: My suggestion which I again urge is to strike out the words in the first line, ' dispute or difference.'


George Halsey Perley: Does the hon. gentleman not think that the company, and a private individual should have the right to settle the price to be paid?


James Conmee: Oh yes, I do not touch that point. This is an application to the Board of Railway Commissioners; if there is an agreement between the consumer, and the company there would be no such application. In case an application is made I would suggest adding these words: 'An application for power as herein provided, or as to price.' If it is the intention of the promoter that this government or a provincial government or a municipality shall have the right to apply to the Board to regulate the price, then I think they should accept this suggestion in all fairness. _ If my suggestion is not adopted the individual may be met with all kinds of technicalities, and will have to fight out a case where he will have to employ a lawyer, and perhaps incur heavy expense.


William Oscar Sealey: We have not a general Act providing a maximum and minimum

charge for electrical energy. There axe Acts for the several railway rates, both freight and passengers. For instance the Kaliway Commission are obliged on application to grant a passenger rate between here and Casselman or Coteau on the line between Ottawa and Montreal, at a price not exceeding 3 cents per mile. The railway company may be able to show that it costs them 10 cents a mile or more to slow up the train and fire up again, but still their rate must- not exceed 3 cents a mile. My object in this amendment is to see that no intermediate applicant shall be charged a larger rate than is charged at any other point equidistant from the source of generation. In that way I think it is entirely fair, so fair that I trust the promoter will accept it. If not, I trust- that this committee, in the interests of Canada generally and especially in the interest of the communities through which this transmission line passes, will adopt it.


George Halsey Perley: I submit in a word that the amendment of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sealey) is an impossible amendment to put into execution. The Eaiiway Commission cannot say that every user of power shall pay the same price; that must depend on the quantity used, and other conditions. I ask the committee to vote down the amendment.


James Conmee: I do not think the amendment means that. The hon. member (Mr. Boyce) will see that by my amendment the powers of the Railway Commission are not m any way interfered with.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Any attempt which is made by this amendment to limit, and restrict or hamper the discretion of the board would be wrong legislation under the circumstances and should not be passed. If the board is to control at all it should have absolute control free of any restrictive legislation as to price. What is the use of leaving to the Board of Railway Commissioners full control as to the price if the provisions of clause 9 were restricted by imposing certain conoitions under this amendment?


George Halsey Perley: This section is taken from the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company Bill which was threshed out so thoroughly in this committee, and passed by this House.


James Conmee: I think the remarks of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie are .perhaps not altogether correct. As stated by the hon. member this clause is taken from the St. Lawrence Company Bill, but there it was in connection with the provisions of that Bill, but now it is proposed in connection with the provisions of an-other_ Bill, and has not the same effect. Certain portions of the clause have been Mr. SEALEY.
struck out, and it is not in reality the clause that is in the St. Lawrence Power Bill. All the motion of my hon. friend does is to provide that 'n case an application is made the board shall consider it, and shall have the power that my hon. friend pointed out. They may fix the terms and prices. I do not see that the company is at all hurt by that. And some section of the community may be protected. I do not see any harm in the amendment at all. It seems to me to be in the right direction.


William Oscar Sealey: Under the provisions of the Railway Act the Railway Commission have not any jurisdiction over rates. This is merely to prevent discrimination in favour of large centres as against rural communities, and to provide that the prices fixed must be uniform. I think it is quite consistent with the general usage of the government pnd with the legislation of Canada.


Mr. GRAHAM.: I am delighted to see so many hon. gentlemen having such implicit confidence in the Board of Railway Commissioners. The hon member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) and I have been contending for the board in the Railway Committee for a long time. I am glad to see that hon. members think that there should be no restrictions and that the powers of the Railway Commissioners should be left unimpaired, and I agree generally with that. In dealing with the powers of the Trent Valley canal system which were of an intricate character, the House supported me on a clause which meant that if the parties agreed themselves on the price, no person should interfere, but if they failed to agree then the Board of Railway Commissioners were to decide. Having accepted that principle and asked the House to accept it in that Bill, I do not want to do anything else than abide by it.


James Conmee: The amendment does not touch that principle.
Mr. BOYCE I must protest against the continued effort of my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) to force through this amendment, especially at this late hour of the session. For what purpose was the Bill referred to the Private Bills Committee and by the Private Bills Committee to a subcommittee? My hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) and the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Sealey) took up a great deal of the time of that committee in trying to get this amendment put in this Bill. It was fully discussed, and my hon. friend from Wentworth (Mr. Sealey) and the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) were apparently then satisfied. Why do they bring it up in the same shape at this stage of

the session? By this amendment we are tying the hands of the Railway Commission, which ought to be in the consideration of this case as free as air.


William Oscar Sealey: I am satisfied when the majority of the committee or the majority of this House decide. If the majority accepts or rejects an amendment we will accept or reject it. The subject of the amendment is to prevent discrimination and to guide the Railway Commission in the matter of rates. The government have a rate per mile for transportation on the railways, and it is uniform. But the government have not a fixed rate for power.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Railway Commission do not fix all railway rates uniformly. In certain localities they allow discrimination as compared with other localities. They do not have the same rates all over Canada per mile. You must take all the geographical and other conditions into consideration and if you have faith in the Board of Railway Commissioners at all, do not hamper their hands so that they cannot do justice all round.


William Oscar Sealey: Under the Railway Act the Railway Commission cannot possibly authorize a higher rate between Ottawa and Coteau than between Ottawa and Montreal. I simply want to prevent discrimination, and I think it is the duty of the committee to prevent it.
Amendment negatived.


James Conmee: Before you drop that clause perhaps the hon. member in charge of the Bill will give me a reply to the question I put some time ago. I suggest that the words ' dispute or difference ' in the first line of section 9 be struck out and the following substituted therefor ' application for power as herein provided, or as the price to be paid.' I have already made some remarks as to that, and I think this amendment is necessary. I hope the hon. member (Mr. Perley) will accept it.


George Halsey Perley: I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment suggested. No notice of it was given, and i would point out that it is only in cases of disagreement that the Railway Commission shall act. That is the intention of the clause as stated by the hon. minister (Mr. Graham).


James Conmee: It does not affect that clause at all.


William Pugsley: May I ask the hon. member who is in charge of the Bill why some changes have been made from what purports to be a similar clause in the Bill of the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company. There are one or two changes, and I was wondering whether they were
there as results of printers' errors or were intentional. In the St. Lawrence Transmission Company Bill the words are ' the Board of Railway Commissioners shall fix the price ' at which electrical energy is sold, while this section, though professing to follow the section in the St. Lawrence Transmission Bill, has been changed and the word ' may ' appears instead of 'shall,' giving a discretionary power to the hoard.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It means the same thing, does it not?


William Pugsley: No. I do not see why the words have been changed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I say the change was a correct one, as when we are giving power to a court we always say ' may,' not 'shall.'


William Pugsley: It is very curious that in one clause it is provided that the board shall fix the price at which the company may purchase electricity, and that in another it may fix the price at which it shall be sold.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There cannot be a purchase without a sale.


William Pugsley: A court would naturally ask itself why parliament used the word ' shall ' in one case and not in the other.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no need to argue it, the promoter is willing to change it.


George Halsey Perley: I am quite willing to change it.


William Pugsley: If the word is to be changed, I think we might very well pass the section, because that point was very carefully considered in the case of the St. Lawrence Transmission Bill.


James Conmee: Has the minister (Mr. Pugsley) considered that point as to whether the word ' and' is necessary?


William Pugsley: I do not see that that will make any difference. My suggestion is that ' may ' be changed to ' shall,' so that it may be the same word in both cases.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Of course, we cannot change the St. Lawrence Power Bill. But 'may' is the proper word to use. We do not issue a mandamus to a judge to direct him to do so and so.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Is the committee agreed that 'may' be changed to 'shall'? No objection. It is unanimously agreed that the word be changed. Shall the section as amended stand part of the Bill? Carried.
On section 16, expropriation clause.
On subsection 5:

5. The land to be taken or used by the company without the consent of the proprietor, r the purposes of its transmission lines, shall not exceed such land as is necessary for the proper construction, operation and maintenance of the said transmission lines, and as shown on the plans to be approved as in this Act provided. Any easement that may be taken by the company shall be confined to the carrying^ of the said transmission lines across any highway or public place or across any river or stream; and, except in the cases aforesaid, the company in the taking of land shall not only pay the value of the land so taken but shall also pay due compensation to the owner for any damage which the taking of such land and the building of such transmission lines may cause to the remainder of the property or otherwise.


James Conmee: As I understand this Bill, it gives this company all the powers of expropriation that can be exercised by a railway corporation in regard to its right of way. The intention, of course, was to give the company these powers in so far as a transmission line was concerned, and in so far as a transmission line was concerned only. Under subsection (c) of section 8, the company may:
-acquire such lands, easements and privileges as are necessary for the purposes of its undertaking.
Take this in connection with subsection 5 of the clause we are now discussing. It was alleged by the hon. member (Mr. Per-ley)_ in charge of the Bill that this subsection was a limitation upon the powers which I have just read. It was intended to be so, but I do not think it really is such a limitation. At the time this subsection 5 of section 16 was agreed to, subsection (c) of section 8, which I have just read, had been struck out by the committee. I believe this subsection 5 of section 16 should read:
The land so nsed by the company without the consent of the proprietor shall be confined to the lands required for the purposes of its transmission line.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Has the hon. member (Mr. Conmee) given notice of that amendment?


James Conmee: I have not.


Haughton Lennox: What is the use of taking up time?


James Conmee: Since I have been in this House, the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) has taken up much more time than I have.


Haughton Lennox: I have not taken up the time trying to promote my own interest, at all events.


James Conmee: I think the hon. gentleman has done that at least as much as I have.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Was not this the hon. member's (Mr. Conmee's) own clause as put in by the sub-committee?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: 


James Conmee: Quite correct. But it was put in at a time when the other clause was struck out. I point out that this clause will not have the effect it was intended to have unless it is limited, as I suggested. I am not going to take up time discussing it, nor am I going to move an amendment. If the committee choose to let the Bill go through in the form in which it is, it is not affording the protection to the general public which the clause was intended to afford.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Shall section 16 stand part of the Bill? Carried.
On section 17,
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to empower the company to export electricity or electric or other power to the United States.


James Conmee: I desire to point out that this clause has not at all the effect it was understood to have. It was agreed in the subcommittee that a provision should be inserted by which this company should not be allowed to transmit power for exportation from Canada, and this clause was put in, apparently, with that object in view. But this will not prevent the exportation. For this reason: Under the other provisions of the Bill the company has the right to purchase, lease or hire power from any other company. It also has right to connect its lines with any other company either in the province of Quebec _ or the province of Ontario. That is, it may cross the Ottawa river to connect with Ontario lines. If the power thus transmitted in Ontario were exported to the United States, that would not be exportation of power by this company, the exportation would be carried on by some other company. If it is intended to carry out exactly what was agreed' upon, that clause should read:
Nothing in this Act shall empower the company to transmit over its lines electricity or electrical or other power for export to the United States, and all electricity or electrical or other power transmitted by the company shall be wholly used in Canada and shall not be exported therefrom.
In my judgment, the only way to prevent this exportation is to provide, not that the company shall not export, but that the lines shall not be used for that purpose, no matter with what lines they may connect. We took up a good deal of time in the committee discussing the St. Lawrence power question, but here is a company that can supply any other company without any of the restrictions imposed upon the St. Lawrence company to prevent them transmitting power to the United States.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is not this the same clause? Mr. CONMEE. No


Mr. J. HAGGART.: Can they transmit the power without leave from the government?


James Conmee: No, I suppose that the exportation Act would interpose and prevent. But bon. members opposite were not satisfied with that in the case of the St. Lawrence site.


George Halsey Perley: Will the hon. member permit me to say a word? I am sure he does not wish to make a mis-statement.
I desire to point out that this is exactly the clause from the St. Lawrence Bill. Here is section 12 of that Bill:
Nothing in this Act shall he construed to empower the company to export electricity or electric or other power to the United States.
That is the clause in the St. Lawrence Bill.


James Conmee: If that is the clause in the St. Lawrence Bill it is not a sufficient clause to protect public interest.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Cannot the hon. gentleman trust the government to see, under the general Act, that the power is not exported if it is not right to be done?


James Conmee: I aim quite willing to trust this government, we have an honest government to-day that will protect the public interest, but we don't know when we may have a bad government. Hon. gentlemen opposite might cross over to the treasury benches, and I want to protect the public interest now. I want to point out to the hon. gentlemen who have taken up so much time in claiming that they were labouring in the public interest in preventing the export of power, that they are by this Bill giving machinery by which this company can export power; and if hon. gentlemen are willing to sacrifice their principles for which they have contended so strenuously in regard to other Bills, it is their business. But I am pointing out to [DOT]them where they will stand. The public will be able to judge whether hon. gentlemen were in earnest in their desire to protect the public interest when they took up the time of this House for days arguing against a principle which they are now accepting, simply because, as it would appear, one of their own colleagues has the Bill in charge.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I desire to ask my hon. friend whether this is the same clause as the one in the St. Lawrence Transmission Company's Bill? He said it was entirely different, when in point of fact they are exactly alike.


James Conmee: I don't want the hon. member to put these words in my mouth.
I pointed out that you are taking a clause out of the St. Lawrence Bill and putting it into this Bill under different conditions.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I asked that question for this purpose: When this clause was under consideration in the Montreal Power Transmission Company Bill I moved an amendment to put it in the regular way on the order paper, and when that amendment was put one of the most vociferous 'no's' came from the hon. member for Rainy River. He has given us a lesson in consistency, and this is the exhibition of consistency which the hon. gentleman himself has just shown us.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


GUELPH JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 218) respecting the Guelph Junction Railway Company.-Mr. A. H. Clarke.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I want to put myself briefly on record with regard to this Bill.
I think this Bill should never have come before parliament at all. It is absolutely unconstitutional, it is confiscatory, it puts back civilization hundreds of years. It means that because a few stockholders in a railway company do not want to sell their stock* to the city of Guelph which owns the rest of the stock of the railway, the city asks this parliament to direct them by force to sell the city the stock at a certain price, namely, $400 a share. I say we have no business to put ourselves in the position of interfering with such a matter at all. It is not like a matter of expropriation where a man's land can be taken to build a railroad. The city of Guelph can control this road, these are a minority of the stockholders. It is said on the one hand that they are trustees for the city of Guelph, and should hand over their stock; on the other hand it is said that they are not trustees, and the preamble of the Bill alleges that they are agents, which fact is disputed. And instead of the city going to the courts to get a declaration as to whether these men are agents and thereby bound to transfer that stock, or as to whether they are not, we are asked, in this twentieth century, to do what we should never have been asked to do, the suggestion should never have been made, and I cannot imagine that the people who are bringing this Bill forward really understand what it is they are asking us to do. The city of Guelph has a railway. It practically owns it all with the exception of a very few shares. There are some four of five other shareholders. It has turned out a good thing for the pro-



moters. These people have an investment that is worth a great premium to them. It happens that it has 'been a profitable investment or speculation. Suppose the converse were the case. If, as in many cases in this country, since we started to build railways, people bad put their money into a railway and lost it, if the enterprise had been an absolute failure, could they come and ask the municipality which was going to get the .benefit out of it, to take it off their hands, pay them a certain price for it and ask this parliament to fix that price? That is exactly what we are asked to do by this Bill. My first reason for opposing it is that we are not competent, to judge the merits of this matter, if there are any merits to be decided as to whether these people are trustees or agents, and therefore in equity should hand over their stock


John Graham Haggart: What interest have they in it?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There are three or four of them who each own a share.


John Graham Haggart: What is a share worth?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They paid $100 each for them and the city of Guelph says: We will give you $100 and 6 per cent compounded, making a total of $400 for each share if you will sell us your stock. Parliament is asked to declare that these people must do so; first, that without their consent they must sell their stock, and secondly, that we shall fix the price of these shares. I ask hon. gentlemen.if we are competent to decide any question that we are asked arbitrarily to act upon in regard. to it. If these people are trustees or agents the courts of the land can so declare. It is fair to say so as not to mislead any gentleman in this House, that it was admitted by the promoters of this Bill that technically these people were not trustees and that there is an obstacle in the way of the courts so declaring. Where are we going to stop if we begin this thing? If you grant that a man is not a trustee, that you cannot succeed in court in proving that he is, that he is not obliged to transfer his stock to you, are we to be told by the city of Guelph or by some other municipality that because the city wants this .to be done this House must enact that the property of this man must be expropriated. It means confiscation. Take the case where a man would go out and grub stake people, supply money and try to develop a coal mine. Suppose that he spends a thousand dollars in prospecting each mine, and one mine near a town or city which wants the coal turns out to be a .paying concern. According to Uiis Bill which we are asked to pass, in principle, we will be compelled to


Edward Arthur Lancaster: say: The public interest requires that you shall turn that coal mine over to the city. You have spent a lot of money in other parts of the country on what never turned out to be paying concerns, but this property has turned out well and we will give you what it has cost you to locate and develop it and 6 per cent interest compounded, and you must turn it over .to the city which is nearest you and which wants that coal. I say that is confiscation. I say it is not civilization. This is not civilized legislation or legislation that is in accordance with British institutions or principles. If we open the door I do not know where it will end. I want to be quite understood as not _ .saying that I think this is not a fair price. I am not competent to judge whether it is a fair price or not. I am not saying that I think they should have more, and I am not saying that they were the agents or trustees of the city of Guelph, and that the city .should not pay them anything. I am not competent to judge that, and I do not think that there is .any legal gentleman in this House who will say that he is. The courts of the land are there to say whether they are trustees. The city of Guelph can give evidence to show that they are and they can get the courts to issue a mandamus compelling this transfer without coming to parliament. Surely, it is a most unheard of proposition that this parliament must put itself in the position of saying, in the most socialistic way, that it shall determine what a certain " man's property is worth, which he is not obliged to sell by the laws of the land, and that it shall .so determine upon evidence, such as we have brought before us, which would not be admissable in a court of law. We are asked to say that if a man is getting a fair price for something that he owns, which he has acquired, which he has a Tight to speculate in if he wants to, he must transfer it, _ not for the .public service of the Dominion, but for the benefit of a municipality. That, is a most unjust proposition. The city of Guelph practically owns this road, but there are these four shares which now are worth a great deal _ of money, and the city of Geulph jealously wants to have control of the whole property and not allow these stockholders to have any of it. In the matter of expropriating land, we have a general Act to prevent railway building from being obstructed and which makes provision for the expropriation of properties the value of which parliament does not even undertake to settle. Parliament would not dare to .say: We shall compel you to sell your land at a certain price. We make provision, in order to get railways built, that men must not obstruct the building of these lines, but if land is taken for the purpose of the construction of a railway its value is fixed by arbitra-

tion. In the case under consideration we are not dealing with a railway that is to be built and no public interest requires expropriation at all; the railway is already constructed. The railway is owned ;by the city of Guelph except these few shares. The strongest argument which was made by the gentlemen representing the city of Guelph in the Railway Committee was that the ratepayers of Guelph were unanimous in this legislation.


John Graham Haggart: Are the owners of the stock opposing it?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, of course they are opposing it. They opposed it in the Senate. It was argued that because six out of ten were willing the other four must be. Let me suppose that I go into some arrangement for the establishment of an athletic ground for my city. I contribute ten per cent and nine other gentlemen contribute ten per cent of the cost of the ground. It may turn out to be very valuable as a factory site afterwards and it may be that I am willing to give up my interest in the ground if I get my interest and $1,000 or whatever I put in, but am I to say that my other partners are obliged to be governed by the same rules of ethics and charity as those to which I apply to myself. Should we by statute say that because some of these gentlemen should differ in their ideas of charity and fairness, they all should be compelled to do what the rest of them are willing to do? Therefore the argument was presented, that because the ratepayers of the city of Guelph were unanimous, this Bill should pass, and the stock of these men should be taken away from them. Suppose the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific railway company came here and said that the hon. member for any place you like has some stock in our railway; we do not want him to be a stockholder; we want to acquire his investment, and, in support of that application, suppose they should say that every shareholder of the Canadian Pacific Tailway or Grand Trunk railway wants us to dio this and therefore you should do it. The ratepayers of the city of Guelph are simply the shareholders in this regard.


John Allister Currie: How much did the city of Guelph put in?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: According to the first statute of 1901, the city put in $20,000 capital stock.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: $173,000 in bonds and $20,000 in stock.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I care not how much or how little the city of Guelph invested, I say that on the merits of the thing parJ liament is asked to perpetrate an act of confiscation on the property which these men hold.
273}


John Allister Currie: What proportion of the ownership do these men hold?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I- do not care; I say the principle of the thing is wrong. I say that it is not any better in principle thaii if the Bank of Montreal should come here and ask us to force a widow who had only three shares in the bank to sell them for a certain price. It makes no difference whether these men have a large or a small amount invested; they are entitled to do with their investment as they please, and this parliament has no right to deprive them of that control. I am told that this is a paying investment now, and naturally the city of Guelph wants to get it, and no doubt it will pay the city of Guelph to get these shares at $400 each, or this legislation would not be sought. It is true that) these men only paid $100 each for these shares some years ago, and that six per cent interest compounded would make them worth $400 to-day, but my position is that whether the city of Guelph is liberal in this offer or not, these people have the right to hold these shares even if they were offered $20,000,000 each for them, if they do not want to sell them. In this legislation the city of Guelph asks this parliament to interfere and to arbitrarily dictate to these men that they shall accept a certain price for their property. It seems to me that even if this legislation be passed it is ultra vires- of this parliament, but my main argument is that this legislation opens the door to the confiscation of private citizens' property if in the opinion , of parliament they are offered fair compensation. I object to that confiscatory feature of the Bill. Now, let me make it quite clear to the Prime Minister; The city of Guelph is- the majority stockholder in this railway, which is in operation. There is no difference between the city of Guelph coming here and asking these men to be compelled to surrender their holding than if some one should say: Lancaster, of St. Catharines, holds stock in the Bank of Montreal, which is now selling at $280 a share, and we will give him a little more than that, and ask parliament to say that he must deliver it up to us at that price. Unfortunately, I have no stock in the Bank of Montreal, but I give that as an illustration. If we do this, where are we going to end? We are simply allowing people, who seem to have had some influence to get the Bill through the Senate, to interfere with the rights of a man to do as he likes with his own property. Why should such a Bill as this pass at this stage of the session, and if it stopped to-day and does; not pass, no one is going to be hurt, from the standpoint of the people of Canada? Let me point out to the Prime Minister that the city of Guelph has no municipal

rights in this connection, and that when the city of Guelph says, with the consent of its ratepayers, that it will go into the railroad business, in that quality the city of Guelph is just in the same position as the Canadian Pacific railway or the Grand Trunk railway. Would the Prime Minister -for. one minute allow these companies, or any other railway company, to say as is said here in the mischievous .part of the section, that they are *allowed to acquire the shares of the company's stock from certain persons owning them, at a certain price per share, and that it shall be the duty of such persons respectively to transfer their shares- to the said corporation? I am quite sure that the Prime Minister would not endorse any such legislation as that in the case of the other railroad companies. The city of Guelph owns the majority of this stock. It is exactly in the same position as if a railway came here saying that they wanted to expropriate the investments of a certain number of minority shareholders by adding six per cent to the amount they paid for each share, and that parliament should drastically and eonfiseatorily and socialistically remove their rights. That is all that is in the Bill, and I protest against the principle.


Wilfrid Laurier: As my hon. friend has appealed to me, I have no hesitation in giving him my opinion. I knew little of this legislation until this Bill was introduced the other day. I must say that to some extent I would agree with him, but I take exception to his statement that the principle of confiscation of which ho speaks is to be found in it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The last clause of section 2.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend knows that in these matters, municipal as well as national, the supreme law is the old Roman law, that is to say the interest of the state is the supreme law. of the state. That applied to a city as well as to the nation itself. In this matter the city of Guelph has acquired a railway. It is a public utility which is to be operated by the city. I think that is a principle perhaps dearer to my hon. friend than to myself; at all events, it is an experiment that is to be made in Guelph. This is agreeable to the large majority of the ratepayers of Guelph. Thev find in their way three or four shareholders who do not want to part with their property. My hon. friend knows that it is one of the primary principles of the law in regard to railways that they have the right of expropriation. It is provided that if a railway is to be built anywhere it shall have the power to expropriate.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is in the interest of the people to get the railway Mr. LANCASTER.
built, but how are the people interested as to who owns the stock?


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I say we are nor competent to decide.


Wilfrid Laurier: I say he has no means of knowiog, and I have no means of knowing, but it strikes a man of common sense that all parties in Guelph, on both sides of politics, agree that this is a fair amount of compensation.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is my hon. friend aware that these shares are earning dividends
of about 90 per cent?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am aware that it is not the case; I am aware that the dividend is 6 per cent, but I am told the earnings have been 90 per cent. That may be, I do not know as to that. I understand there is a liability to pay and the city of Guelph has operated the road for a long time at a loss, and I dare say if in 1901 the legislation now sought had been asked for it would have been obtained without difficulty. The property has appreciated to a large degree. You have here a whole community agreeing not to confiscate the property, not to take it away, but to give

these shareholders a fair amount of compensation. How are we to determine that amount? It seems to me that when all parties in the community agree that this is a fair amount of compensation-


Edward Arthur Lancaster: All parties interested are against the parties who object.


Wilfrid Laurier: All parties in the city of Guelph have come to a conclusion to give that amount of money to the shareholders, $400 for $100; it seems to me to be >a pretty steep price to pay. Under such circumstances I think the legislation is legitimate, and I do not see that there is this element of confiscation of which my hon. friend speaks.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does my hon. friend realize that instead of doing our duty as members for Canada, we are simply subordinating our judgment to that of the city of Guelph? I object to that, whether it be the city of Guelph, the city of St. Catherines, or any other city. In this case the city of Guelph are the people interested in freezing out the men who object.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Prime Minister cannot be aware that the city of Guelph have leased this road for 99 years to the Canadian Pacific railway, and not the city of Guelph, but the Canadian Pacific railway are operating it and paying the city a rental for it, so it is not municipal ownership.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: I cannot help thinking after hearing the right hon. gentleman that if he will condescend to give a few moment's consideration to the Bill he will entirely change the opinion he has expressed. The right hon. gentleman drew a parallel between an ordinary case of expropriation in the case of the construction of a railway, and the expropriation of these shares. Is there the slightest similarity in the world between the two propositions? We all know that originally railways had not the power of expropriation, and we who live along the line of the Grand Trunk railway, between Toronto and Montreal, know to our cost that they had not that power lor they were compelled to erect stations at such inconvenient places that we have been subjected to great inconvenience ever since. Then the power of expropriation was given to them in their own interest, and in the public interest. In this particular case we find there is no cause of expropriation in the interests of the public. There is a railway which has two classes of shareholders. One class of shareholders deem themselves entitled to confiscate property of the other class who have as good a right to their property as the city, "according to the evidence of the hon. member for South Wellington .(Mr. Guthrie) in 1901. There was no pretension 1
then that these gentlemen had not a perfect right to their shares. The hon. gentleman brought down an extraordinary measure in 1901, but he was very careful to point out that there was no compensation, these directors were to retain their shares, and they were given praise, because they had devoted their time to the working of this railway during the dark years when it did not pay, and as far as one coukl judge every one was filled with gratitude to the gentlemen who are to-day attacked. The wheel of time rolled on. This railway is being operated by the Canadian Pacific railway, and I venture to say that all under Heaven that Guelph has to do in connection with it is to pocket _ a certain amount of profits on a certain amount of stock. Can any one suggest a way in which a railway running past the city of Guelph, operated by the Canadian Pacific railway can help Guelph one particle more if the dividends and profits go into one pocket or the other? The operation of the road is exactly the same as was provided for in 1901. The hon. gentleman who .fathers the Bill came here in 1901 and carefully


Hugh Guthrie: I am not interested in the Bill if you refer to me.


William Barton Northrup: I am not finding fault with that.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not fathering it, it is not my Bill.


William Barton Northrup: It is not in the name of the hon. member, it is in the name of the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. A. H Clarke), but the hon. gentleman appears from ' Hansard,' to have been really the father of the Bill in 1901, and so to-day in the passage of the Bill through committee the hon. gentleman is interested, and properly has taken an active part in pushing it.


Hugh Guthrie: I object to that, I have not taken an active part in pushing it.


William Barton Northrup: We will not take up time discussing that.


Hugh Guthrie: Be sure of your facts before stating them.


William Barton Northrup: In 1901 the member for Wellington, the same gentleman who represents that riding to-day, brought down a Bill the object of which was to do away with what they thought appeared to be an injustice, that the minority of the share-holders had a majority of the directors, so parliament made a provision by which the city of Guelph, having the majority of stock* should have a majority of directors, and they have had a majority of directors from that day to this. If

they (had a majority of the directors of the board, in the city of Guelph, and in the city of Guelph they have the bulk of the stock, and the road is being operated by.the Canadian Pacific Railway, how in the name of all that is reasonable can there be any benefit to the public except as a matter of dollars and cents, taking it from the pockets of one party and putting it into the pockets of another, if these shares are to be confiscated. What is the position? Did anybody ever hear of a railway company coming to this House, and asking for power to expropriate lands at a price to be fixed by the railway company? Was there ever any such thing heard of? It is a matter of indifference to me personally whether the shares of these gentlemen are to be expropriated or not. As a matter of fact I know only one of the ten gentlemen whose names are mentioned, but it is the principle that seems to me to be so important. Is the principle to be laid down that such, legislation as this can be put through this House in its dying hours, when there is no time to consider it fairly? Is this House so anxious to pass confiscatory legislation, and to suspend the rules of the House to allow such legislation to go through that would not otherwise pass, because if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) had not succeeded in getting the rules suspended we would not be considering it now? The same thing was done in 1901. I do not think anybody in the light of the experience of the ten years can say that there was any particular reason why the rules of this House should have been suspended in 1901 to pass the legislation that was passed then. In 1910 this House was told, as it is told to-day, that Guelph was wholly in favour of the legislation, and a petition was sent in under the seal of the town council, setting forth that the city of Guelph was in favour of the legislation, and yet at that very time a counter-petition was signed, and a letter appeared in the newspapers which was verified by one alderman and supported by another alderman, stating that although they had all agreed in the council, it was under misrepresentations. Still under those circumstances parliament suspended the rules and allowed that rather extraordinary legislation to pass. Now in the -year of grace, 1910, we have parliament doing the same- thing again, and in the dying hours of the session. Why was it not brought up before? We have been sitting here now for six months, and it seems to me that there was no reason why it should not have been up before.


Hugh Guthrie: 
William Barton Northrup: All those years have rolled by and the conditions are such that at the time my hon. friend's supporters wish legislation they find it too late to get it in the ordinary way through this House, and rather than wait another year they _ go to the other House, I am not blaming them for taking that course.


Hugh Guthrie: The reason that the legislation became necessary was that in last November, or December, the Guelph Junction Railway Company undertook to declare a dividend of six per cent on their stock, notwithstanding the fact that they owed the city of Guelph at that time $4,000 arrears of interest, and $60,000 odd of compound interest. They had no right to declare that dividend though the amount was small, and that was what brought the application to parliament.


William Barton Northrup: small thing to-day it may be done in the bigger thing to-morrow. I shall give a vote, without a shadow of hesitation, in the interest of freedom, in the interest of the elementary rights of citizens of a free country, and a free empire, believing that for parliament to take away these shares- independently of all consideration of their number or their value-will be an act not of expropriation, but of confiscation.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: 
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does my hon. friend think that on that question parliament is competent to decide anything?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I do not think that can be contended for a moment. If there is a question, should not parliament say to these people, decide that question in the courts. What are the courts for? If the city of Guelph came to us and said; There is a question of trusteeship here, we have applied to the courts and the courts have said that by reason of a technical defect we cannot get the relief that we should have; then if they came back to parliament and asked for relief it might temporarily be granted. But without any investigation before the courts, without anv trial, are we going to declare men to be trustees who are admitted here not to be trustees? Doubtless my right hon. friend cannot carry to his mind the history of this case, which was inquired into in 1901. My hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) was here

in 1901, when the city of Guelph came here for some legislation. The question came up in regard to these shares, and when the House was in committee on the Bill, this is what the hon. member for Wellington said-I quote from page 1915 of the ' Hansard ' of 1901:
No real injury is being done to anybody; no one is to be deprived of any property. The stock now held by the directors is to remain their stock.
And let me tell my right hon. friend that those directors are the same persons whose stock he says now must be taken away from them. That is the representation upon which statutory relief was granted, and which statutory relief itself, on the face of the statute, admits the bona fide ownership to be in these men.
The stock now held by the directors is to remain their stock; they are still all to be eligible as directors; but the anomaly of the present position is very apparent. By the original Act the city council is allowed three representatives on the board, the mayor and two others; the stockholders have five representatives on the board; and the anomaly of the situation is that two-thirds of the stock has a minority on the board and one-third of the stock, of which only ten per cent has been paid, has a majority on the board.
Could anything be more definite than that statement? If it is, let them quote it. The Hon. James Sutherland, then a member of this House, said;
It is true that some residents of the city, in whose interests especially this scheme is being promoted, became shareholders and paid into the treasury of the county $100 each.
The same men whose rights are now being disposed of. Then the question was asked, Why not take these shares, why not tender these men the full value of their shares, and the Minister of Public Works at that time, said;
The hon. gentleman propounds a theoretical question, but I will tell him the exact state of affairs and I will then ask him what he would do. He wants to know why a man should be forced to accept a low price for a valuable share. Of course, any legislation of that kind would be wrong.
Of course any legislation of that kind would be wrong.
But, in this case, it is well known in this House or out of it that there is no value in these shares.
In the debate my hon. friend from East Grey (Dr. Sproule), page 1923, said this:
Now, the proposal made hy Colonel McRae, I think, was a reasonable one. He said; If these parties want to get our stock, let them pay us back our money, take the stock from us and release us from any further liability. But they did not choose to do that.
They refused to do it, and why? For the very reason stated, that the stock was not worth a dollar, as the Hon. James Sutherland said. I will not quote any further from that debate, but I want, to show that for that legislation, for that Bill upon which that debate took place, there was a petition. That petition was dated on the 15th April, 1901, and it recited that the petitioners had mutually agreed that, subject to the approval of the Senate and House of Commons the amendment set forth in the schedule should be the amendment that should be enacted. Here is the Act of 1901, which was passed as a mutual recognition of the , rights of property. The statute of 1901, chapter 64, section .3, provides that:
The directors of the company shall, upon the request of any of the present 'shareholders of the company holding ten shares of the capital stock of the company, and upon whose shares ten per cent only lias been paid, issue a fully paid-up share for one hundred dollars to each of such shareholders holding ten shares as aforesaid, being for the aggregate amount paid upon his present shares

That was the settlement.
-and shall pass a hv-law or by-laws, which the said directors are hereby empowered to do, cancelling the subscription for and all liability upon the remaining nine shares held or subscribed for hy any such shareholder or shareholders; and thereupon all liability of any such shareholders for the payment of the amount of the said remaining shares subscribed for or now held by them respectively, or any part thereof, shall cease and determine

Here is the important, part:
-and the word ' shareholder ' in this section shall include as well any one or more persons holding .shares in trust as those holding shares in their own right.
Now, the contention upon which this Bill proceeds is that there never has been and never could be any one holding shares in his own right. Well, by 'Hansard', by the statement of the minister, by the petition itself, toy the Bill itself it was shown that these men held these shares in their own rights. I would ask the right hon. the first minister to reconsider the proposition that he has stated to this committee:	He says : Why should not
these people sell? The exigencies of the public demand it; they should be compelled to sell in the public interest. Why should they? If they should sell why should they accept the valuation which my hon. friend puts upon their stock? My hon. friend says that $400 is good value for their shares. I would ask my hon. friend if, with 90 per cent earned on the stock of this company, it would not make that stock more valuable than $400?

My hon. friend must -see that whether it is $400 or $1,000 the value was not established and he does not suggest any method of ascertaining the value of the stock. I protest against this legislation for the reason that I have stated, and because the rights of those individuals have not been recognized. Some hon. gentleman has stated that a dividend has -been de-dared upon this -stock. My hon. friend from North Simc.oe (Mr. Currie) says 'no', but 1^ say ' yes My hon. friend, if he says 'no', does not know the facts. A dividend has been paid to these gentlemen on the stock.


John Allister Currie: I have a memorandum here, and I know that there is a year s interest due and that this company is away in arrears. How can any -company pay dividends when it is in arrears?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I have stated a fact, it is a fact and the hon. member for South * Wellington (Mr. Ghjthrie) will not deny it that 6 per cent was paid on the_ stock held by these gentlemen. That dividend was paid and no attempt has been made by the city of Guelph to limit the amount.


Hugh Guthrie: The dividend was paid but improperly paid and this Bill follows.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Does my hon. friend seek by this Bill to take these dividends back from them?


Hugh Guthrie: That is not what it means. We gave them that.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Why not apply to the courts? If we adopt this legislation we do so in derogation of well established principles and we give the majority of shareholders the_ right to extinguish the minority. The rights of eminent domain and of expropriation are absolutely foreign to this question. We are asked to pass this Bill 'by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) upon the absolute fiction that the preamble of this Bill is proved notwithstanding the fact that no -court in the land would allow it to be proved.


Henry Robert Emmerson: When this Bill was before the Railway Committee, I gave very close attention to the gentlemen who had the duty of presenting the case both on behalf of and -against the Bill. After weighing what was -said I concluded that this was a Bill that should not receive the sup-of that committee. I voted against the Bill and ordinarily, when any one of the Standing Committees has determined with respect to a particular Bill, I do not feel called upon to take any further part in it when it comes before the Committee Mr. BOYCE.
of the Whole, because I recognize that the findings and recommendations of these committees should weigh with the House or with the Committee of the Whole. But this is not an ordinary Bill; it is extraordinary in its terms. When the matter was placed before the Railway Committee, it was -claimed that the parties who held these five shares of stock were trustees on behalf of the -city, and that therefore the city should be placed in a position to deal with it. But it was said that while these gentlemen were merely trustees -and merely held this stock in the interest of the citizens the city -of Guelph would be magnanimous enough _ to give them a compensation amounting to $400 per share. Now, I thought we were not clothed as a committee with -poweT to adjudicate as to whether these gentlemen were trustees or whether they held the stock in their own right. T thought that the courts were the proper tribunal to determine the question as between the city of Guelph and these individual -stockholders in connection with this company. But, if we were clothed with the power to determine that question we had, in so far as the evidence was concerned, the admission on behalf of the city of Guelph that the stock was held by these gentlemen in their own right, and that admission was made in 1901 when they sought legislation in connection with this very matter. If the facts as they existed before 1001 were presented to the committee there would be no difficulty, but when the matter is weighed in the light of the circumstances attending the passage of the legislation of 1901, no one can say that these men held their stock as trustees. The city of Guelph is estopped from saying these men did not hold the stock in their own right, because they treated w-ith them as being the sole owners of that stock. That being so the very foundation for this Bill disappears.


John Graham Haggart: What reason has the city -of Guelph given for the position taken by it now?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Bill is based on the pretention that these men were trustees and they want power to confiscate- because that -is the proper word to use- the -stock, but they -are willing to pay $400 per share. Why the city wants to do this has not been made clear to me.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: For the sake of the investment.
. Mb- EMMERSON. That is merely conjecture, -but at all events they have given no good reason why and how the interests of the city are interfered with by these gentlemen holding that stock. As the facts are, I cannot, and I do not think this parliament should attempt to interfere

8638	[DOT]
with what is plainly and clearly a civil right of certain citizens. Why should we by federal legislation, seek to determine what are individual rights in property, when that duty is relegated to the courts of the country. The vote I gave in committee I will repeat here because I feel that a wrong is being done to these men and that it is an arbitrary exercise of the power of this parliament to divest them of their rights in their property. I recognize that the recommendation of a committee deserves great weight and were the circumstances of this case other than they are I would not have raised objection on this occasion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I took some interest in this legislation in 1901 and I have refreshed my memory as to the explanations made in the House, especially by the hon. member for South Wellington. The desire of the city of Guelph in this matter at that time, is not the desire of the city of Guelph now. In 1901 the city desired to get the right to elect a majority of the directors because, while the city took $20,000 stock out of the total of $30,000 the city had only three directors and the holders of the balance of $10,000 of the stock had six directors, so that the tail was wagging the dog. There was no contention in 1901 that these stockholders were other than the absolute owners of their stock. In compliance with the request of the people of Guelph we amended the law to give the city of Guelph the right to elect five directors instead of three, to restrict the other holders of the stock to electing three directors instead of six, and we further gave the city the right to elect men who were not qualified as stockholders to be directors of the company at all, but who might be aildermen, or ratepayers duly qualified to be elected as aider-men, and we further provided that the mayor should be ex officio a director of the company. In this way the legislation enacted in 1901 gave the city of Guelph complete control. Then by clause 3, in that Bill we provided:
The directors of the company shall, upon the request of any of the present shareholders of the company holding ten shares of the capital stock of the company, and upon whose shares ten per cent only has been paid

That is these private stockholders, because while each man held $1,000 stock he only paid 10 per cent of it.
-issue a fully paid-up share for one hundred dollars to each of such shareholders holding ten shares as aforesaid, being for the aggregate amount paid upon his present shares* and shall pass a by-law or by-laws, which the said directors are hereby empowered to do, cancelling the subscription for and all liability upon the remaining nine shares held or subscribed for by any such shareholder or shareholders; and thereupon all liability
of any such shareholders for the payment of the amount of the said remaining shares subscribed for or now held by them respectively, or any part thereof, shall cease and determine;" and the word 'shareholder' in this section shall include as well any one or more persons holding shares in trust as those holding shares in their own right.
They now come before the Railway Committee and declare that no one held shares in his own right and say that they relieved the shareholders of the liability which rested on them, because they were only holding one share each in trust for the - city. The preamble of their Bill is amended to carry out that intention. What does the Bill say?
That the corporation of the city of Guelph holds, itself or by trustees on its behalf, all the shares in the capital stock of the company except a few shares upon which five hundred dollars in all have been paid, which few sharfes were subscribed for by persons acting in that behalf as agents for the city.
And, therefore, holding it in^ trust, they put deliberately a falsehood in the preamble of the Bill to mislead either this House or the Railway Committee, and perhaps both, into the belief that these stockholders only held their shares in trust.


Hugh Guthrie: Might I correct the hon. gentleman. The clause that he refers to was not in the Bill as introduced, that put in by the Senate committee of its own motion, and no charge of misleading should be made in regard to it. [DOT]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am dealing with the preamble of the Bill.


Hugh Guthrie: The preamble was put in by the Senate Committee, it is not in the original Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Somebody put it in there.


Hugh Guthrie: The Senate Committee did.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is false on its face. Upon what evidence did the Senate put it in there?


Hugh Guthrie: The evidence that was put before the Railway Committee which passed it yesterday.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yet the very statute we passed in 1901 declared that they shall receive paid up stock to the extent of $100 and continue to hold that in their own right. No claim was made that they were holding it as trustees in any sense of the word, and when they asked the city through Col. McRae that that $100 be paid back to them and they would abandon all the stock the city of Guelph refused the offer. They were not willing to take it then, it was not earning a dividend, but now when

it is earning a big dividend the city wants to take it from them. The present Bill says they are holding it as agents for the city. That I hold is absolutely incorrect. As to whether or not they were holding in their own right, I need not quote the words of the hon. member for South Wellington, who said that there was no dispute as to how the stock was then held, no one contended they did not hold it in their own right,^ and the only contention was that the citv of Guelph wanted the majority of directors. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) spoke at that time, and said:
The present mayor will not always be the mayor of the city of Guelph, and while the ngnts ol the railway company may be safeguarded at the present time, there is no guarantee that the same safeguards -would surround the future board. I look upon the treatment which these ten shareholders are to receive as altogether unprecedented in the history of legislation in this House.
That is the taking away their right as to having the number of directors on the board they were entitled to by virtue of their Act. Then Mr. McGowan, reperesent-ing an adjoining constituency, said:
I am thoroughly in sympathy with the opposition to this motion. These directors paid 10 per cent each on their $1,000, and the understanding was that they should have one paid-up share and be relieved from all further liability, but under this amendment they will still be liable for the balance of their stock.	.
And he opposed it on that ground. Several others spoke, among them Mr. Seymour Gourley, who took 'exactly the same giound that it was an injustice to them.
I said with reference to it:
Now, the proposal made by Colonel McRae,
I think, was a reasonable one. He said: If these parties want to get our stock, let them pay us back our money, take the stock from ns and release us from any further liability. But they did not choose to do that; and will this House pass a law to compel men to abandon their rights and to give up their property without any consideration after they have made it valuable, -when they are the only parties that have made a reasonable endeavour to give the city of Guelph the advantages of a railway that to-day is on a workable basis?
That was the whole contention then, but the whole contention to-day is a different one entirely. The contention to-day is: We will compel these people to sell their stock for what the people of Guelph wish to give them. I say, as the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) said, that there is no other word in the English language that will convey the meaning of that condition except the word confiscation. It is absolute confiscation, pure and simple. I have been in this House for a somewhat Mr SPROULE.
lengthy period, and I never knew in the ..Canadian parliament such a principle to be endorsed by us. I am not aware that the Canadian parliament affords in its history any example to show that we have ever done that before. Are we to depart from the well-understood, sound principles which every legislature in the civilized world follows to-day and confiscates people's property whether they will or will not give it up? In my judgment, we will be doing a great wrong if we do it. I was opposed to it then and I am opposed to it to-day, and if it is carried it will be carried by a majority of this House, but not with my sanction. I regard it as one of the greatest injustices we could possibly do to any individual, to take from him what belongs to him and give it to another without his having a voice or say as to how much he shall receive in return for it.


John Allister Currie: This question is one I think which should not be viewed from any partisan standpoint. It seems to me that the gentlemen who own this stock are getting a fair figure for it if they are getting $400-1 wish I could get that for some stocks. There are only four of them, and as nearly as I can understand they are getting about $400 for each $100. There must, be some ulterior motive that four men with $100 stock each in a concern of this kind can get so much opposition raised in this House. The question of confiscation is raised. There is confiscation in many cases, and it is always under different names. In case of war thing's are commandeered. In case of railways they are expropriated, and when the other fellow says he does not want to give up the stuff he says it is confiscation. The city of Guelph, as near as I can understand, put into this $173,000 good hard cash. These people were putting in something like $500.
The trouble, as nearly as I can make out is that these poor men want to share up to about 40 per cent, of the profits now that it has become a paying road. However, the question to me is this: In cases of this kind when a municipality desires to go into public ownership, and is prepared to pay 400 per cent for going into it, I am not going to object. It is not confiscation to take away from a man for $400 what he paid only $100 for. If they took the *shares away for 40 cents I would say that was confiscating. We are having questions of principle didcussed here every day. This is not a court of law, this is a {>lace to which the people bring questions which they can settle in the law courts. It is true there is uncertainty as to whe-there there is a trusteeship here. The argument raised throughout by those supporting the Bill is that there is not trustee-

ship. I have seen advertisements and letters in the newspapers-unfortunately I have not them here-which say that whenever these directors went to the city of Guelph and asked them to effect a fresh bonus they always laid stress on the fact that they were simply holding the interest as good citizens, not as trustees for this stock. I hope the House will pass this measure.


Mr. J. D. REID.: I oppose this Bill because I think it is very unfair. I understand that no evidence was brought before the committee which considered it to show that these persons were really trustees. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Currie) states that he saw letters in some newspapers, but if there was any evidence of that kind I think it would have been brought before the committee and considered.


John Allister Currie: I did not argue that they were trustees. If they were trustees the city could take the stock from them by law.


John Dowsley Reid: They are either trustees or they own the stock outright. The hon. member (Mr. Currie) says they are not trustees, therefore they must have owned the stock outright, and got it legitimately in the first place. It is the principle I am objecting to, not the amount of money involved. I do not believe that the gentlemen who own this stock care one iota about the amount involved, but they invested their money in this years ago, and though the amount may have been very small, now that the road is likely to be a paying road, we are asked to vote them out of their stock. If we pass'this Bill we will create a precedent which will recoil on us in years to come. In the Railway Committee when a Bill is brought up and some of us object to something in it, other members stand up and state that in a Bill passed a yeaT ago, or two years ago, there was a clause in which such and such a company was granted a charter, and therefor, we are told, that is a sufficient reason why we should pass another Bill. This is getting to be a very common practice in the Railway Committee. I say it is wrong to allow anything to pass that we in our hearts do not believe to be right. It Should be no trouble for the city of Guelph to get rid of these share-holders. If they claim they are trustees the laws of this country will protect their rights. If we pass this Bill it will form a precedent, and next year or the following year, or some other year we will have Bills of this kind coming up.
At six o'clock, Committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Chairman, when the House rose at six o'clock, I was pointing out the principle involved in this Bill, and had expressed my opposition to the measure on the ground of principle. The wdiole question is whether these present shareholders, at whom this Bill is aimed, are trustees or not. So far as I am concerned, I am ready to have that question decided by the courts. The courts of Ontario are open, and there need be no difficulty about the city of Guelph establishing its case if the facts are there to establish it. As I understand it, there were ten original shareholders in this company, six of whom have sold out voluntarily, taking the money they had paid in and a bonus in addition. But the other gentlemen do not wish to dispose of their stock, and for that reason the promoter of this Bill brings in this measure, I suppose, to force these gentlemen to sell. Mr. Chairman, that is a bad line for us to take. It sets a precedent which, in the future, may bring us trouble, for it will certainly be quoted to justify other Bills which thi3 parliament ought not to pass. I understand that these stockholders are prepared to go before the courts, and if there is anything to prove that they are trustees, they are willing to give up their stock and lose what _ they have put into the railway. They simply ask for justice. I have no interest other than to see that right is done to the minority. I do not know any of these shareholders but one, but the rights of property ought to be protected by this House. I do not wish to say more about the Bill at the present time, but I sincerely hope the government will take a stand on this subject and not allow it to go down in history that in this parliament the majority of the members of this House were willing to take away rights that were granted to men in days gone by, rights which were recognized by the city of Guelph, and which are attacked in this parliament only now that the enterprise is prosperous.


Hugh Guthrie: I would like to say a word at this stage in regard to this Bill, for the purpose of explaining the real situation, as I think I am, perhaps, more familiar wfith it than many hon. members who have already spoken. I do not speak as the promoter of the Bill, because the Bill is not in my charge, but more as a citizen of Guelph, and one who has been pretty familiar with the history of the whole transaction. And I am satisfied that any one who considers all the facts will conclude that the four gentlemen who claim to be shareholders and who are dissenting from the general scheme of trans-

ferring their shares to the city are not being harshly dealt with, but very generously dealt with.
Now, this road had its inception in the year 1887 at the request, the particular request, of about a dozen leading men of the city of Guelph, all manufacturers and large shippers. Of these original promoters, two are stokcholders, Colonel McRae and Mr. Kloepfer. The two other stockholders, whose names have been used in this discussion, were not original promoters or original shareholders. In 1887, through the board of trade and their own efforts, they induced the ctiy of Guelph to go into the construction of seventeen miles of railway to give the city connection with the Canadian Pacific railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Guthrie) says that two of these were not original stockholders. How did they become possessed of their stock?


Hugh Guthrie: One purchased the
shares of a deceased stockholder, and the other acquired his otherwise. The city was reluctant, as cities are, to go into an undertaking of that magnitude, but through the efforts of these gentlemen in particular-and they worked hard-the city was induced to pass a by-law to finance this undertaking. The amount of stock in the road was $30,000. It was supposed that a bond issue of $155,000 would construct the road. The city passed the necessary bylaw, and construction of the road began. The first thing that was necessary to do was to get a board of directors, and, under the Railway Act as it stood at that time, a director must have at least ten shares of stock in his own name. Ten gentlemen came forward and agreed to qualify as directors, and paid $100 apiece of their own money. So, each held ten shares with ten per cent paid and was still liable for calls amounting to $900. The road was constructed in the year 1888. After the construction it was found that there was an indebtedness on consturction of between $18,000 and $20,000. There was no money to pay it. The city had taken $20,000 of stock and paid it up, but the ten gentlemen who had qualified as directors did not pay up their stock. So there was nothing to pay the deficit. What were they to do? The creditors were clamouring for their money. These directors applied to the city of Guelph, saying, in effect : We do not own this stock in our own right, we are acting for you; we are stool-pigeons for the city of Guelph; this is a municipal scheme, not a private undertaking. And so they applied for relief from the indebtedness which they could have been called upon by the creditors to pay to the extent of' $900 apiece. The city took that view of it. But I should mention that that was the city's


Hugh Guthrie: view of it even before that time, because the city financed $155,000 of these bonds, and the mortgage deed was registered to secure the advance, and a special clause, clause No. 17, was inserted by the city that these stockholders should not be liable for the principal or interest, or arrears of interest on these bonds for any of their unpaid stock. That was before the indebtedness of about $19,000. On this indebtedness the city took the same position, and the city council said it would submit a bylaw to the ratepayers to raise the money and relieve these directors of all payments.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: When was that?


Hugh Guthrie: It was started on 1st October, 1887, when the $155,000 was first financed. The city did submit the by-law. That submission was made in the summer of 1889. The first by-law submitted was defeated; or, rather not defeated; there was a majority in favour of it, but, under the municipal laws of Ontario, more than a majority was required, and the necessary number of votes were not polled. Mr. William Bell, the president of the railway company, wrote a letter to the citizens. I will read it in order to make the case clear. This is taken from the Guelph ' Herald,' the leading Conservative paper in the city. There is no politics in this question:
Letter to the editor:
Sir,-Citizens, please note that the directors or stockholders of the Guelph Junction Railway Company have no money interest in the railroad stock. They have already assigned to the city all their right, title and interest, and have handed over practically all the money they have paid on their stocks to the city for nothing whatever, and will not receive one cent of benefit from their stock whether they pay up in full or whether they pay only $100. The city owns everything and has all the earnings of the road to pay interest on its money advanced. The stockholders gave all these privileges and advantages to the city on the distinct understanding that they were to be relieved from all further liabilities on their stock. It was enormously for the benefit of the city that it should be done in this way. I hope the citizens will look on the matter in a just manner to the stockholders, w ho have given valuable time and means to build this road, and which will be and is of great benefit to the city.
(Signed) WM. BELL, President Guelph Junction Ry. Co.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman say as a lawyer that that letter would be any evidence against these people?


Hugh Guthrie: That is the difficulty, in a court of justice technically that would be ruled out. The Bill was submitted and was defeated.


William Barton Northrup: Was it true, as stated in that letter, that all these gentlemen had

made over their interests to the city of Guelph?


Hugh Guthrie: The transfer had not been made. But the day before the by-law was submitted, on the 17th July, the following statement appeared in both the city newspapers:-
Guelph, 17th July, 1889.
To His Worship the Mayor of Guelph:
Dear Sir,-We understand that some persons object to the $18,000 by-law ter be voted on to-morrow, upon the ground that the loan of the money to the Guelph Junction Railway Company will enable the stockholders to obtain the benefit of their stock without really paying for it.
This is not the case, and it was never supposed that the stock held by the undersigned would be of any value to them individually.
As the loan of the money will enable the undertaking of the company to be completed, to show our good faith in this, we now offer and agree with you on behalf of the city that, upon the loan of $18,000 being made, we will surrender or assign our stock, and all benefits which may he derived from it, including the payments which have been made by us, to the city or to any persons designated by the city, or to hold the stock in trust for the city, as the council may deem advisable, the city assuming our position with regard to the same.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was not that the one that was not signed by four of them?


Hugh Guthrie: It is not signed by John and Charles Crowe because they were not stockholders. It is signed by the following gentlemen: Geo. Sleeman, John M. Bond, J. B. Armstrong, Charles Raymond, Charles Davidson, D. Guthrie, executor for estate the late John Hogg, D. McRae, C. Kleopfer, W. Bell, T. Gowdy. It is dated 17th July, 1889. Now it came to my notice on Thursday or Friday last, that one gentleman. Colonel McRae, is now inclined to say that he never signed it. Well, all I can say is that this is the first I ever heard of his taking such a position. I know that he never repudiated it until then. It has been before the people, published in the newspapers, and in 1901 was read before the Railway Committee of this House. Then I remember perfectly well hearing Colonel McRae say that he did not deny signing it, but he said if he signed it it was never carried out, because the city did not pass the by-law. Well, the city did'not pass the by-law the following day, but a few months afterwards, in the January elections following, the city did pass the by-law by the necessary majority of the electors, and the money was handed over. That was in 1889, and the men who exerted themselves to pass the by-law were these ten gentlemen that subscribed the money to have it passed. Among the letters I have in my hand is a letter from Colonel McRae, sending his cheque for his share of the expenses in
carrying the by-law. The amount of the cheque is not stated, but other cheques were produced showing that the amount was $25 per head for each of these ten men. The money was handed over, and the question then arose as to whether if the $18,000 of newr bonds to pay the indebtedness should become in arrear, whether these ten individuals could still be called upon for the other $900 unpaid upon stock; they were released from the first issue of the bonds. An agreement was then signed by the city of Guelph and the Guelph Junction railway, dated the 12th of March, 1890, providing expressly that in respect of this $18,000 loan, if the principal or interest remained unpaid, the directors, or the ten gentlemen holding stock, would not be called on for any payment on account thereof. That was in the year 1890. Now for some reason that agreement was lost, it only turned up in January last. It was not drawn by the solicitor of the city of Guelph, or by the solicitor of the company, but by the secretary of the Guelph Junction railway, and although it was properly signed, I have no doubt that if its existence had been known in 1901 there would have been no application to parliament at that time. However, it turned up last January, and that relieves them again from all their liabilties. Now the road continued, it was built and operated, and a lease for 99 years was taken by the Canadian Pacific railway. The directors have nothing to do with it. The money was handbd over to the city, either quarterly or half yearly, the amount was small, the interest ran largely in arrear, and in the year 1901 the city desired to have a larger representation on the board. While it had $20,000 of paid up stock and $173,000 of bonds, it had a minority on the board, and they sought legislation. Now, let me point out what was asked of this House. The Bill passed this House, but it did not pass the Senate, the Senate as then composed was not favourable to it, and when I spoke in this House, I spoke in regard to the Bill which was then introduced, and what I said then was true, and it is true now. But even if my statement was inaccurate then, it could not affect the status of those parties. If they were agents of the city, if they were trustees of the city, if they were acting on behalf of the city, any statement of mine could not have changed their status, and did not change it. But what I said then, was that the shares which they had would remain just in the same position. The Bill passed this House and went to the Senate, but did not pass there. Then an arrangement was made and an agreement come to which resulted in the Act as it stands to-day being passed. I do not see anything inconsistent in the language of that Act with the proposal made to-day. I know section 3 of the Act of 1901.

contains a provision whereby parties who desire to transfer their stock might do so, and give the city power to acquire it, but the municipality cannot acquire unpaid stock, without special legislative authority. Now it does speak of private stockholders and of trustees; the reason was that certain of the original stockholders were deceased, and they were represented by executors and . trustees, but the private stockholders remained in the same position as they did in 1887 when they subscribed their stock. At that time there was an arrears of interest on the bonds of between $60,000 and $70,000, the stock was worth nothing. Time went on, and the Canadian Pacific railway extended the road from Guelph to Goderich.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What did the directors agree to do?	,


Hugh Guthrie: This is what section 3 says
The directors of the company shall, upon the request of any of the present shareholders of the company holding ten shares of the capital stock of the company, and upon whose shares ten per cent only has been paid, issue a fully paid-up share for one hundred dollars to each of such shareholders.
Now there is not a single man who has made a request yet. They have had an opportunity, but they have not made a request. But nothing in that Act has changed the status of the company, or of the individuals, in regard to that stock. In the last two or three years the road has paid a handsome return to the city by reason of the extension of the road* from Guelph to Goderich. The Guelph Junction Railway Company cannot contract any debt. That is in its agreement with the Canadian Pacific railway. They have absolutely nothing to do at that board but meet two or three times a year, receive the Canadian Pacific Railway cheque, and hand it over to the city of Guelph. It is absolutely a municipal institution now. The city of Guelph has gone into municipal ownership to a greater extent than any other city in Canada. It owns its own radial railway, its gas and electric plant and every other public utility and this is one of them. To-day the city claims absolute ownership. When the question of the dividend which was paid on this stock last year was brought to the attention of the city, people began to inquire what right these people had to dividends, and then for the first time the question was raised as to the. rights of these individuals to receive a dividend of 6 per cent on their stock at a time when there was $4,000 of interest due. There is over $10,000 due now, but I understand that there is money enough in the bank to meet it, and there is an accumulation of compound interest of


Hugh Guthrie: between $60,000 and $70,000 which the city, by this Bill, desires to turn into stock, and ^ does not expect to get on this road. Yv nether that dividend should have been paid may be a question, but having been paid, as the matter is only a small one- $60 all told on the ten shares-it was obvious that it would not be worth the city's while to contest it in the courts. But as soon as the question was raised all the original stockholders, save two, came forward and agreed to the city's request, saying:	We were trustees, we were simply
representing the city and we are willing to hand over our stock and take what is fair. The city gave them compound interest -since 1887 down to the present day, and it must be remembered that it is only within the last three years t-hat the road has been earning money. In no event -are these gentlemen being harshly dealt with.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman think that we ought to decide that question in this parliament?


Hugh Guthrie: I think we should or I would not support the Bill. I think these gentlemen were more than generously dealt with.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: If these men are trustees for the city, why did not the city go to the courts and get t-hem to declare that they are?	J


Hugh Guthrie: There may be some technical objections to the evidence that they have to put before a court of law, and another difficulty -might arise in that the judge might say that a municipal corporation has no power to receive those shares or no power to get unpaid stock.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Does the hon. gentleman say that if the courts would not do it we should do it?


Mr GUTHRIE.: I say that these men are the trustees and agents of the city. The Bill did not contain that statement in the preamble when introduced, but the evidence submitted to the Senate Committee convinced the Senate Committee that that was the fact, and the Bill -was thereupon amended and that statement was placed in the preamble. The sum payable when the Bill was introduced, was merely $100, the amount of the -stock, but the benate Committee thought that as these other shareholders had received 6 per cent compound interest it would be fair to put-these men on the same level, and thev made it $400.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the people who were the innocent purchasers of the stock?


Hugh Guthrie: If the stock was at anv time impressed with a trust it would be still impressed with -that trust and the
8C49

present holders would be as much trustees as the original holders were.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They paid their money for it.	.


Hugh Guthrie: They paid $125 a share; $100 was advanced in the first place and $25 was advanced by each individual to help to carry the by-iaw. Now, the city is willing to pay $400. This is the high court of parliament; why go to a court of justice? We have to judge of these things on their merits without the same strictness of proof that as xequired in a court of law. No favours have been shown in this Bill. The hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) seemed to think that this Bill was being crowded through the House. It was introduced a long time ago in the Senate and it has come in the regular course from the Senate to this House.


William Barton Northrup: Is it not being considered now by a suspension of the rule?


Hugh Guthrie: It is just in the same position as fifteen other private Bills. The rules were not suspended for this Bill on any occasion so far as I know. The motion was made by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to suspend the rules for all private Bills and there are fifteen in the same position.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: My hon. friend is mistaken. This Bill got its first and second readings on the same night.


Hugh Guthrie: I was not here at that time and I do not know. The Bill is properly before the House and before the committee, and judging it merely as an individual, and,' perhaps also as a citizen of Guelph, I may say that my conviction is that these men are being well and fairly treated and properly dealt with. Let any hon. gentleman put the test to himself. Did these men originally go into this business as an investment or for the benefit of the city of Guelph? Bid they go into it as a speculative investment or from a policy of pro bono public? Did they expect a money return or did they give their money to the city of Guelph to enable the city to carry out this proposition? We all know how these things are done in municipalities. Men get together, they join hands, they give in a certain amount and they do not hope for a financial return. For these reasons, I would ask the committee to pass the Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am bound to say that the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has confirmed, if any confirmation were necessary, the position that several hon. gentlemen in this House have taken this afternoon. He has shown the utter wrong of this House attempting to decide a question that ought to be de-274
cided by a court of justice. So enthusias. tic is he in perpetrating that wrong on the country that he admits that the evidence that he was using would not be admissible in a court of justice. The hon. gentleman has so far forgotten the principles which are involved and the unfairness of this House being called upon to confiscate people's property, that he says that this is the high court of parliament, that it is higher than any other court, and that we should attempt to influence members of this House by evidence which he admits would not be admissible in any court of justice in support of his contention that this Bill should pass. The hon. gentleman has shown that for twenty years these people went on dealing, that for twenty years the city of Guelph was perfectly content that these people should carry the load whatever it was and it was not until this became a profitable stock that the city of Guelph wanted to confiscate the property. The principle that is involved is confirmed by the argument of the hon. member for South Wellington. He asks us at the end of his remarks to put ourselves in the position of these men. He says: Put the test to yourselves _ and say what was their object in going into this transaction. I do not care what their object was. If I answered what I thought their object was, I would say that the idea was to help the city of Guelph to get the railway. They succeeded in that, they lent their names, and the city of Guelph, through its representatives in this House, is asking us to ad.mit that Guelph has perpetrated a fraud upon parliament by putting ' up men of straw instead of bona fide men under their own names.
The laws of the Dominion require that men shall be interested actually in their own name, in stock, when they become incorporated as a company, and the city of Guelph is asking us to confiscate the property of these people upon the fradu-lent excuse that a fraud was perpetrated on parliament at the time they were incorporated, as these men were not bona fide interested in the company. Well, the city of Guelph served its purpose by representing them to parliament as bona fide, and having obtained the railway, this is now advanced as an argument why the stock should be taken away from them. I say to hon. gentlemen who are not lawyers that that would at once put the city of Guelph out of court on the principle that he who comes into court asking equity must come with clean hands. No judge of common law or equity as we have it in Ontario would listen for a moment to any application to confiscate a property where the applicant had to admit that he had perpetrated a fraud on parliament in getting these people into the position complained



of. We must assume that these men were in good faith, and that they were then, and have been for twenty years past bona fide stockholders in this company. In section 4 of the Bill of 1901 the city of Guelph holds up these men as being owners of fully paid up shares, and in that legislation the city of Guelph never dreamed of suggesting that they had the right to that stock except by voluntary purchase and sale. And yet, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) asks us on inadmissible evidence to confiscate the rights of these people, and to declare that the Act of 1901 is nonsense. It is a simple case of some people who have _ the majority stock in a company grasping at a monopoly by driving people out of their investment which they have a right to enjoy. The statute passed at the instance of the city of Guelph in 1901 makes it. an absolute injustice outside of the question of the constitutionality of the matter, for us to pass this Bill.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Do I understand that the city of Guelph holds all the stock of this company with the exception of these four shares, and that this railroad is paying handsomely?


Hugh Guthrie: I think the return to the city last year was about $26,000 on its stock and bonds.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then it follows that the acquisition of these four shares is not absolutely^ essential to the city carrying on the business of the company?


Hugh Guthrie: , Yes, to become sole owner of the road.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: But these shares are not necessary to constitute a board of directors or to carry on business?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not at all.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have not given notice of an amendment to this section, and therefore, I suppose I cannot move one, but I would suggest that the following words be stricken from the Bill:
And it shall be the duty of such persons, respectively, to transfer their shares to the said corporation accordingly.
That is^ the most vicious piece of legislation it is possible to conceive. If these words were out of the Bill there would be less vice in it, and if the hon. gentleman wants legislation that is not going to furnish a precedent for the most outrageous confiscation of property he should strike them out.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Mr. GUTHRIE moved the third reading of the Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think this is too important a Bill to be advanced two stages in one day.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Receiving the report of the committee is not a stage.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Having gone into committee only to-day I do not think we can advance the third reading, but I leave it to your judgment.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: There cannot be more than one reading in the same day, but I am informed that the report from the committee is not a stage.
_ Mr. LANCASTER. If you rule that this is not a second stage, I am bound by your ruling, but it struck me the other way.
House divided on motion for third reading.
++YEAS
Messieurs
Allard,	McMillan,
Allen,	Marcile (Bagot),
Aylesworth,	Martin :(Montreal,
B61and,	Ste. Mary's),
Borden	Molloy,
(Sir Frederick),	Murphy,
Boyer.	Nantel,
Bureau,	Nesbitt,
Campbell,	Neely,
Carvell,	Oliver,
Cash,	Owen,
Chew,	Paquet,
Congdon,	Pardee,
Conmee,	Paterson,
Crothers,	Perley,
Currie (Simcoe),	Pickup,
Demers,	Proulx,
Dubeau,	Pugsley,
Ecrement,	Rankin,
Fielding,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fowke,	Richards,
Gauvreau,	Rivet,
Geoffrion,	Robb.
German,	Roy (Dorchester),
Gervais,	Roy (Montmagny),
Graham,	Russell,
Guthrie,	Savoie.
Hhggart ((Winnipeg), Sealey,	
Harty.	Seguin,
Lachance,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Lafortune,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Lanctot (Laprairie-	Smith (Nanaimo),
Napierville),	Smyth,
Lanctot .(Richelieu),	Sperry,
Lapointe,	Stewart.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Talbot, 1
Lavergne,	Thornton,
Lemieux,	Tobin,
Loggie,	Todd,
Lovell,	Tolmie.
Low,	Turcotte (Nicolet),
Macdonald,	Turcotte
MacNutt,	(Quebec County),
McAllister,	Turgeon,
McCoig,	Turriff,
McColl,	Warburton,

McGiverin,
McKenzie.
Wilson
(Laval).-91.
(No. 115) to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company, Limited.
++NAYS
Messieurs


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In this connection, I desire to draw attention to rule (No. 113), which is as follows:
Best,
Blondin.
Boyce,
Clark (Red Deer),
Daniel,
Doherty,
Edwards,
El son,
Emmerson,
Henderson,
Hughes,
Kidd,
Lake,
Lancaster,


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 213) respecting the Brandon, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Sifton.
Bill (No. 214) respecting the Alberta and British Columbia Railway Company.-Mr. Herron.
Bill (No. 203) respecting the Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).
Bill (No. 215) to incorporate the Buc-touche Railway and Transportation Company.-Mr. Carvell.
Bill (No. 211) to incorporate the Pioneers Loan Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 216) respecting the British Northwestern Fire Insurance Company.- Mr. Haggart (Winnipeg).
Bill (No. 219) to incorporate the Alberta, Peace River and Eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill (No. 220) to incorporate the Federation of Chambers of Commerce of the province of Quebec.-Mr. Rivet.
Bill (No. 221) for the relief of James Alexander Hurst Forster.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill (No. 222) for the relief of Emily Maud Nicoll.-Mr. Osier.
Bill (No. 223) for the relief of Edna Shib-ley De Mar.-Mr. Barker.
Bill (No. 224) for the relief of Clifford Buell Lillie.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).
Bill (No. 225) for the relief of Rowland James Botterill.-Mr. German.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PARDEE moved concurrence in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill
When any private Bill is returned from the Senate with amendments, the same not being merely verbal nor unimportant, sueli amendments are, previous to the second reading, referred to the Standing Committee to which suoh Bill was originally referred
Two amendments have been made b,y the Senate to this Bill. The first strikes out the words:
The works authorized by this Act are declared to be for the general advantage of Canada.
That is certainly more than a verbal amendment.	[DOT]
The second amendment is that section 11 is amended by adding the words ' for the purposes of its transmission line only.' Both of these are more than verbal 'amendments.	^	!
Mr. PARDEE.: Both of these amendments were made by consent. The clause-declaring the works to be for the general advantage of Canada was stricken out because they thought that sufficient advertising had not been done, and it was limited to the municipalities in which advertising had been done. As to the second amendment that it should be for the purposes of the transmission line only, I take it that no one would have any objection to that, because the object was to have it only a transmission line. Therefore, the views of the opponents of the Bill have been met in these amendments. So, I cannot see how any one could be prejudiced by allowing the Bill to go through this stage. The Bill is even more curtailed than when it left the House, so I do not see how any opponent of it can object on that ground.


John Dowsley Reid: I have an amendment I wish to move to this Bill. Hon. members will note that clause 17 provides:
This Act shall come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Governor in Council.
The promoters of this Bill at the time they were putting it through were very anxious to furnish power at once to Brock-ville and Prescott. They claimed that they were getting a oontract for power to Brockville immediately the line could be built. I know that power can be supplied to Prescott and Brockville by other companies, and that this will be done unless this company go on with the work at once. But with isuch a clause as this in the Bill, they may not go on with the line at an early day. I would suggest, and I hope
Lennox,
McIntyre,
Marshall.
Nortbrup,
Reid (Grenville), Roche,
Smith (Middlesex), Sproule,
Taylor (Leeds), Thoburn,
Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Worthington.-26.
8655

it will meet with the approval of the House, that a clause something like this be substituted:
. H the construction of the transmission line is not commenced, and 15 per cent of the amount of capital is not expended thereon within six months of the passing of this Act, or. if the line is not finished and put in operation to Brockville within two years of the passing of this Act the powers conferred upon the company by parliament shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the line as remains uncompleted.
I take that from the Railway Act. The object of this clause in the Railway Act, of course, is to make parties who take out charters go on with the construction of the railway. But for such a provision, charters would be held up to the disadvantage of the community.
. We have not had anything of this kind m the power Bills iso far, but I do not think it is unreasonable that we should commence now, for the power is to be supplied to these municipalities in the interests of the public. If this is the proper time


Wilfrid Laurier: Here is what Bourinot says on the point. The question is on amendments made by the Senate:
Wheii amendments made by one House to a Bill from the other House are received back and are under consideration, it is not regular to discuss the Bill itself, or its principle, or the policy of the government thereon, but the debate must be confined to the amendments.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not the point I raised.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: No, but I am calling the attention of the hon. member (Mr. J. D. Reid) who seeks to propose an amendment.
is not at all necessary under the circumstances. Rule 113 says:-
When any private Bill is returned from the Senate with amendments, the same not being merely verbal or unimportant, such amendments are, previous to the second reading, referred to the Standing Committee to which such Bill was originally referred.
The question is: Is this amendment important? Ordinarily if there were a great deal of debate on that point, and if this House took the view that it was not important, and the promoters insisted that it was all important, and the Senate threw it out, then I think it would become important. It was agreed to by all parties as unnecessary, and in that sense, I do not think it could be considered of any importance whatever.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The trouble is this, that if we are to have jurisdiction in these matters, it seems to me that there should be a section to that effect, I do not agree with the Minister of Railways, that in this particular case, it is unimportant. Because it seems to me that if we did not have that statement in this Bill, we have no right to pass this legislation. There is nothing in the British North America Act which says that a province cannot incorporate a power company like this. Part of this works could be done in one province and the other part of it could be done in another province; I mean to say there is no reason why a power company could not operate under a provincial charter. I cannot agree with the Minister of Railways, that this is an unimportant matter, because it is a kind of legislation that I think we have no jurisdiction over.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: Before the amendments are considered, I would like to have an answer to a question on the order paper.


John Dowsley Reid: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it will not be in order for me to propose an amendment on the third reading?
Mr/u SPEAKER. We are now considering the amendments made by the Senate, and the only amendment that can be made now is what is called a consequential amendment, following the amendment made by the Senate. The amendments being important, I think I would have to send the Bill back to committee, unless it were the sense of the House to dispose of them now. Otherwise the rule will have to be insisted on.


George Perry Graham: The question is one of a technical nature. As a matter of fact, that clause about its being to the general advantage to Canada appeared to all parties unnecessary in the Bill. In that sense it is an unimpoitant amendment; in this Bill it Mr. J. D. REID.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Will the hon. gentleman confine himself to the point of order?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I have nothing to say on the point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have no option in the matter, if it appears to come under rule 113, which has just been read. In my view, the amendments are important. The first amendment strikes out the clause which says that this work is for the general advantage of Canada, and the second amendment limits the power of the company over the transmission line. Both, of course, are more than mere verbal amendments, they are both important amendments, and unless the sense of the House is otherwise, I will have to send the Bill back to the committee.


George Perry Graham: Does it go back to Private Bills Committee without any motion?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand it does.


CENTRAL CANADA MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Order called for consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 123; respecting the Central Canada Manufacturers Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
William Stevens Fielding: I do not know whether these amendments may be regarded as important. But apart from that, I ought to inform the House, that I have received a number of telegrams from insurance^ companies, which have expressed a desire that these Bills should be referred back to the Committee on Banking and Commerce. I think the parties who sent the telegrams had the impression that by so referring the Bills back the clauses might be reconsidered. I have had to point out to them that that is not the operation of the rule. But if the Bill be referred back, I take it for granted the committee will confine their consideration entirely to the amendments.
I only wish to state this in fairness to the House, so that if anybody is interested in pressing the matter further, they may do so. The question is whether these amendments are merely verbal or important. The hon. member who is in charge of the Bill is not present. My purpose in rising, is to inform the House that I have had that communication from a number of gentlemen outside, who wanted to have the whole question opened up again before the Committee on Banking and Commerce.


Glenlyon Campbell: I take the same objection to this Bill as was taken to the last, under rule 113.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think these amendments are important; the clause in subsection 2 of section 1 is important, and there is another amendment at the end of the Bill, which I think is important.


Mr. NESBITT.: I submit that the amendments are of infinitesimal importance.


Glenlyon Campbell: I persist in my objection.


Wilfrid Laurier: Could these Bills be referred to the committee without any motion at all? I think there must be a motion to refer to same committee.
Order allowed to stand.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that in connection with these amendments a different procedure ought to be adopted. I am not finding any fault with the present practice in one sense as it may be the established practice, but I would think that the proper course ought to be that the Speaker and the officers of the House should take into consideration the question as to whether or not these amendments are important. Then, instead of wasting
time by having them put on the order paper, and waiting three, four or five days, they should be sent to the committee, at once. I see no advantage whatever in putting them on the order paper having them wait for a week, and then sending them to the committee. When they are brought to the attention of the Speaker, and he decides that they must go to the committee they should go to the committee as a matter of course under rule 113. Rule 113 says that they shall go if the amendments are important, and the speaker has authority to declare as to that. After he declares as to that, what is the object of keeping them on the order paper for four or five days?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not quite sure whether that point has to be decided by the Speaker; I think it is rather by the House. The object of the rule seems to be that when a Bill comes back with amendments they are to be referred to the committee. It is for the House to determine whether they are trivial or not, and that can only be done by looking at them. In reference to this matter it is stated by my hon. friend from West- Lambton (Mr. Pardee) that the amendments are unimportant. When that particular condition presents itself how is one to determine that? Nobody can determine that unless he looks at the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I have exactly the same view as my right hon. friend, but it seems to me that the Speaker must decide. Otherwise there would require to be a motion put to the House as to whether or not the amendments are important. The House can only decide that by motion, and the motion must be carried. However, perhaps you can accomplish the same result in another way by moving that it go to the committee. In matters of this kind the Speaker ought to be the person to decide in the first instance. It may be that there should be an appeal from him, but I think it would be much more convenient if such matters were left for him to decide.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
18TH REGIMENT.
['First the tariff resolutions, and then Supply.']
Frederick William Borden: 
William Pugsley: 1,	2, 3 and 4. By order in council passed on the 16th May, 1904, and being within three years of the passing of the Act incorporating the St. Lawrence Power Company, the Governor in Council approved of a deed of assignment from Mr. M. P. Davis, and the Quebec Bank to the St. Lawrence Power Company, of the property and premises demised to Mr. M. P. Davis, by the Crown by lease dated 25th June, 1896, together with the water-power, buildings, machinery and all right, title and interest of Mr. M. P. Davis, and the Quebec Bank in the premises; and also of plans and specifications for the head race, tail race, power house, foundations and buildings for waterpower development at the site mentioned in the said lease. As the properties thus approved of are capable of producing upwards of 1,000 horse-power, it would seem as if the company had complied with the requirements of section 13 of the said Act. There has, however, been no approval by the Governor in Council of plans for fur-Mr. GIRARD.
ther water-power development by the construction of a dam in the St. Lawrence, and it is not deemed necessary to make any further investigation as to the matters inquired of by questions 1, 2, 3 and 4, by reason of the fact that not only has the government assured parliament" that no such plans will be approved of without the previous authority of parliament, but also because it is expressly provided in the Bill for the incorporation of the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company, Limited, that no further works for the development of power shall be constructed by the St. Lawrence Power Company in the St. Lawrence river without the authority of parliament thereto being first obtained.
5.	No. It entertains exactly the opposite view.
6.	No.
7.	No, as to the government, and I believe that the member in charge of the Bill had no such intention, as neither the Bill itself as originally introduced nor any of the amendments have or profess to have such an effect.
8 Answered by reply to questions 1, 2 3 and 4.



Mr. STAPLES:: t. Does the Welland canal run through lot Ko. 50, in the township of Thorold, county of Welland, province of Ontario?
2.	If so, how many acres of land have been taken out ot said lot for canal purposes?
3.	Who made the purchase and from whom was the land purchased?
4.	Who was the owner of the land when the purchase was made, and what was the purchase price of same?
5.	Has the purchase price been paid, if so to whom, if not, .why not?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The Welland canal, both oln and new, runs through lot No. 50, in the township of Thorold.
2.	81 acres have been taken out of the said lot for canal purposes.
3 and 4. George Marlatt, to the Welland Canal Company, November 21, 1826, 2 parcels, 1st part of lot No. 50. 2nd. Chiefly part of lot No. 50, with a small portion of lot No. 32, consideration sixty pounds.
William Marlatt to the Queen, March 5, 1850, part of lot No. 50 on the east side of the old canal, consideration sixty-four pounds.
Ephraim Hopkins to the Queen, October 30, 1855, part of lot 50 on the west side of the old canal, consideration sixty-four pounds, one shilling and threepence.
Thomas McLean to the Queen, May 7, 1879, part of lot 50 and part of lot 73,' amount paid for deed of land, $8,526.
N. F. Hazel quit claim to the Queen, June 26, 1879, for $1; this covers the land bought from Thos. McLean.

Trustees school section No. 2, Thorold, to the Queen, March 11, 1879, part of lots 49 and 50, south of Marlatts' or Beaverdams road, amount paid, $1,350, for which department holds deed.
Department of Public Works to Eph. Hopkins, December 29, 1855, part of lot 50, west of the old canal, containing 3 roods and 12 perches, consideration, 10 pounds, 6 shillings and 3 pence.
5. Answered by Nos. 3 and 4, as this is all the information that can he obtained in this department.


GOVERNMENT ELEVATOR, PORT COL-BORNE.
George Eulas Foster: What lands, if any, were taken for right of way for the railway connecting the government elevator with the Grand Trunk lail-way at Port Colborne, from whom taken and at what cost for each lot.J


George Perry Graham: 


From C.   D.@: Winn. Part of lot No. 29, in the 1st concession of the township of Humberstone, county of Welland, comprising lots Nos. 18, 19 and 20 and part of lots 21, 22 and 23 on the south side of Park street, and lot No. 18 and parts of lots 19, 20 and 21 on the north side of Clarence street, as laid down on map of part of the village of Port Colborne made by John DeCew, P.L.S., for L. G. Carter, registered in the registry office for the county ot Welland, on April 26, 1876, containing 1 46 acres. Mr. Garner valued these lots at $4,550, and I value them at $3,000.


From A.: Vandevere. Part of lot No. 29, in the 1st concession of the township of Humberstone, county of Welland, comprising lot No. 18 on the south side of Clarence street. Cost, $2,000. Containing -24 acres.


From Mrs.   E@: Carter, Dr. O. W. Fares and D. McGillivray, joint owners Part of lot No. 29 in the 1st concession of the township of Humberstone, county of Welland, comprising part of block B, as laid down on Carter's plan of part of the village of Port Colborne, registered in the registry office for the county of Welland, on September 27, 1860, with a strip of land adjoining, lying to the north of said block 'B,' 66 feet in width and 927 feet 6 inches in'length, containing 163 acres. Valuation, $2,000.	, , ,
From Duncan Armstrong. Part of lot No. 29, in the 1st concession of the township of Humberstone, county of Welland, comprising lot No. 1 on the north side of Ash street, in the village of Port Colborne, containing -25 acres. Cost, $350 From Jane Peterson. Part of lot No. 29, in the 1st concession of the township of Humberstone, county of Welland, comprising lot No. 1 on the south side of Ash
street, in the village of Port Colborne, containing -25 acres. Cost, $1,600.
From Sylvester Manning. Part of lot 29, in the 1st concession of the township of Humberstone, county of Welland, being part of block 'A,' as laid down on the plan of part of the village of Port Colborne made by John DeCew, P.L.S., registered in the registry office for the county of Welland, on December 30, 1865. Containing -11 acres. Valuation, $125.


From H.: Leslie. Part of lot No. 29, in the* 1st concession of the township of Humberstone, county of Welland, comprising part of lot No. 1 on the north side of Sugar Loaf street, as laid down on the plan of the part of the village of Port Colborne, made by John DeCew, P.L.S., registered in the registry office for the county of Welland, on December 30, 1865. Containing '043 acres. Cost, $325.
From Mrs. Mary Pringle. Part of lot No. 29, in the 1st concession of the township of Humberstone, county of Welland, comprising part of lot No. 1 on the north side of Sugar Loaf street, as laid down on the plan of part of the village of Port Colborne, made by John DeCew, P.L.S., registered in the registry office for the county of Welland, on December 30, 1865. Containing *75 acres. Valuation, $1,800.


From C.   D.@: Carter. Part of lot 29, in the 1st concession of the township of Humberstone, county of Welland, comprising the rear portion of lot No. 2, north of Sugar Loaf street, containing -126 acres. Valuation, $125.


From D.   W.@: Carter. Part of lot No. 28, in the 1st concession of the township of Humberstone, county of Welland, comprising lots Nos. 12 and 13 on the south side of Sugar Loaf street, together with that part of the graveyard lot lying in the rear and to the south of said lots, as laid down on Merritt's plan of part ?f.the village of Port Colborne. Containing 1-23 acres. Valued by Mr. Garner at $2,500, and by myself at $1,000.
OTTAWA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION. Mr. FOSTER:
1.	What has been the amount expended by the Ottawa Improvement Commission each vear since its establishment, under the heads of construction and maintenance respectively ?
2.	From what sources have they received the money so expended and what is the amount of bonds issued?
3 What estimate is made by the commission for construction yet proposed to be undertaken?	,
4. Has the government set any limit to the total expenditure for construction? If so, what?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING:: 1.	Expenditures for fiscal year:
1900	....
1901	....
1902	....
1903	....
1904	....
1905	....
1900	
1907	....
1908	....
1909	....
1910	....
Total
Construction,
S cts.
28,773 02 85,482 81 59,989 10 51,088 04 71,847 52 126,057 10 74,829 27 49,998 84 37,392 23 23,467 72 36,824 75
645,750 40
Maintenance.
cts.
Other
Expenditures.
372 17 3,312 69 7,656 84 15,343 65 16,422 91 14,135 42 14,862 28 10,902 89 28,872 16
111,181 01
$ cts.
432 62 4,356 41 755 03 451 82 5,810 30 4,069 08 2,941 93 1,531 27 1,453 07 1,538 72 2,188 54
Purchase
Property.
cts.
Reduction of Debentures.
8 cts.
26,128 79
No. 2. Government grant	$	645,000 00
Government, part of proceeds 'sale of a portion of Major's Hill park		31,000 00
Sale of debentures, (proceeds of sale of 16 debentures of .$21,455 each)		270,373 84
Interest		1,330 31
Miscellaneous		8,740 54
$	956,444 69
No. 3. Driveway in Major's Hill park, estimated cost	$	/ 7,000 00
Driveway, Baird street to Nepean Point, estimated cost..	64,000 00
Construction of roadway extending from western extremity of Dow's Lake causeway through Experimental Farm, ' thence northwardly to islands in the Ottawa river		92,000 00
Continuation of Toadway from Clemow avenue to Dow's Lake causeway, via Conces-	
sion and Ryan streets .. ..	7,800 00
Construction of roadway with boulevard, etc., from Hemlock lake, near Rocklifle, to	
1,550 64 800 00 5,420 73
20,273 30
1,214 73
29,259 46
10,000 00
11.455	00
21.455	00
21.455	00
21.455	00
21.455	00
21.455	00
Total.
128,730 00
8 cts.
29,205 64 91,389 86 61,916 30 60,273 28 95,314 66 177,978 19 115,649 11 88,335 26 75,162 58 57,364 33 89,340 45
941,749 66
Dufferin road via Mariposa
avenue and Lisgar road ..	36,000 00
Construction of driveway from west side of Dow's lake to Hog's Back and return on south side of Rideau canal to Ottawa East bridge and improvements on government reserve on north side of Rideau river in vicinity of
Hog's Back	 50,000 00
No. 4. The limit, so far as tihe government is concerned, is the amount authorized by the several Acts, and the resolutions now before the House.


THE FRENCH TREATY.
Mr. FOSTER:: 
William Stevens Fielding: The following is a convention between Canada and France statement showing the changes in the called ' The French Treaty of 1907 ': French tariff on articles included in the 1.
No. in New Tariff.
17


Ex 18 30 38 80 Ex. 84 89
[Stage Direction]
Classification under New Tariff.	Former Rates of Duty.	New RatesGeneral Tariff.	Minimum Tariff.	General Tariff.fr. c.	fr. c.	fr. c.Stallions, geldings and mares-	Of 5 years and over	each	200 00	150 00	225 0020 00	30 00Ham, boned and rolled, cooked hams	
..	50 00	30 00	60 00Meats, salted-	Fork (ham, bacon, &c.)	50 00	30 00	50 00Beef and other	50 00	30 00	5Q 0020 00	30 00Meat, preserved in tins	20 00	15 00	23 00Animal fat, other than fish oils-	Lard 	40 00	25 00	40 00Cheese-	Fine (affine), soft	35 00	15 00	35 00Honey-	Natural, pure ... 	15 00	*10 00	30 00Fish.	Products of foreign fisheries :-	Fish-Fresh :-	Fresh water :-	Salmonoid family :-	Trout	)	1 40 00>
15 OO	10 00	Other	J	l 50 00Other kinds	Pike, carp, tench and eels	10 00	5 00	12 00Farinaceous Foods.	Pulse:	Other:-	3 (X)	5 006 00	9 00In meal:-	G 00	9 008 00	12 00Potatoes :-	Imported from March 1 to June 1 	)	f 6 001 3 00	0 40	JImported during other periods 	/	l 3 00Fruits and Seeds.	Table fruits: -	Fresh:-	Table apples	
..	5 00	2 00	5 00Table pears	5 00	2 00	5 00Candied or preserved :-	In spirits	100 00	80 00	120 00Other	Not specified 	10 00	8 00	15 00Other:	Not specified	10 00	8 00	15 00Seeds for sewing-	Lucerne, minette, clover	30 00	25 00	40 00Beetroot: Decorticated	30 00	30 00	60 00Not decorticated	30 OO	30 00	45 COOther	3 00	3 00	4 50
Minimum
Tariff.
fr.
150 00 20 00 40 00
35 00 35 00 20 00 20 00
30 00
20 00
20 OO
25 00 10 00 8 00
3 00 6 00
6 00 8 00
3 00
0 40
2	50
3	00
80 00
8 00
8 00
25 00 45 00 30 00 3 00
[Stage Direction]
No. in New Tariff.	Classification under New Tariff.	Former Rates of Duty.	New Rates of Duty.	General Taritf.	Minimum Tariff.	General Taritf.	Minimum Tariff.Fruit and Seeds-Con.	fr. c.	fr. c.	fr. c.	fr. c.per 100	per 100	per 100	per 100kilogs.	kilogs.	kilogs.	kilogs.Woods.	136 bis.	Straw or wool of wood-	Not dyed	0 75	0 50	1 50	1 00Dyed	As undyed s	traw, &c., in	creased by 2	0 percent...	1 80	1 20Various Products and Waste Substances.	158	Vegetables- Fresh-	Cucumbers and French beans	15 00	6 00	20 00	12 00Tomatoes and melons	15 00	6 00	20 00	12 00Spinach and asparagus	15 00	6 00	20 00	12 00Green peas	15 00	6 00	20 00	12 00Salted or pickled 	15 00	12 00	18 00	12 00'l .	1 24 00	16 00J- 20 00	16 00	Dried	J .	j 30 00	20 00Marble, Stones, Earths, <fcc., etc.	185	Cement-	Slow.	0 75	0 50	0 90	0 60Quick	0 50	0 25	0 60'	0 40Metals.	205	Foundry pig and forge pig. Sic	2 00	1 50	2 25	1 50Spiegle iron, &c	2 00	1 50	3 00	2 00f	4 75	3 50	1	205	Ferro-manganese, &c	....-{	I 5 25	3 501	2 00	1 50	J	Ferro-silicon, &c	4 75	3 50	7 50	5 00Ferro-chromium, &c	4 75	3 50	12 00	8 00Ferro titanium, &c	*	*	30 00	20 00Ferro-molybdenum, &c	4 75	3 50	30 00	20 00Ferro-tungsten, &c	4 75	3 50	30 00	20 007J p.c. ad. v. 1	i	5 00	4 50	206	Iron and steel, crude, in ingots	J- 6 75	4 501	6 00	5 00	1	207	Iron or steel, rolled or forged, &c	6 00	r, oo	7 50	5 00207 bis	Iron or steel, rolled or forged, &c	7 00	6 00	9 75	6 50210	Plat sheet and plate iron or steel	t	t	f	t213	Kails of iron or ordinary steel	'v	r 9 oo	6 007 00	6 00	Rails of special steel, &c	J	l 15 00	10 00221	Copper-	( 14 00	S 00Rolled or hammered, in bars, &c	13 00	10 00	l 15 00	10 00" ii in plates, &c	13 00	10 00	18 00	12 00it less than 1-10 inch	13 00	10 00	23 00	15 00Gilt or silvered, in lumps or ingots, ham-	mered, drawn, rolled or spun on	thread or on silk, bronze powder....	130 00	100 00	150 00	100 00Nickel-	Pure, hammered, in bars, rolled	13 00	10 00	15 00	10 00225	Pure in wire-	Of 1 mm. or more in thickness	f 23 00	15 001 13 00	10 00	Of less than I mm. in thickness	l 27 00	18 00
* Not specified. f Slight changes in both general and minimum tariffs. Mr. FIELDING.

No. in New Tariff.
Metals-Con.
Nickel-Con.
Alloyed with copper, with or without zinc-
In ingots or crude lumps	
Hammered, rolled	
Wire-
Of 1 mm. or more in thickness	
238 bis.
361
Classification under New Tariff.
Former Rate OF Duty.
General
Tariff.
fr. c. per
100 kilogs.
10 00
23 00
Of less than 1 mm. in thickness....
Manufactures.
Chemical Products.
Extracts of gallnutts, of sumac, of chestnut wood, and other tannic juices, liquid or solid, extracted from plants	
Extracts of quebracho-
Solid	
Liquid	_	_. ..
Chemical products not specified (duties to be fixed by the Advisory Committee of Arts and Manufactures according to the quan tity of alcohol entering into their composition in no case can the duty be less than)- With alcoholic basis	
23 00
Other.
5 00
5 00 5 00
5 per cent. ad valorem. 5 per cent, ad valorem.
Glass and Crystal.
363 bis.
Incandescent electric lamps-
With carbon filaments, with mountings-
With metal filaments, with mountings.
Without mountings	
Yams.
Yarns of linen, hemp, ramie, pure, not glazed, measuring to the kilogramme in single yarn-Single-
Unbleached-
In skeins-
(Slight changes in both general and minimum tariffs.)
Twisted or partly twisted-
Unbleached-
In skeins-
(Considerable advance in the general, slight increase in minimum tariff.)
Paper and manufactures of.
Paper of all kinds-
Other than the paper called fancy paper- Machine-made, weighing above 30
grammes, per square metre	
Machine-made, weighing 30 grammes or
less, per square metre	
Cigarette paper-
On reels, 35 millimetres wide or less..
In books	
Form or handmade, &c.
Minimum
Tariff.
fr. c. per
100 kilogs.
7 50 17 50
17 50
3 00
400 00 400 00 800 00
)
5 per cent. ad valorem. 5 per cent, ad valorem.
350 00 350 00 700 00
13 00
13 00 15 00 13 00
10 00
10 00 12 00 10 00
New Rate of Duty.
General Tariff.	Minimum Tariff.
fr. c,	fr. c.
per	per
100 kilogs.	100 kilogs.
12 00	7 50
26 00	17 50
f 27 00	18 00
1 30 00	20 00
4 50	3 00
8 00	5 50
5 00	3 50
7\ per cent.	5 per cent.
ad valorem.	ad valorem.
71 per cent.	5per cent.
ad volorem.	ad valorem.
525 00	350 00
750 00	500 00
1,050 00	700 00
([DOT] 15 00	10 00
1 23 00	15 00
( 30 00	20 00
37 00	25 00
23 00	15 00
l	
[Stage Direction]
No. in New Tariff.	Classification under New Tariff.	Former Rates of Duty.	New Rates of Duty.	General Tariff.	Minimum Tariff.	General Tariff.	Minimum Tariff.fr. c.	fr. c.	fr. c.	fr. c.per	per	per	perPaper of all kinds-Con.	100 kilogs.	100 kilogs.	10O kilogs.	100 kilogs.Sulphurized or like sulphurized	25 00	20 00	30 00	20 00Paper called fancy paper-	, Couched in white or colour, &c	36 00	30 00	45 00	30 00Covered partially with metal, &c	72 00	60 00	90 00	60 00Coloured and cut up into bands for shelves	(Dutiable as fancy paper according to	kind)	60 00	45 00Cardboard-	402	In sheets or plates-	Rough	13 00	10 00	15 00	10 00Called fancy, &c. 	13 00	10 00	24 00	16 00462bis	Milled, &e	12 00	9 00	14 00	9 00463	Cut, grooved, or shaped, rough	)	r 24 00	16 001 19 00	16 00	1	Ditto, called fancy, with reliefs	/	l 33 00	22 004G4ter	Boards ornamented with paintings, &c	90 00	70 00	105 00	70 OOHides, Skins and Peltries prepared.	476	Skins and hides prepared-	Curried-	Calf skins waxed, &c... 	40 00	25 00	75 00	50 00476	Curried-	Calf and other small skins, &c.-	Cow and other large hides, &c	70 00	50 00	80 00	50 00Skins, <fcc	70 00	45 00	80 00	45 00Skins	As vegeta	ble tanned.	As veget	able tanned(See a	bove).	hides, accor	ding to kind,increas	ed by-50 per cent.	35 per cent.As vegeta	ble tannedhides, aecor	ding to kind,increas	ed by-Other-	40 ])er cent.	25 per cent.Chamois-dressed or parchment, &c	74 00	60 00	90 00	60 00Hongroye and other, &c	60 00	40 00	75 00	40 00f 62 00	50 00	I	478	Straps for sabots, soles, &c.. 	1 80 00	50 00l 80 00	50 00	J	479	Uppers for top boots, for boots, &c.-	Of varnished leather	175 00	125 00	190 00	125 00Of varnished leather	275 00	175 00	265 00	175 00480	Top boots (bottes)-	Per	pair.	Per	pair.With leather soles, nailed, or wooden soles.	2 00	f 3 00	2 (XI} 2 50	2 00	\	With leather soles sewn on	L 5 00	3 00481	Boots or half boots-	Of woollen, cotton or hemp tissue, with	leather soles	2 50	1 50	1 50	1 00Of woollen, cotton or hemp tissue, &c, &c..	Of coloured goat, kid or imitation, &c	2 50	1 5(1	3 00	2 (JO482	jow shoes-	Of woollen, cotton or hemp tissue, without	fancy trimmings, &c., &c	1 00	0 75	0 75	0 50Of woollen, cotton or hemp tissue with	fancy trimmings, &c., &c	1 00	0 75	1 25	0 75Of coloured goat, kid, or imitation, &c	1 00	0 75	1 50	1 00483	Footwear for children, with leather soles less	than 17 centimetres in length-	Wholly or partly of leather	1	Per 100 kilo	?s.	f 0 75	0 50120 00	80 00	Other	
J	1 0 25	0 15484 (	Iloves:	Of fur with or without parts of leather:-	Per doz. p	airs.Common	200 00	160 00	8 00	4 00Fine	650 00	500 00	16 00	8 00
William Stevens Fielding: No. in New Tariff.
Classification under New Tariff.
Hides, Skins ami Peltries prepared.-Con.
With gauntlets or wrists of tissue or fur:-* The gauntlets or wrists not exceeding 8 cm. in greatest depth	
Former Hates of Duty.
General
Tariff.
490
512
513 522
525	ter.
526 534
552
557
567
With gauntlets or wrists exceeding 8 cm.. Others	
Transmission belts, bands. &c., &c.-
Alumina tanned or vegetable tanned,
curried or not, Ac., &c	; -
Mineral tanned, other than alumina tanned	
Trunks-
Of wood or pasteboard covered, Ac., Ac.. Peltries-
Worked or made up-
Common	
Other	
Manufactures of Metal.
Traction engines and rolling engines, steam
petrol, benzine, spirit, Ac	
Locomotives-
Narrow gauge	
Ordinary gauge -
With two cylinders	
Other	
Tenders for steam locomotives-Ordinary gauge	
Narrow gauge	
Agricultural machines (motors not included)- Mowers, reapers, combined reapers and
binders, Ac., &c	
Other	
Typewriters, without nickeled parts, Ac.
50 kilogs or more	
Less than 50 kilogs
Recipients, &c., Ac.-
Of 5 millimeters and above.
fr. c. per
100 kilogs.
Not sp Slight incr
100 00 70 00
Minimum
Tariff.
fr. c.
per
100 kilogs.
ecified.
ease in both Tar
60 00 40 00
Of 1 to 5 millimeters Springs of steel for carriages, Ac., Ac polished (as " detached parts of machines,
of steel")	 *
Tools, Ac., Ac. (general and minimum tariffs both increased slightly).
Railway chairs, paving plates, Ac., Ac
Stoves, fire-places, Ac., Ac	
Same articles, not polished	
Pots and other articles not included under the
above classes	[DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
Iron-work for carriages, Ac., Ac., weighing
15 kilogs, or more	
Less than 15 kilogs,	
Tubes of iron or steel (slight advance general, no change in minimum tariff). Lead pipe and manufactures of lead of i kinds, weighing-
50 grms, and more per piece	
New Rates of Duty.
General
Tariff.
fr. c. per
100 kilogs.
f	4 00
l	6 00
General and iffs.
100 00
Duty as above, increased by 40 per cent.
Minimum
Tariff.
per piece. . . . 20 grms. per piece .
74 00	60 00	105 00200 00	160 00	300 00650 00	500 00	750 0020 00	15 00	23 0024 00	18 00	27 00f 23 00\ 20 00	15 00	J/	l 35 001 15 00	10 00	f1.	1 18 00j 18 00	12 00	tr is oolr 15 00	9 00	-ij	L 23 0075 00	60 00	300 00450 0012 00	8 00	14 0012 00	8 00	17 0037 503 00	2 50	5 005 00	4 00	9 0012 00	8 00	14 005 00	4 00	6 0012 00	8 00	18 0015 00	10 00	23 001	) ' 10 00l 8 00	6 50	V 13 501J	21 00
fr. c. per
100 kilogs.
2 00 3 00
Minimum
65 00
Duty as above, increased by 25 per cent.
70 00
200 00 500 00
15 00 18 00 15 00 23 00
12 00
12 00
15 00
200 00 300 00
9 00 11 00
25 00
2 75 6 00 9 00
4 00
12 00 15 00
6 50 9 00 14 00


Mr. FIELDING.: 2.	Our treaty with France does not entitle us to the French minimum tariff on everything, neither does France receive our intermediate tariff on everything. We are entitled to the French minimum tariff on a list of articles which practically covers everything of importance that Canada has been exporting. On all these products we continue to receive the mostfavoured-nation treatment and the United States receives no advantage over us.
There are no available public documents setting forth the exact arrangement recently made between France and the United States. But press statements informally issued by the United States State Department are to the effect that France, to obtain the American minimum tariff, granted the French minimum rates on products covering 96 per cent,of the United States exports to France. Canada to obtain the same consideration from the United States made a reduction in her general tariff on articles representing less than three per cent of American exports to Canada.
3.	The German government grants to
the countries named the full conventional tariff in return for the granting by those countries of their lowest tariff rate to foreign countries.	.
Canada does not grant to Germany the lowest rates which are granted to other foreign countries, and consequently cannot claim the full German conventional tariff. But Canada receives from Germany the conventional tariff on a list of articles which it is believed, cover all the important articles of Canadian export.


STENOGRAPHERS FOR COMMITTEES.
Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	How many meetings of Select Standing Committees and Special Committees have been held during the present session of parliament?
2.	Has it been found necessary to employ outside assistance to take the notes of evidence in any of the committees? If so, why?
3.	In how many committees, and how often, has an extra staff of stenographers been required, and what has been the total cost of such assistance?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	The number of meetings of select standing committees during the present session, up to April 30, has been 141; special committees 122.
2.	It has been necessary to employ outside assistance to take the notes of evidence in some of the committees.
The necessity arose by reason of the fact that more- than two of the committees were sitting at the same time, and consequently the present staff of two reporters was unable to keep up with the work.
3.	Extra stenographers have been employed in connection with eight different committees and at 76 meetings of the same.
The amount paid for such assistance to date is $2,549.83, and there remains unpaid about $400.


MR. ALFRED DELAUCETTE.
Mr. GIRARD:: Has the Minister of Justice proceeded against a Mr. Alfred Delaucette, of Rober-val? If so, why and at whose request?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH:: Proceedings were taken against Mr. A. Delaucette, one of the sureties of Mr. T. A. Donahue, some time Indian agent at Pointe Bleue, Que., under instructions from the Department of Indian Affairs and at the request of that department.


MR. ARTHUR DU TREMBLAY.
Joseph Girard: Has the Minister of Justice proceeded against a Mr. Arthur du Tremblay, of Rober-val? If not, why?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Proceedings were not taken against Mr. A. du Tremblay, because he agreed to pay to the Department of Indian Affairs oner half of the amount due, in respect of which he was a surety.


WEIGHT OF ROSS RIFLE.
Mr. TALBOT:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to a leading article in the Montreal 'Daily Star' of April 26, 1910, in which comment is made upon an extract from the report of the inspector general of the militia for 1909, in which that officer remarks unfavourably upon the weight of the latest pattern of the Ross rifle, as making it unsuitable for adoption for active service?
2.	What are the weights of the different patterns of Ross rifle as compared with those of British service rifles?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	Yes. The exact words used by General Lake were: * The latest pattern of Ross rifle has been well reported on. It is an excellent target weapon, but the increased accuracy has been obtained at the cost of rather more than a pound of extra weight, which is a drawback from the service point of view.'


Sir   P.@: Lake informs me that the words * a pound of extra weight ' were used in comparing the weight of the latest pattern Ross rifle, Mark II**, with that of the previous pattern, Mark II. with Mark III. sight, which rifle he had discussed in the corresponding paragraph (paragraph 62) of his report for 1908, and not in reference to


THIRD BEADINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 226) to authorize the granting of subsidies in aid of the construction of lines of railway therein mentioned.-Mr. Graham.
Bill (No. 227) to incorporate the Canadian Northern Alberta Bailway Company, and to aid in the construction of its railway.- Mr. Graham.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to continue tor a further period the granting of aid towards the maintenance of an independent and efficient service of telegraphic news from Great Britain for publication in the Cana-Sir FREDERICK BORDEN
dian press, and that for such purpose it is expedient to provide for the payment of the following sums:-
A sum not exceeding $12,000 for the twelve months terminating June 30, 1911;
A sum not exceeding $10,000 for the twelve months terminating June 30, 1912;
A sum not exceeding $8,000 for the twelve months terminating June 30, 1913;
A sum not exceeding $6,000 for the twelve months terminating June 30, 1914;
And a sum not exceeding $5,000 for the twelve months terminating June 30, 1915.
Mr. FIELDING Some years ago the attention of parliament was drawn to the fact that the cable news which came to us from Great Britain was at that time almost entirely prepared for the journals of the neighbouring republic and had very little regard for the news in which Canada was concerned. The desirability of reform in that respect was generally recognized, and with the general consent of the House an arrangement was come to with the leading Canadian newspapers whereby we should give them an annual subsidy to assist, them in obtaining a better cable service, on the basis of contributing dollar for dollar with them for that purpose. That is to say, for every dollar which they paid for cable rates we should contribute a. dollar to assist them, with a certain limitation as to the maximum sum. That arrangement ran for some years and is about to expire. We hope the time will come, and that before long, when our Canadian newspapers will be strong enough to perform this service of themselves. However, they have represented that it is yerv desirable we should give them some further aid, and after consideration we have concluded to ask the House to agree to the resolution which is now presented, which proposes to give them for five years the following sums: $12,000 for the first year, $10,000 for the second year, $8,000 for the third year, $6,000 for the fourth year and $5,000 for the fifth year. When these_ subsidies were originally '/hranted we certainly had the hope that the service would gradually become self-supporting. However, it is repre=ented to us that if the_ subsidy were dropped the service, which, take it all in all, has been a very useful one, might be affected, and .as the object in view is one which I am sure will commend itself to the consideration of the House generally, we have concluded tc- ask the House to give this further aid. The arrangement is made with a combination of journals known as the Canadian Associated Press. A number of the leading. journals of Canada, irrespective of politics, agreed to form an association for that purpose. They arranged for the receiving of the cables, and they in turn distributed them to other journals through-

out Canada which might be willing to receive them. At one time there was some criticism as to the efficiency of the service, and occasional suggestions have been made that the government should interfere with a view to affecting the class of information to be furnished. We have always had a very decided opinion that the government should not .interfere in the matter at all. We said to the newspaper proprietors that if they can agree among themselves to establish an organization for the purpose, taking all responsibility of management, we would be very glad to help them, but the government had no desire to have anything to do with the management or control of the service. Although there is occasional criticism, and I will not say the service has always been satisfactory, it has been the means of giving to Canada a ver.y useful class of information which probably we could not have received but for the making of this arrangement. I am very glad to present the matter to the House with the view of giving the newspapers this further assistance for the period of five years.
The correspondence I have on the subject comes from Mr. J. Ross Robertson of the Toronto 'Telegram,' who is the gentleman most keenlv interested in the matter, and has been from the beginning. He has addressed to me a letter setting forth what he believes to be evidence of the efficiency of the service. I would he very happy to read it.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: It might be well to give us the benefit of it.


William Stevens Fielding: 
REVISED
[Stage Direction]
have resulted in two evening papers in Hamilton, Ont., and two in the maritime provinces, the 'St. John Telegraph' and the 'Evening Times,' now taking the service.
Western Canada, a greater field has been opened up by reason of the Western Associated Press taking the full Canadian Associated Press services and through its membership, distributing the news to some fifteen papers located between Winnipeg and Vancouver, so that the people of the west have now the advantage of reading empire news from a British source-a complete and impartial service furnished by news gatherers who know the wants of the Canadian reading public.
The Works of the Past Tiro Years.
Permit me to call your attention to the extensive news field that has been covered by the association. It has handled trade, market, cattle and produce reports which have earned for it the commendation of the classes of men directly interested in the trade, as well as of retail men who are served by the wholesalers.
Further, we cover all news appearing in the British press affecting any of the colonies, every discussion in the British parliament on Canadian affairs, the opinions of the British press on colonial subjects and reports of all Canadian cases coming before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and its decisions. These have all been promptly cabled to Canada. The important matter of the Canadian cattle embargo received special attention during the discussions in the British parliament.
As one example of the good work done in Privy Council cases, it gave a great deal of satisfaction to the Canadian press and people that the Dominion Steel judgment which was of vital interest to the Canadian commercial world, was cabled almost in full by our service.
Other features of our service are also worthy of note.
The visits of our Canadian ministers in England in matters of business connected with Canada, have been chronicled, and when news offered it has been cabled. Negotiations in support of cable and postal reductions were also specially followed. Cables covering the successful visit of the Finance Minister in placing Canadian loans on the London market and his visit to France, and the resultant Frau co-Canadian Treaty, with the press and ministerial opinions, were covered at considerable length. Not only has Canadian news orginating in England been dealt with, but Australian, New Zealand and South African news items, such as parliamentary debates and press comments on general colonial subjects connected with tariffs and other imperial affairs. The proceedings of the Imperial Press Conference in London were cabled in extenso and the views on imperial matters of the visiting colonials were recorded at a cost of about $1,200. The Imperial Defence Conference also received due attention at a cost of about $800.
The recent British elections were covered in a manner never before attempted by a cable service. The press of Canada has paid the highest compliment to the Canadian Associated Press for the complete manner in which the returns of the British elections were given to

[Stage Direction]
the Canadian people. The importance of the recent elections to Canada and the empire, fully merited the cost incurred. The service was simply perfect. It is worthy of remark that in the cabling of these returns the names of each parliamentary constituency and the contesting candidates and the number of votes polled by each candidate, were cabled. Further, condensations of all the speeches by both party leaders were sent daily during the progress of events. On this important subject the Canadian Associated Press gave about 30,000 words at a cost of $3,000. There were about 1,500 despatches, all of which were received without an error.
The West Indies Commission was also dealt with in a satisfactory manner, reports of the proceedings being sent daily from London. The German-Canadian Treaty was also covered with the British and German press views from day to day.
British parliamentary debates in the prepresent parliamentary crisis are also being furnished daily while press comments on the situation are given by our service, which is practically the only service on this continent keeping fully in touch with the British political situation.
In the realm of sport the Canadian Associated Press furnishes an efficient service. Such sporting events of national interest as the Olympic games were cabled fully and to the great satisfaction of the Canadian public. Football, cricket and such leading athletic events have also been cabled promptly. This service includes recording the result of all important races run in Great Britain.
The annual Bisley report is one of the features of the Canadian Associated Press service. This important national meeting is covered in a manner most gratifying to the Canadian public, and at considerable cost. The Canadian Associated Press is the only cable service covering the complete scores at Bisley.
Our service has been free of criticism during the last two years. Its cables are carefully edited and its London office uses excellent judgment in the selection of news to be forwarded. The members of the association have in their newspapers and in personal letters to the president, congratulated the management on the excellence of the services furnished.
There is one important point in connection with the Canadian Associated Press service which I desire to emphasize in this letter. It is this-our service practically goes to about thirty papers in Canada, that is, fifteen who are members of the association and about fifteen who are served by the Western Associated Press.
All these papers received the despatches daily. But there are a large number of dailies that do not take our service, but who use our despatches after our publication-not only dailies but a large number of weeklies. Some time ago an examination of the daily and weekly papers received in the head office at Toronto, revealed the fact that no less than sixty dailies and two hundred and fifty weeklies, non-members, were using the despatches of the Canadian Associated Press. Many of these dailies are not financially able to pay for the service. The point is that the Canadian Associated Press service has a much greater constituency outside of its membership Mr. FIELDING.
than it has within, so that indirectly the association serves a large proportion of the daily and weekly press of the Dominion, in fact, it reaches nearly all the newspaper readers of the Dominion.
The present income from membership and aid from the government is only sufficient to provide a daily average cable service of about 570 words.
To have a more extended service, that is, a general news service which would cover the same field as the American Associated Press, would involve three or four times the expenditure.
This suggested service could not be entertained while cable rates for press messages are at 10 cents a word. But, if the day ever arrives when the cable rate will be cut to six cents a word or less, a fairly good general service could be maintained for about double the present expenditure. The service would be a handpicked one which would give the largest amount of value for the verbiage received. In fact, by a close skeletonizing of the despatches, a good general service could be guaranteed. I merely mention the foregoing to show the possibilities of future service.
The present subsidy of $12,000 a year is for two years, expiring as before stated, on 30th June, 1910.
The association asks that the subsidy be lenewed for five years instead of two. The difficulty is that for a short period there is an uncertainty in the basis of rates we are able to quote. The withdrawal of government aid would make cable news a nonopoly of the richer members of the association and crowd out the smaller newspapers. The grant for two years does not give the necessary stability to our financial arrangements, and this prevents us attracting new members by offering them rates based on the certainty of a government grant for five years. In this event our income would be more settled. The smaller papers could be assured of a continued cable service and thus be delivered from the fear of being driven out by a greatly increased assessment.
I might point out that as a result of the government grant the farmers of this country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, are served with the latest prices as to cattle, cheese, butter, bacon and other such commodities, including a weekly * return of the hogs killed in Denmark and Ireland, which latter information is important to bacon producers of this country-so that virtually every newspaper reader in Canada is supplied with market reports that would never reach him if the government grant were withdrawn and cable news became the monopoly of a few papers rich enough to stand the heavy expense.
The government grant has enabled the [DOT] Canadian Associated Press to create a national news service. Its enterprises during the recent British elections enabled newspaper readers of Canada to know how the political fight was going from day to day. Had they had to depend on the American news service, which cares nothing about British elections or the variety of news interesting and valuable to Canada, their information would have been meagre.
In obedience to the instructions of the as-

sociation, I have submitted a set of facts which the association offers as ample justification of its request for a continuance of tfte government grant for the next five years.
If you require further information, the association will be glad to furnish such, either in the form of a letter or at an interview if you should grant us an opportunity of presenting our case verbally.
Your truly,
. J. ROSS ROBERTSON, President Canadian Associated Press.
Samuel Hughes: That is a very long letter that the minister has read. Mention is made half a dozen times of the 15 papers which take this service and yet the name of none of the papers is mentioned. I would like to know what papers take the service.


William Stevens Fielding: They have not given me a list of the papers, but I know as a matter of fact that what are considered to be leading dailies generally of Toronto and Montreal receive it, and it has been stated that a couple of St. John papers are now taking it. Then there are two Hamilton papers, I think, and the 'Globe,' the ' Mail,' the ' Telegram,' and the ' Star,' and I think I am right in saying- the Montreal ' Gazette.' There are others that I cannot for the moment think of, but the recognized leading papers in our larger cities receive the service and they in turn distribute it to a number of smaller papers.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the amount of the present grant?


William Stevens Fielding: The original grant was $15,000 for several years and then it was reduced point by point to $12,000, which is the amount of the present grant. We are now proposing to give that amount for 5 years. It will be on a sliding scale beginning at $12,000 and reduced in time to $5,-
000.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it expected that the service will be self-sustaining?


William Stevens Fielding: They do not say so, but we do not encourage them to think that we will go on paying this forever. We hope that as the papers grow in strength and resources the service will become self-sustaining, but I would not like to guarantee that they will not come back for a renewal.


Samuel Hughes: I have before me the Montreal daily ' Herald ' of Monday, 18th April, to an item in which I would like to call the minister's attention. There is no harm in considering how things are going on elsewhere and possibly some steps may he taken to improve the service to Canada. I heartily approve of the plan of publishing items from the other British colonies and from the motherland and 275i
giving them prominence in the papers of this country. These items are much better than the sensational items that have appeared in our papers in the past;
Imperial News Service.-The Empire Presf Union has been informed that as a development of a suggestion made by the Eastern and Eastern Extension Telegraph Companies at the interview between the Hon. Harry Lawson, M.P., chairman of the Cable Rates' Committee of the late Imperial Press Conference, and Sir John Denison-Pender, K.C.M.G., on the 9th June last; negotiations have since taken place with Reuter's Telegram Company, with a view to largely increasing the supply of news of the empire to India, Australasia and South Africa.
The Eastern Telegraph Company has agreed to transmit a very largely increased service of British imperial news for distribution to the press of the above British possessions.
It is an essential part of the arrangement that this increased service, amounting in some eases to fifty per cent, shall be distributed without extra charge to newspapers in the colonies and India. This special news has been available from the 4th April, and is being distributed in South Africa, and it is hoped that arrangements will shortly be concluded with the governments of India and Australasia, whereby these countries may have the benefit of the increased service; also that later on the same news will be distributed in the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong.
Canada has not benefited by this arrangement, no better terms from press messages being obtainable from the cable companies.
Now, has the minister or any one on behalf of the government taken any steps with the view of getting the cable companies to give more favourable rates to this organization of ours?


William Stevens Fielding: We have been endeavouring to bring about reduced cable rates generally, but not particularly for this service. As my hon. friend knows the whole subject has been engaging the attention cf the Postmaster General with the view of a cable reduction generally.


Samuel Hughes: That is a reduction of the general business rate?


Mr FIELDING.: It would naturally follow that if they reduced the business rate, they would reduce the rate for this kind of service.- There is something to be said also in favour of the Marconi system which, according to a recent announcement, is able to take business. I do not know what progress it is making; we all know that while it made some progress it was not able to handle all the news, but if we are able to succeed with the Marconi system, perhaps that will grant some relief. However the subject has been engaging the attention of the Postmaster General rather than of myself.

Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 228) concerning the maintenance of an independent and efficient service of telegraphic news from Great Britain for publication in the Canadian press.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first and second times and House went into committee thereon.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN, Is there an extra copy of the Bill?


William Stevens Fielding: The Bill is in print, but has not yet been distributed. It is a mere repetition of the words in the printed resolution. If there be any objection, l"can-not press it.


Robert Laird Borden: No objection.
Bill reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved third reading of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I presume that this Bill follows the provisions of the existing statute.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, we hold to the same system.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into committee to consider a certain proposed resolution respecting subsidies to dry-docks. He said:	There are several
dry-docks in Canada which have been built and owned by the Canadian government. They are not in any way affected by the resolutions which are now in your hands. There are other dry-docks which have been built by private corporations with the assistance of government subsidies. We have had on our statute-book for some years legislation designed to encourage the building of dry-docks and several docks have been so built. The law has been changed from time to time to meet the changing conditions of the country. As it 3tands now, the Governor in Council is authorized to grant a subsidy of three per cent per annum for a period of twenty years for the construction of an approved dry-dock not exceeding in cost $1,500,000. With the ever-increasing size of steamships, larger docks become necessary, and the need of these docks is emphasized at present in connection with the naval movement. Of course, it is recognized that new dry-docks are necessary for the ships of our own navy and for receiving and repairing any ships of the British navy which may be employed Mr. FIELDING.
on our coasts. We propose to readjust our dry-dock legislation and make it conform to modern requirements. We propose to divide our dry-docks into three classes. One which, for convenience, is called the third class is recognized by the terms of the existing law', that is, for what may be called a smaller or moderate size dock, we retain the present arrangement of a subsidy for twenty years of three per cent with a maximum cost of $1,500,000. Then, we have a larger size, called a second-class dock. In that case, the subsidy is for a period of twenty-five years, and the rate of interest three and a half per cent instead of three per cent, and the maximum cost $2,500,000. Then, we have a larger class, which we call a first-class dock for general and naval purposes. In that case, we still retain the rate of three and half per cent, but provide that it shall be for a period of thirty-five years, and that the maximum shall be $4,000,000. This first-class dock for general and naval purposes, we provide, must be at the making of any contract under this Act, capable of receiving for purposes of repair the largest ship in the British navy, and, necessarily, as that will involve a very large outlay, we have thought it well to be generous and liberal wdth our subsidy.
Samuel Hughes: They still might not be able to receive the largest ships in the British mercantile fleet, because these are much larger than battleships.


William Stevens Fielding: Much longer.


Samuel Hughes: And wider.


William Stevens Fielding: Not always. But the hon. member will see that under these resolutions we make alternative provision for fixed or floating docks. In the case of a floating dock, you can receive a vessel much longer than the dock itself, but you cannot do the same in a fixed dock. But I am told that the existing dock in Halifax will take any ship in the Canadian trade, and, indeed, I believe it will take in what is ordinarily called a Dreadnought. But they are building a larger class of ship, called, I believe, for want of a better name, super-Dreadnought, and I believe that, neither the Halifax dock nor any other dock in Canada could receive such a vessel There are rival views as to the usefulness of the fixed or masonry dock and the float ing dock. It is one of these questions on which engineers have different opinions. Perhaps the proper view is that in some localities the masonry dock is best while other localities can be served by the floating dock which will cost less money. In the resolution we are making provision for either as may be deemed best. Then, we are making provision for the enlargement of any * existing dock, so that, if the pro-

prietors of any present dock wish to avail themselves of this present subsidy and provide a larger dock the scheme will admit of their doing so. What we provide for in that case is that we may take the value of any existing dock, so far as it is useful for the purpose of enlargement, and include it in the cost of the new undertaking under which the subsidy provided by these resolutions may be paid. But as these docks have already received subsidies, we provide that what they have received shall be deducted, so that the effect will be that an existing dock may be rebuilt under the new scheme, but deducting any subsidies already paid. I think it will be found that this is a fair and reasonable arrangement. The matter is one of considerable detail, but I think I have said all that is necessary to indicate the general character of the proposed scheme.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister has spoken of a first, second and third class.


William Stevens Fielding: The first-class is a dock, which, while it is designed for general purposes, is also designed particularly to meet the case of a navy, and will have a maximum cost of $4,000,000; the subsidy will be three and a half per cent for 35 years. For the second or medium class of dock, the subsidy will be three and a half per cent for 25 years, with a maximum outlay of $2,500,000. For the third-class, which is the class established by the existing law, the subsidy will be three per cent for 20 years, with a maximum of $1,500,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the reason for discrimination in the length of time over which the guarantee extends?


William Stevens Fielding: In the case of the larger docks such as required for a navy, or "in any case where the outlay will be considerable and the risk very great, we are inclined to think that unless we increase the subsidy these docks will not be constructed. The smaller dock will find considerable to do in commercial business, but the larger dock will have to depend to a considerable extent on naval business.


Robert Laird Borden: The subsidy is an absolute one, irrespective altogether of earnings.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, the earnings go to the company.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose that matter has been carefully considered. But the conditions of this country at the end of 25 years might be such as to enable one of these docks to earn a very handsome return on the investment, apart altogether from the subsidy. I merely make that suggestion, which possibly might point to a different method of subsidizing. I do not
pretend to have considered the subject carefully, but it struck me that such a contingency ought to be taken into consideration.


William Stevens Fielding: The point is worthy of consideration. Experience has shown that these docks are not successful as purely commercial ventures. In Halifax there is an excellent dock, aided both by the Dominion government and by the city of Halifax, and although the aid at the time was supposed to be liberal, I am advised that it has not proven to be a profitable undertaking. Experience shows that these dry docks as a rule are not very profitable ventures, and unless they are liberally aided by government grants they will not be constructed at all.


Robert Laird Borden: In the construction of the largest size docks proposed, has the government taken into consideration the possibilities of an increase in the size of shipping during the next quarter of a century?


William Stevens Fielding: To a certain extent we have. The docks proposed here are larger than we would make for present day purposes ; but we are considering the future.


John Allister Currie: What is the size?


William Stevens Fielding: The minimum length of a first-class dock must be 900 feet at least; that is much larger than any docks we have hitherto built, and larger than any ships we have to-day in the Canadian trade.


John Allister Currie: There are ships on the Great Lakes over 700 feet long.


Mr CROSBY.: I suppose the valuation of the whole dock will be taken into account-in fixing the cost, less the $200,000 which is paid by the Dominion government as a subsidy?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, not necessarily the total cost of ,the existing dock, but so far as it might have a value in the enlargement, So far as that dock -would be useful when enlarged, the old work would count in the same way as the new; and then they would receive the full amount of the subsidy, if it is a first-class dock, for 35 vears, subject to the deductions, distributed over the period, of the amount that is already received.


Mr. CROSBY.: There would be some method of valuing the dock as it stands at present, and then the three and a half per cent on the present value, with the value of the further construction to extend it to 900 feet, and they would get the subsidy of three and a half per cent for thirty-five years, the present valuation of the dock being taken into account.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, that is in a measure correct. But it would not be the exact present value of the dock, but the value of so much of the dock as will be useful for the purpose of reconstruction. So far as the work is useful for a new dock, it will be treated in the same manner as a new dock, and the subsidy will be paid on the whole, less the deductions I have mentioned.


Adam Brown Crosby: The breaking up, and opening up of the old dock as a matter of fact would increase the value. Like a ship in distress, she is not as valuable as she is before she meets with her trouble. The breaking up of the dock for the purpose of extending it would increase the value of that dock.


William Stevens Fielding: It might be something less than _ the original cost. There would be a possibility of that being the case.


Adam Brown Crosby: There would be some method or means of getting a fair valuation, so that the persons extending the dock would have an opportunity of getting a fair return, as if they were constructing a new dock.	[DOT]


John Allister Currie: What width is it proposed to have these docks that are 900 feet long, and what depth.-


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will look at the resolution, section 3, he will find that dry-docks of the first-class are to have a clear length on bottom of 900 feet, a clear width of entrance 100 feet, and a depth at high water of 35 feet.


John Allister Currie: Does the hon. gentleman propose to build floating docks, or to have them built in this country? I think that this idea of a floating dock is altogether foolish for a country such as Canada, which is a civilized country. It is all right for the British admiralty to build floating docks and send them off to 1 the Bermudas or the Falkland islands but for a country like Canada to build a'dry-dock is to my mind extremely foolish What is supposed to be included in the i word dry-docks?' Does it just comprise a hole in the ground with gates, or are there any other works attached to it?	1


William Stevens Fielding: The several works for ] the repair of vessels described as repair works, but construction works or ship- . building works would probably not be ! deemed to be a dry-dock. A dry-dock with j capacity to deal with ships as described i here "would be entitled to come under the , operation of this Act, With regard to float- < ing docks_ it is only another case of doc- , tors differing. Some gentlemen, professing j to be well informed in such matters, tell , me that it is the most foolish thing in the f world to build a masonry dock	.


Adam Brown Crosby: '1 a	CURRIE. They tell you that in
:t Scotland, where they want to build floating 'f docks, haul them across here and make a r big profit.
j Mr. FIELDING. People are always ready v to attribute improper motives.
e . Mr. J- A. CURRIE. I am not attributing _ improper motives.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not mean the hon.
2 gentleman, but I refer to those who make 2 that suggestion. The floating dry-dock j men say that the contractors who want to , build masonry works always say that that l is the only kind of dry-dock to build. On j the other hand, reputable engineers say [ that floating docks are excellent for the purpose. Therefore, we propose to pay our money and take our choice.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is following a policy which is at least fifty years old in regard to these docks.
! The floating dock is all right enough for * the purpose of repairs, but the hon. gentleman must know that a dry-dock is now used for more purposes than the mere repairing of a ship. In fact, owing to the [DOT] change in the character of the docks in the United States, with the exception of two or three old ones on the Atlantic coast, ships are now built at the slips at the sides of the docks, and they are launched sideways. It is only at a few places in the old country, and at one or two places on the Atlantic coast in the United States that they continue to launch ships endways. To give the House an idea of the advantage of building a ship alongside of the dry-dock, I may say that when a ship is built to be launched by the stern or the head, in every measurement that is taken on that vessel from the plumb line, there has to be an allowance made. The doors have all to be hung on a slant, while when a ship is built alongside of the dry-dock and dropped in squarley, it is possible to plumb and true up everything about it by gravity. These are modern conditions, and for that reason I say that when this government are paying out money for dry-docks, it must be prepared to have modern slips such as they have in Germany and the United States, where they can build warships if they want to at the side of the dock and launch them into the dock sideways. The plant that has to be used at a dry-dock is the same as that used foi* ship-building. There is no need of having two yards, because the one can be used for two purposes. The amount that is proposed to be voted for this purpose is excessive; $4,000,090 is a tremendous amount of money to pay simply for a dry-dock. I feel satisfied, from my own knowledge and experience, that you can build three dry-docks of masonry work for that amount of money.


William Stevens Fielding: I doubt that.


John Allister Currie: I know what it coats, and my hon. friend does not know anything about it. I have seen tenders giving the actual cost of the work. Two docks I know, have been built, one 500 feet and the other 450 feet long, and the two were not worth a million dollars.


Mr. DANIEL.: What depth?


John Allister Currie: 25 feet.


John Waterhouse Daniel: These are 35 feet.


John Allister Currie: It does not matter; it is only so many more cubic feet of material. I think the sum is excessive, and I think that if the minister allows floating docks to be built in the old country and be brought over here, he is going to spend a lot of money to very little purpose.


William Stevens Fielding: The dock can only be subsidized for the amount that it costs, and $4,000,000 is the maximum cost. We will only pay the subsidy on the proved' cost. As to what my hon. friend has said with regard to floating docks, I do not presume to know anything about this matter myself, but engineers who profess to be authorities do not agree with the opinion which the hon. gentleman has expressed.


John Allister Currie: Who is your authority?


William Stevens Fielding: Messrs. Vickers Sons & Maxim, one of the most eminent firms of shipbuilders in the world, and they are proposing to build a floating dock in Montreal. I do not know v. hether they will do it or not.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Did net the British admiralty float a dock out to Bermuda?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, and the American authorities built one and took it to the Philippines. The dock that was taken to Bermuda in 1868 was broken up forty years afterwads. One of the difficulties we find is in obtaining definite information as to the life of a floating dock, and when the Bill comes before this House I propose to make an amendment with which I will not trouble the committee at present. We get conflicting opinions as to the life of such a dock. If we were satisfied that the life of a particular dry-dock is not great we would have to provide something in the nature of a sinking fund, but there is a fair amount of engineering authority which states that with proper management a floating dry-dock will last for seventy years. That matter is one that must have careful investigation. But my hon. friend makes a mistake if he thinks that this floating dock is a foolish thing.


John Allister Currie: I did not say that it was a foolish thing. Floating docks are all right in their place. If you are going to establish a dry-dock in a barbarous country or far away from civilization and mechanics such as in Manila or the Bermudas or at a point from which you may expect to move it again and take it to some other place, then, of course, the floating dry-dock is the proper thing to have. It would be a good plan no doubt to have a floating dry dock or two so that you could haul them aTound amongst the doubtful constituencies at election time. But, as far as the actual work of a dry-dock is concerned it should be at a fyted place where the cars could go alongside with material. Material now is very heavy and there must be an opportunity for taking the cars alongside of the dock.


Mr. BLAIN.: What proportion of this amount is traceable to the establishment of a Canadian navy?


William Stevens Fielding: I think that the larger dock or what I might call the first-class dock may be regarded as being attributable in some degree to the naval movement. The construction of a large dry-dock suitable for the largest vessels of the British navy would be regarded as desirable no doubt from the point of view of the naval question. While I do not sav that we would not have desired such a large dock without it, I do say that the naval movement has given additional reason why we should have large docks.
Mr. BOYCE I would like to ask the minister how this enactment will apply to applications for subsidies under the old regulations?


William Stevens Fielding: Of course the rate of subsidy for the smaller class of dock or a dock of the minimum cost would remain the same.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The second class?


William Stevens Fielding: The second class is a new class. A new application may be made, or if the dock has been constructed of a smaller class and they wish to enlarge it we will have power under this Act to permit them to do so.
Mr. BOYCE Assuming that the plans and specifications and all the obligations under the old law are complied with and the dock conforms to the second class, would that application be dealt \vith as an application for a subsidy under this or under the old Act?


William Stevens Fielding: Would that be an application to enlarge?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: No, an application for a dock that was going to be built.


William Stevens Fielding: I would not like to answer that question.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: About a year ago an application was made for a dry-dock subsidy, and the town of Sault Ste. Marie has passed a by-law granting certain aid. I understand that all the details under the old Act have been complied with. Are they entitled to the increased subsidy?


William Pugsley: The plans and specifications have not yet been approved.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand their project is not large enough to come within the .second-class, but I know very little about it.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It is a 650 feet dock.


William Pugsley: Is it 25 feet on the sill?


William Stevens Fielding: It has to comply with all the conditions.


George Halsey Perley: Can tht government authorize an unlimited number of docks under this resolution?


William Stevens Fielding: They could do so at any time for the last 25 years.


Frederick William Borden: What expert advice has the government had on the important question of properly framing these conditions set out in clauses 1, 2 and 3?


William Stevens Fielding: We naturally turned to the engineers of the Public Works Department, and to some extent of the Marine Department, and we have had occasion to make some inquiry of the admiralty. From these various sources we have been able to define the details.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The Minister of Public Works with some gusto stated that the plans for the Sault Ste. Marie dry-dock had not yet been approved by the department.
I have several times asked in the House as to this matter, and it was always going to be attended to. Will the minister let us know now' what the difficulty is. At the same time, and through the same solicitor a similar application was made for a subsidy by a Port Arthur firm which the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Conmee) was advocating, and the Minister of Public Works went up to turn the first sod of that dock. That application went through with flying colours, and people do suspect that the minister with certain other gentlemen is discriminating against the Sault Ste. Marie dry-dock, and in favour of the Port Arthur dry-dock by reason of certain political influences. _ There does seem to be a grain of truth in this. Will the minister explain if he can why the Sault Ste. Marie dry-dock specifications have not been approved w'hile the Port Arthur dry-dock, the application for which was made at the same time, has


Arthur Cyril Boyce: * already received a large subsidy, larger than was contemplated by the minister.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend be good enough to tell me who it is that has stated that the minister has been in fluenced by political considerations?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I did not say the minister had been influenced; I say it is reported that political considerations have had weight.


William Pugsley: Eeported by whom?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It is reported generally, and it has been conveyed to me as gossip and rumour.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. My hon. friend should not take street gossip as the foundation for assertions in this House. Any delay which has occurred is a result of the action of^ the company itself. The company submitted certain plans and specifications, and they afterwards desired I should not act upon these plans, because they wished to make an alteration, and that alteration has not yet been submitted to me for consideration.


Haughton Lennox: What are those floating docks constructed of?


William Stevens Fielding: Formerly of iron, and now of steel.


Haughton Lennox: What would it cost to tow a floating dock from the old country to Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: We have estimates of the relative cost of masonry docks and floating docks, and the cost of the floating dock would' naturally include delivery in Canada at the point at which it was to be erected.


Haughton Lennox: I should think it would be a costly undertaking to tow a floating dock across the Atlantic, and there should be some estimate.


William Stevens Fielding: I am told that in the modern method of construction it is .built in sections, brought out as ordinary freight and set up at the place it is to be established at. The old idea of towing may not have to be carried out, but before we make a contract all that will have to be looked into.


Mr.  J. A.@: CLtEBIE. Is it the policy of the government to decide where a dry-dock will be established, and where there is necessity for it, or are these docks to be erected in any old place at all where some Tom, Dick or Harry, may want to establish one?


William Stevens Fielding: The location has to be approved by the government on the report

of the Minister of Public Works. Any body has the right to go into the construction of a dry-dock, but he cannot get a subsidy until he has had the application approved and entered into the contract.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, resolution considered in committee, reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 229) to encourage the construction of Dry-docks.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
1.	Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, for the purposes hereinafter referred to, in addition to the sums authorized to be paid under the provisions of chapter 10 of the Acts of 1899, an Act respecting the city of Ottawa, and amending Act, chapter 45 of the Acts of 1903, the sum of forty thousand dollars annually, for a period of ten years from the first day of July, 1909, making a total annual payment during said period of one hundred thousand dollars; such additional sums to be paid into a chartered bank to be designated by the minister, to the credit of the Ottawa Improvement Commission, and to be by the commission expended for all or any of the purposes for which the commission is authorized by section 7 of said chapter 10, to expend sums placed at its credit.
2.	That the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund to the corporation of the city of Ottawa, as a contribution to the maintenance of the fire protection service of the corporation, the sum of fifteen "thousand dollars annually for a period of ten years from the first day of July, 1909, the first of such payments to be made as soon as may be after the passing of any Act founded on these resolutions, and the remaining nine annual payments to be payable in advance during the month of July in each year, the last payment to be made in the month of July, 1918.-Mr. Fielding.
William Stevens Fielding: It will be remembered that a few years ago parliament took the view that the national capital of Canada had a special claim upon us for consideration, and that not merely for the pleasing of the citizens of Ottawa, but as a matter of pride in the national capital, the government should contribute an annual sum for the improvement of the city. A body known as the Ottawa Improvement Commission was appointed 'and the government granted the sum of $60,000 per annum to the city of Ottawa, or rather to the Ottawa Improvement Commission. Arrangements were made whereby the city of Ottawa was represented on the commission, but the control was largely in the hands of the government through its
commissioners. The commission did very excellent work, and I think it will be admitted that within the space of a very few years a great improvement has been made. I think the success of the commission in beautifying the national capital has probably commended their work to the consideration of the House, and will render the House well disposed towards the extension of the aid which it is now proposed to grant. The sum we have hitherto granted is $60,000 per annum. It is only fair to say that in reality that was an additional grant of $45,000, because _prior to that time we had been .paying $15,000 to the city for fire protection and water. It is proposed now, in addition to the $60,000 which we have been paying.them, to add a sum of $40,000, making a grant of $100,000 per annum to be paid to the commission, and we also propose to pay the city $15,000 as we paid in former years for the fire and water service. The arrangements of the past have been pretty well understood. The operations, I think, have, on the whole, proved satisfactory and I am hopeful that the proposal to give this further aid for the beautifying of the national capital, will commend itself to the judgment of the House.


Adam Brown Crosby: I have no desire to offer any opposition, but in the city of Halifax we have a large amount of Dominion government property, somewhere between $5,000,000 and $8,000,000 worth, and I think it would be nothing but fair under the conditions that a grant of some kind should be made to the city of Halifax in connection with the keeping up and improving of streets there, the police, fire protection, and services of that kind. The Finance Minister is aware that a great portion of our very best water front is taken up now by the Dominion government and is exempt from taxation. This property was formerly owned by the imperial government, but it has now been handed over to the Canadian government, and I really think Halifax is entitled to some consideration on that account. The Finance Minister, knowing the situation as well as I do, will certainly sympathize with that request. We have a large street mileage, and do a great deal to keep up the streets, 'sidewalks, etc., and everything of tlhat kind is done without assistance from the government, as they are exempt from taxation of all kinds, even for fire purposes. The city is well governed, and well prepared to give every accommodation to people there and this government should certainly give some assistance.


William Stevens Fielding: An appeal for the city of Halifax naturally enlists my sympathy. We are doing this for Ottawa not merely to please our good friends the citizens of

Ottawa but because Ottawa is our national capital. Once we depart from that principle and grant assistance to Halifax then a dozen other cities will claim like assistance.


Adam Brown Crosby: There is no other like Halifax.


William Stevens Fielding: To use a slang expression, there are others; it is not the only pebble on the beach. We can justify to a moderate extent a generous grant for the beautifying of the national capital because it is the capital, but once we get away from that principle and undertake to deal with other cities my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) will discover that he has a claim for some city up in his constituency which he would assure us was as important as Halifax. Of course he would be wrong, but he would urge it. I do not want to express any opinion that would govern us in the future, but so far as I can see the reason we give for a grant to Ottawa would not apply to any other city in the Dominion. It is because Ottawa is the capital that we give the grant. Just at present Halifax is not the capital-it may become so at some future time.


Samuel Hughes: I have never asked for any favour for my county, but the argument advanced for an expenditure of money here is not alone that it is the capital but because the civil service and the government buildings and many government institutions and persons are exempt from taxation here and the city has to maintain the usual civic services. If the government has property in Halifax which is a burden to the taxpayers in that city and does not contribute any taxation, the electors of Victoria and Haliburton will be only too ready to say that the government should do something as an equivalent to their taxes.


William Stevens Fielding: We have it in all parts of Canada.


Adam Brown Crosby: Will the hon. gentleman tell me another city in Canada, outside of Ottawa, that has $8,000,000 worth of government property? Will he name one with $4,000,000?


William Stevens Fielding: I hope my hon. friend will not claim that Halifax has too much Dominion property. I have sometimes tried to get more for it.


Adam Brown Crosby: The hon. gentleman did not do it, it was imperial property and the imperial government handed it over. If this government had to purchase it I am inclined to think we would not have got so much. The hon. gentleman has said that there are other cities that have the same claim.


William Stevens Fielding: 


William Stevens Fielding: I said they would urge that they had.


Adam Brown Crosby: That is a mistake. I ask him to name another city that has $4,000,000 worth. This government did not pay for the property I spoke of. We have an armoury there that cost $300,000 to $400,000. It was not constructed by this government. I do not know anything that was built by them, except one elevator, towards which we had to contribute $55,-
000.	The city had to come up here and offer $55,000 before they could get the government to stir the Conservative government. They gave us an elevator, but that grain elevator was burned down and the present government offered to put up another one for $55,000. It might as well not have been built for it has never been much good to us. In fact I intended to ask the government to give us back our $55,000 because they got it under false pretences. It was understood that the railway company was going to put a terminus there but they have not done so. If there are any other cities in the Dominion that have the same claim, as Halifax, I am sure the people of Halifax will be delighted to contribute as they have contributed in the past to other enterprises in Canada. We do not come here begging for anything. My hon. friend, the Finance Minister, said there were hundreds of other cities who have got as much right to consideration as Ottawa.


William Stevens Fielding: I said they think they have, not that they had.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am not asking what other cities think, I am asking the Finance Minister if he thinks that we have a claim to some consideration or not?


William Stevens Fielding: I think this is a good Bill.


Adam Brown Crosby: Yes, it is a good Bill to build up Ottawa. You started with $60,000, and goodness knows where you are going to stop. Next year you may be asking for $200,000. I am not complaining of Ottawa getting anything. It seems to be getting everything, and in a short time there will be no other place except Ottawa where we will be-able to spend a cent. I claim that Halifax is entitled to some consideration. The property is there, we give you every convenience, we have a well governed city, and we invite any of you to come down there and see us. We would like to see the Prime Minister there. The people would be very kind to Ijim if he came, notwithstanding^ that on many things they might not agree with him. But they are a kind hearted people and will give him a good reception. We also give you good streets, good sidewalks, a good police force, every thing in fact that we can have in a well governed city.


Wilfrid Laurier: Everything good except the representation.


Adam Brown Crosby: Now, if my hon. friend the Prime Minister thinks this claim is not good representation, I will tell the people when I go back what he says, and I am afraid his reception will not be quite so good as if he had never said it. I hope I am making a fair claim, and that if the Minister of Finance is not in sympathy with it, that the Prime Minister will be, because he has been in Halifax many times, and I hope he will be there again.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Adam Brown Crosby: I could describe the property, but I do not want to take up the time of the House. I could show you that we have a property worth over $8,000,000, and, therefore, I think we are entitled to some consideration.


Haughton Lennox: I would like to call the attention of the Finance Minister to a certain circumstance which has come under my observation. I presume this grant includes the driveway east of Rockcliffe and extending in the direction of the rifle range, does it not?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, that is part of the work.


Haughton Lennox: Well, I have observed that there is a retaining wall some little distance beyond Rockcliffe, and that it has been built of wood, a good deal of which is decayed. Now, it does not seem to me that that is a judicious expenditure of money. Stone is in abundance down there, and I think that when work of that kind is being executed it ought to be executed in a permanent way so that it will not require to be rebuilt in a short time. Building with wood is in itself a pretty expensive matter. I have noticed that several of the logs used in building the wall are partly decayed, and they must have been in that condition when they were put in.


Wilfrid Laurier: Was that wood put in by the commission?


Haughton Lennox: The walls would be built, I presume, by 'the Improvement Commission.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think so.


Haughton Lennox: I am referring to the driveway extending along the shore to the rifle Tanges. Certainly the road has been built recently by the Improvement Commission and I venture to say that anybody who will take the pains to look at that retaining wall will see that the timber could not have been in proper condition when iit was put in. More than that, I 3ubmit that it is not a judicious expenditure of money to build it of wood at all. I think that whatever we are doing in the way of improvement ought to be of a permanent character, something that will not require to be renewed in a few years.


William Stevens Fielding: I will see that the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) is called to the attention of the commissioners. I am inclined to agree with him in what he has said and I shall see that it receives attention.


Robert Laird Borden: I went over that portion of the road with a member of the commission who pointed out to me the work that the commission had done in that particular place to prevent the sliding away of the bank into the river. It had been done by a system of drainage and not by a system of putting in timber. If I remember correctly, he said that before the commission took charge of the road, there had been some work done in the way my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) mentions, but if I am correct, he told me that they had not done work of that kind, having confined their efforts to a system of drainage which he said had been very successful, as the landslides which had occurred in the past had been almost entirely, if not altogether prevented. I think on the whole, the work of the commission has been very good.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: That is so far as
my observation goes, I do not profess to be very competent to judge. I say, however, that they have not been altogether successful in their ideas of landscape gardening. To take Strathoona park for example, I think there is too much concrete in sight there, and too many little scattered bushes instead of the system that is usually followed in landscape, gardening, of massing large clumps of shrubs together in an artistic way. Any one who happens to look at Strathcona park will see little shrubs not gathered together in clumps, but dotted all over the place, presenting what does not seem to me to be as good an appearance as it might otherwise be. I think it might be a judicious expenditure for the commission to get sometimes the services of an expert landscape gardener in doing work of that kind. So far as the structural part is concerned, the commission has so far as I know, and so far as I am able to judge done very excellent work in a very inexpensive way.


Haughton Lennox: The matter I Tefer to is this. When you go a short distance up from the grandstand at Rockcliffe where the cars stop in the early part of the season, and diverge from the old road and get onto the new driveway, you see a part that is kept from sliding away by a system of logs in line with the roadway and with cross I logs to hold them together. These logs of [DOT] decayed wood have evidently been put

there for the purpose of keeping the earth from sliding down into the river. That, I would assume was part of the driveway, and that I would assume, I do not think there is much douht about it, would be built by the Improvement Commission. I submit it was an injudicious expenditure of money. I do not propose to press that further to-night, but before leaving the subject, I would point out, as further evidence, that surmounting that retaining wall is a metal guard rail, to my mind, of a very suitable character, and all a part of the same scheme as I understand. But, unless there was very great haste required to make that connection, I do not understand the reason for making that of timber. As I have said, there is ample rock, and the tendency now is to build such constructions of concrete.


Robert Laird Borden: It was only an impression on my part that another system had been adopted. It may be, as the hon. member has said, that this is the work of the commission, but I know that at some portion of that road it was pointed out to me that the prevention of landslides had been accomplished-or an attempt had been made to accomplish it-by means of a system of drainage. I remember the point to which my hon. friend refers. It would seem from his statement that it is the work of the commission.


Mr. JAMESON.: How much has been paid out to the Ottawa Improvement Commission? Also I would like to know whether there is a maximum amount fixed beyond which the government will not pay. Also, has the government had under consideration the creation of Ottawa into a federal district, and the disfranchisement of public servants? There is an opinion in certain parts of the country that it would be well to follow the American example and that our capital should be a federal district, and should be represented by the Prime Minister from time to time.


William Stevens Fielding: The sums expended by the Ottawa Improvement Commission from the beginning of their operations down to the end of last year-calendar year, I take it-were as follows:
Construction	$645,750	00Maintenance	111,181	01Other expenditures	
26*128	79Purchase of property.. ..	29,259	46
Redemption of debentures. 128,730 00
.	.	$941,049 26
Total (including redemption of debentures).. 941,749 00
These are figures which the hon. member will find in ' Hansard ', more in detail, as I gave them at an earlier stage in answer to a question. With regard to making a federal district of Ottawa, that has Mr. LENNOX.
occasionally occupied our attention, but I am bound to say that the idea has not found general favour. There is a point of marked difference between Washington and Ottawa which adds to the difficulty of such a plan. Washington is a residential city simply, but Ottawa is and, while we have the magnificent power available near the city, must continue to be, an industrial centre, and such a city is rather unwilling to give up its franchise. The idea has occasionally engaged our attention, but it would be incorrect to say that our very grave attention has been given to it. I do not think that the citizens of Ottawa would view it with favour. However, the idea is well worth considering.


Clarence Jameson: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) has not stated whether there is a maximum sum up to which the government intend to pay?


William Stevens Fielding: No, the Ottawa Commission have, from time to time, made plans of their own, but we have only approved of them so far as our appropriations would enable us to do so. The only limitation the government has fixed is that provided by the Acts hitherto passed and this resolution. If the commissioners have schemes involving the expenditure of more money, they must come to this parliament and receive approval at a later stage.


Samuel Hughes: In regard to beautifying the capital, I am sure the Prime Minister has noted some of the industrial establishments of the city belching forth a great deal of smoke and a great deal of useful fuel, which is very bad for the clothes-lines all over the city. Has he ever suggested to the Improvement Commission the advisability of having smoke consumers placed on these tall chimneys in the vicinity of the Chaudiere and elsewhere? In England, as the First Minister knows, there is no such thing as one of these chimneys to be seen in any part of the country.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think the Ottawa Improvement Commission have control over either the tall chimneys or the clothesi-lines. With the immense power available in the Ottawa river and its tributaries, I should think its use would probably diminish the evil to which the hon. member has called attention. It should not be so serious in the future as in the past, and the clothes-lines will have a better chance.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 230) respecting the city of Ottawa.
Motion agreed t-o, and Bill read the first time.


BOUNTIES ON IRON AND STEEL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into committee on certain proposed resolutions respecting bounties. He said: The Act respecting the granting of bounties on iron and steel, as respects the greater part of the bounties, that is to say: those that are paid on pig iron, puddled bars and steel ingots, will expire on the 31st of December next, and the parties interested have had ample notice, therefore, of the time when these bounties will cease to be payable. But there is one item of the steel bounties not limited in time, and that is the bounty paid on the manufacture of rods. We have thought it desirable therefore, to introduce an Act to repeal that particular bounty, but, as there has been no previous notice we propose that the bounty should cease on 1st of July, 1911, thus giving them six months notice beyond the time when the other bounties will expire.
John Allister Currie: Will the hon. minister please explain the last clause?


William Stevens Fielding: The bounties are only payable on rods manufactured for the purpose of being manufactured into wire. All bounties cease on 30th of June except that, if they have actually made and sold rods prior to that date payment may be made after 30th of June. That is the effect of the arrangement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and resolution was considered in committee, reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 231) respecting bounties on iron and steel made in Canada.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding: 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.
William Stevens Fielding: This is a motion for Committee of Ways and Means for the purpose of moving the resolution to be found on page 753 of the Votes and Proceedings respecting tariff reductions. In committee I shall move the resolution.


Robert Laird Borden: I wanted to say a few words on this motion; I did not know the minister was going on.


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. gentleman prefers to postpone it, I have no objection.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not wish to speak at great length. I would go on with it now, except that I have not my papers here.


William Stevens Fielding: Then we will take it up at some time to-morrow. I withdraw my motion.


WATER AND WATER-POWER IN RAILWAY BELT, BRITISH COLUMBIA.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 187) to confirm and declare the rights of the Crown with respect to water and waterpower, and relating to the diversion, acquisition and use of water in the railway belt in British Columbia.
On section 3,
Frank Oliver: I move the amendment of which notice has been given to strike out section 3 as it stands at the present time, and substitute the following:
This Act applies to all lands within the railway belt in the province of British Columbia as herein defined:	Provided that
nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any riparian rights or rights to water in or appurtenant to those lands described in section 11 of the terms of union between the Dominion of Canada and British Columbia as held under pre-emption rights or by Crown grant, or to affect any riparian rights or rights to water in or appurtenant to lands which having been heretofore granted by the Crown in the right of Canada are not now vested in the said Crown.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to know what those rights are that are reserved.


Frank Oliver: They cover all existing riparian rights, and the reservation that is expressed here is for the purpose of leaving at the disposition of the Crown all such rights as are not thereby included, it being the policy to deal with water rights separate from land rights, to divide water rights from the land rights. That is the purpose.


John Allister Currie: This Bill was before the House the other night. Has the minister thought over any of the amendments suggested at that time, and does he propose bringing any of them forward?


Frank Oliver: The amendment now under consideration was proposed when the Bill was up for consideration previously, and it was placed on the ' Hansard ' so that members of the House would have an opportunity of considering it. I have no doubt it has been fully considered, and perhaps it will not be necessary to diseusd it at great length.


Hugh Guthrie: I am one of those who took exception to the latter portion of clause 4. I think that the proposed amendment to clause 3 will meet my objection, my objection being that the Bill sought to take away common law rights of riparian proprietors. I think this amendment properly protects those rights. But section 4 will have to be amended.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not understand why this legislation should be rushed through now. There must be something behind all this that is not disclosed. Here is a case pending in the Privy Council to decide what the rights of these people are as between the province and the Dominion. It has been decided by the Exchequer Court, decided by the Supreme Court, and leave of appeal granted the other day by the Privy Council in England where it will be decided in a few months more. Why in the world at this stage of the session is this Bill to be rushed through? It makes one very suspicious. I can't see how the public needs require any such Bill as this to be passed at this time. The Dominion government own some land out there, they do not own all the land in the railway belt, as was clearly proved on the discussion two or three days ago. They only own some land that has not been sold, and the Dominion has no right to say anything about these water-rights on land that has been alienated. Why should this Bill be pressed to make a disposition of those disputed rights while the other suit is pending? It is a strange position for tlie government to take. I am not satisfied until I hear some more reasons. There must be, according to the common expression, a nigger in the wood pile somewhere. This is not legislation that appeals to me as being at all necessary. Somebody or other wants to get an advantage of somebody else, and the government, in my opinion, is trying to help somebody to get the advantage ahead of the decision of the Privy Council. If that is an unfounded suspicion, it can be removed by a frank and clear statement of the reason of this legislation other than appears on the face of it. The government must know it. We have a right to the information without being called upon to make charges against any minister of the Crown. It is not necessary for me to say that, because I have no charge to lay, I shall not get the jnformation I am entitled to. But I suspect, and have cause to suspect, iby the character of this legislation, by the facts disclosed, by the judgment of the Exchequer Court which was read the other night, that there is some ulterior motive in this legislation, and I am not prepared without further information to vote for this Bill; on the contrary, it seems to me that we would, be justified in vigorously opposing it, even for days, if necessary. It is not quite fair to the opposition or to the people of the country for a contentious piece of legislation like this to be brought in when hon. gentlemen have begun packing their trunks, and getting ready for prorogation. This is not the way to get prorogation. This is the most contentious legislation that could be brought in involving as it does a ques-Mr. GUTHRIE.
tion of provincial rights, and trying to anticipate the decision of the courts of justice. I am bound to protest against the government arranging a day for prorogation, and then rushing in legislation of this kind, and expecting it to go through, because the members want to get home on a certain day. I am prepared to unpack my trunk and to send word to peopie with whom I have made engagements telling them that the public business requires me to stay longer rather than submit to legislation of this character. I cannot see how this government needs this legislation before next session. I have had no reason given to me why any such legislation should be brought forward at this stage of the session. It would be much more intelligent legislation if we should pass it after the Privy Council has decided what the rights of the parties are in the case that is now pending for decision. I would urge the Minister of the Interior to say if on reflection it is not a reasonable proposition that was made by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), that this legislation should stand over until next session when we would be able to consider it in a more satisfactory way, assuring the minister, as I do, that I will assist him in passing legislation which would properly deal with the question. It need not be a party question, but it makes it a party question when it is brought in as it has been in the last few days of the session, and when the day of prorogation has been agreed upon. I would appeal to the minister to allow this to stand until next session.


Frank Oliver: If it were a fact that this legislation bad been brought in at such a date as my hon. friend has hinted at I would think that it would be very unfortunate. But there are times when there is urgency and when it is necessary to bring in legislation at a very late date.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the urgency?


Frank Oliver: It is not the case that this legislation was brought in at any such date as my hon. friend has suggested.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: When was the Bill read the second time?


Frank Oliver: More than two weeks ago;
I think three weeks ago. It was on the order paper, printed and in the hands of members for a considerable time. It has been the subject of consideration for two or three weeks, and the statement of my hon. friend is not fair in suggesting that there is any attempt to force an unconsidered Bill through the House or in suggesting that there' is a reason for suspecion that there is an ulterior motive in connection with this Bill. The purpose of the Bill has been explained before, and there is no reason why it should not be explain-

ed again if it is necessary, but I beg to assure my hon. friend that there is urgency for the passage of this Bill for the protection of large and material interests. There is nothing concealed in the Bill, and there is no intention of using the Bill to the advantage of one interest or another. It is a common interest that requires protection, and it is the duty of parliament to protect that interest. The government, being aware of that fact, asks parliament to give the necessary authority by means of this legislation. As to whether it is necessary to pass this legislation, the jurisdiction which has heretofore been exercised by the province of British Columbia in Tegard to the water rights in the railway belt has been declared by the Exchequer Court, a decision which has been sustained by the Supreme Court, to be vested in the Dominion of Canada; in other words the water rights which have been granted by British Columbia, have, under that decision, no legal standing at the present time. These water rights involve value to the extent of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I submit that it is not proper to leave these rights unprotected by proper authority. We ask parliament to pass this legislation so that the rights which are now in question as the result of the decision of the Exchequer and Supreme Courts may be confirmed and maintained. That, it seems to me, is a matter of urgency and necessity. There is no infringement of provincial or any other rights and there is no advantage to be gained by one right over another.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What would be the great calamity if we did not pass this Bill until next session?


Frank Oliver: As I understand the matter, the man who holds a water right under a grant from British Columbia, if that right is questioned either by force or by law, is not in a position to maintain his right It has no legal standing, I think my hon. friend will agree that that is a very serious position to leave a very large and important matter in.


Hugh Guthrie: It has stood that way for a year now.


Frank Oliver: The fact that it has stood that way for a considerable length of time is all the greater reason why if should not stand any longer. It leaves the man who has a serious interest in the country at the mercy of the pirate, and as far as I have any responsibility in regard to the administration of the legislation of this country that is a condition that is certainly abhorrent. to me and it is my business to protect that interest.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Has it not occurred to the hon. gentleman that- the Privy Council may decide that he is the pirate?


Frank Oliver: Not at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Because it is the question who is the pirate, who owns the boat, that has to be decided by the Privy Council. That case is before the courts and we are anticipating the decision. The hon. gentleman may find that he is the pirate in this question by reason of the passing of this Bill.


Frank Oliver: That is not dealing with the point at all. The question that is before the Privy Council is a question between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. The question I wias alluding to was the question as between the legitimate property owner and the pirate who may attack his private ownership.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You are going to undertake to say which is which, and you have no right to do that.


Frank Oliver: Not at all. There is no need of any such thing. The Supreme Court has declared that the jurisdiction rests upon the Dominion government. Then, I say that that decision having been rendered, if a man's property is unduly exposed to piratical attack because of the lack of any action on the part of this parliament, this parliament is responsible.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the Supreme Court were the court of final resort the hon. gentleman would be quite right, but what I say is that the minister by letting the Bill stand will have the advantage of the decision instead of looking upon this Bill as giving a decision. But what makes me suspicious is that the decision quoted by the hon. gentleman is under review and is not jurisprudence until the highest court pronounces upon it.


Mr. CONGDON.: There is another reason which requires this Bill to become law immediately. In British Columbia more than in the eastern provinces, the value of water rights is appreciated; a value not merely for power purposes, but also for irrigation purposes, and this plan is nothing but an endeavour with respect to the land belonging to the federal government, to make the same divorce between water rights and realty as is made in the British Columbia Act of 1892 in respect to the same things. I wish to point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster), who thinks there is no reason for immediate action, that it is most undesirable that homesteaders should be permitted to go in there and initiate what will lead to a homesteader obtaining the same rights they would in other parts of Canada, and not having the water rights separated, as is usually done in British Columbia. If you leave the law as at present, the mo-I ment any one homesteads, when he makes

good his claim for the homestead he is entitled to a grant, not reserving any of these water rights as is sought by this Act. Sections 4 and 5 of this Act practically accomplish this when they prevent the grant which is made in the ordinary way to a homesteader or to any one who buys land, carrying the water rights. He must apply for these water rights and get them by virtue of this Act, adopting under the federal authority exactly the law which prevails in British Columbia in this respect.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Supreme Court and the Exchequer Court have decided that this right of the Dominion government ceases as soon as the lands are granted to the settler. The hon. gentleman, therefore, is under a misapprehension when he says that the settlers get no water rights. When the land passes over to the settlers, it may be that the province has the right' to butt in, but what right has the Dominion government to interfere if it belongs to the province? That is why I think there i~ an Ethiopian in the lumber pile. The Minister of the Interior has no right with regard to these lands at all so far as they have been granted to settlers, and the rights of the settlers will be interfered with by this legislation. Although the decision of the Supreme Court and the Exchequer Court is favourable to the Dominion government to the extent that it declares that the Dominion government has control over its own land, yet so far a3 the lands that pass to the settlers are concerned, the decision is that the Dominion government has ceased to have any jurisdiction or control over them and that they belong to the province. There is an undue rush to pass this legislation, and I cannot see what the reason for it is.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: I must have been very confused in my statement, because my hon. friend took from it the very opposite meaning to that which I intended. This Act does not interfere with any homesteader who has now acquired his rights. It is' merely providing that if to-morrow, after this Act is passed, a homesteader comes in to take up land, he takes it without taking water rights, and if he or any one else wants the water rights, he must get them by specific grant. Sections 4 and 5 are identical with the sections in chapter 47 of the British Columbia Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: British Columbia has the authority to say what shall be done directly the lands are alienated.
'Mr. CONGDON. My hon. friend is under a misapprehension with regard to that, because, both by common law and statute law, this parliament alone can legislate with regard to Dominion property. The


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: only thing done by the transfer from British Columbia to the federal government was to transfer the administration; the title still remains in His Majesty. Before the transfer the administration was exercised by British Columbia, and now it is exercised by the federal parliament. The moment that became federal property under the first clause of the section of the British North America Act it was made subject to the legislation of .this parliament, and surely this parliament alone can legislate with regard to it.


John Allister Currie: Have any rights been cancelled by order in council within the last six or nine months since this fight has been on?


Frank Oliver: There have been no water rights cancelled; there is no intention to cancel any water rights. The intention of this Bill is to authorize the government to confirm water rights which have been granted by the provincial government.


John Allister Currie: Have any w'ater rights been granted by the Dominion government which were claimed by parties under a previous order in council of this government or the government of British Columbia?


Frank Oliver: There have been no water rights granted by this government, because this government had no legislation under which water rights could be granted. It is now asking for legislation that would enable it to give grants for water rights.


John Allister Currie: Have any lands, or water rights, which are in dispute, and which this legislation would heal, been applied for by any company or party?


Frank Oliver: There are many applications for land in British Columbia, but there are no applications for land that have anything to do with this Bill so far as I am aware. This is a Bill dealing with water rights and not with land, and it is for the purpose of enabling the government to segregate the water rights from the land rights so that there may be an administration of water rights separate from land rights so far as these water rights have not yet passed into private hands. There is the other authority that is asked for tc give the sanction of such right as the Dominion has to the water grants which have been given by the province of British Columbia, which water grants at present are without legal sanction owing to the decision of the Exchequer Court and the Supreme Court, but to which, under that decision, this parliament may give its sanction so long as that decision remains unreversed. We think it is desirable that that should be done. That is the purpose of the Bill.

the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has taken some interest in the case of a water-power, near the city of New Westminster. A company had a grant of water from the province of British Columbia, or from this government, it neglected to secure a title by having a survey made, and a short time ago another corporation stepped in and obtained an order in council from this government dividing those water-rights with them. I would like to know if that is correct, because it would be interesting to know what particular rights this Bill is going to adjust.


Hugh Guthrie: I went into that case when the Bill was up before, but I am assured by the minister that the clause will be inserted protecting all rights in litigation.


John Allister Currie: Why not tell us about the case?


Hugh Guthrie: You can read about it in Thursday's 'Hansard.' I understand that such a clause is to be inserted. My difficulty with the Bill is to understand just what it does mean, and having heard the minister on two occasions and had conversations with him, I must confess that [ know about as little about it now as when I first read it. If what the minister says is his real desire, is merely, in the first place, to declare that these water-rights are vested in the Dominion of Canada, I do not see any objection to that being added by a very simple clause. If it does no good it can do no harm; if the Judicial Committee decides they are not vested in Canada it is invalid, and if the Judicial Committee decides they are vested, this Act cannot grant any greater vesting than now exists.


John Allister Currie: Why make the declaration?


Hugh Guthrie: 

jection to that being done, I think it should be done and that the minister's reasons for doing it are good reasons, except that it seems rather absurd after waiting a year after the Exchequer Court's decision to say that the Bill must be pushed now when we know that we will have a decision from the Judicial Committee probably in from three to five months at most,
I do not appreciate the difficulty mentioned by the hon. member from the Yukon (Mr Congdon) in the case of grants to settlers that would give water-rights. This Bill is not necessary for that purpose, a simple clause in the grant reserving the water-rights would be sufficient. The minister wants to segregate the rights to water from the ordinary rights. Let him by a simple clause in the grant do that. No difficulty could arise. I must repeat the position I took a few nights ag:o that a Bill of this importance and intricacy, involving such serious consequences, should not- be rushed at this stage of the session and no harm could be caused by allowing it to wait until the fall. If the minister thinks that is impossible I would ask him to limit the Act and put in simple clauses merely to give a declaration of Dominion rights and to confirm all other rights. If we do that then the financial interests of which he spoke will not feel that they are in jeopardy, they will feel secure and development can*go on


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: I think the objects of sections 4 and 5 are to enable the minister to make the reservation in the grant of which the hon. gentleman has spoken but without that the minister is bound, when he comes to give a grant, to give the water and everything else belonging to the realty. This section merely declares that the water is in the Crown distinct from the other and can only be granted not by an ordinary grant of realty but by a grant as provided in section 6.


Mr. GOODEVE.: I certainly agree with the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) that this Bill might be left over until another session. I cannot agree with the explanation given by the hon. Minister of the Interior when ihe says that the legislation is only desired to confirm grants that have already been issued by the British Columbia government. If that is his desire, it would be a simple act to confirm those rights. The member for the Yukon (Mr. Congdon) has stated that the idea of the minister was to segregate the water from the land. Now, as I read the 'decisions of both the Exchequer Court and the Supreme Court, they have distinctly affirmed the principle that the moment the land is alienated from the Dominion it comes under the jurisdiction of the prov-Mr. GTJTHKIE.
ince of British Columbia, so that by se-grating the water from the land, the minister would simply be complicating the matter further instead of straightening it out. If he segregated the water as is suggested, and endeavoured to give certain wrater-rights and privileges he would find that they were ultimately void, for as soon as the land was alienated they would come under the jurisdiction of the provincial government only. Further it has been wisely pointed out that it will be only a short time before the final decision of the Privy Council in this case is given. Now, what would be the position, as has been well pointed out by the member from the Yukon (Mr. Congdon) if the minister undertook to make certain grants, and the decision of the Privy Council went against him. If the Privy Council should decide that the jurisdiction is vested not in the Dominion, but in the province of British Columbia, instead of protecting vested tights the minister by this legislation would only be complicating them. So looking at it from these three standpoints I think that instead of being an advantage to the people at large, or to the people who are interested in these water-powers, it would have the effect of creating further difficulties. It has been well pointed out by the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) that there are large interests there, and if it is the minister's desire that their rights should be confirmed it [DOT]Would be a simple matter to bring in a Bill giving effect to that and wait until the decision of the Privy Council is given before bringing in a Bill of this kind. That would be a simple matter, and it would meet with the approval of the people of British Columbia, and of the people who have rights there.


Frank Oliver: This Bill is absolutely as simple as my hon. friend (Mr. Goodeve) suggests it should be.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It does not read that way.


Frank Oliver: I am not responsible for my hon. friend's understanding of the Bill. There are just three points in the Bill. One is to declare the right of the Dominion in the water, and to separate the Tight in the water from the right in the land. The isecond is to confirm the rights which have been granted by the province of British Columbia, and the third is to take authority to grant other rights. The purpose of the one having reference to the segregation of the water from the land is in pursuance of the policy of a conservation of the water resources of this 'country to which the whole country has given its approval, and no place more

strongly than in this parliament. That is to say, the right in the water should be hept as closely as possible under the control of the Crown and it should not pass from the Crown's control to private control except for purposes designated by and satisfactory to the Crown. In regard to the confirmation of the rights granted by the province of British Columbia, it is Conceded that this is necessary where those Tights have not already been confirmed by the Dominion. In the case of several of the large undertakings in the railway belt, "where large amounts of money were involved, the parties seemed their authority from the provincial government, and came to the Dominion government and got a, quitclaim, or a grant of the Dominion nght, but the small holders did not do that. The small holder was content with the right which he had got from the province of British Columbia, and unless we get this authority we are asking for today, the small holder will not be in the position that the large holder is in, but will be absolutely at the mercy of the pirate, whereas the large holder is protected by the quitclaim he got from the Dominion government. Now, I think it is only fair that the small holder should be put m the same position as the large holder, that what he failed to get by not coming to the Dominion government we should give him by the authority of this parliament. Then in regard to the granting of rights for the future, no man is going to invest his money in the development of water-power in the railway belt, in new enterprises, unless he gets a security of title. Now, I suppose that neither the province of British Colum-,bla' nor anybody in the Dominion wishes to hold back the development of the water resources of that railway belt for one moment. It is desirable that capital should be secured, and if it is desired to introduce capital in any enterprise at present, there is no security of title, and no secure title can be got.
Does the hon. minister say that capital would be invested in any right granted by the Dominion, when in view of the case now before the courts capitalists realize that any grant so made might be upset by_ the Privy Council, and particularly m view of the fact that two courts have already given a decision distinctly affirming the principle that the moment the land is alienated from the Dominion it comes under the jurisdiction of the province.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And the water too. Mr. GOODEVE. In doing what you propose you would put us in a position where capital would not invest.


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend had allowed me to finish my statement I think I could have shown him that I was absolutely right. However, he has brought out the point I wanted to make more clearly than I could. At the present time my hon. friend will admit that there is no secure title to any new enterprise that desires to enter upon the development of waterpower in British Columbia, because until the question is decided by the Privy Council, the provincial grant is of no value, and this government has no authority to give a grant. Therefore, development is tied up, lacking the security of investment. But, if this Bill is passed, and this government is clothed with authority to issue a grant, then an enterprise can come and get the authority of this government, and go to the province and get its quitclaim, and it would be an absolutely secure title, just as some years ago the enterprises, my hon. friend has spoken of, went to the provincial government, got their grants, and came to the Dominion, and got the grant of such rights as the Dominion was able to give. That is what was done in that case, and the people have acquired a title no matter which way the decision of the Privy Council goes. If this legislation is passed any new enterprise can be put in the same position, and development in the railway belt will not be retarded. But without this legislation there can be no security in the development of water-enterprises whatever. I humbly submit that in the interests of British Columbia, in the interests of the railway belt, it is desirable that there should not be a retardment of development by keeping back the possibility of giving a clear title to any capital that may be invested.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: The minister has just stated that the government has already confirmed certain grants issued by the province to get a quitclaim. That is, of the larger holders, but they are proceeding further in this Act. They are undertaking to make a grant by the Dominion which the minister himself has admitted would not secure a perfect title and the holder of which would have to go to the province to get a quitclaim.	That is,
he would have to go to the province first and then come to the Dominion, or vice versa. Why undertake all that at this time when, within a very short time, a decision will be handed down under which everybody will know to whom they should apply?


Mr. MACDONALD.: A friend of mine who is interested in this subject has called my attention to this Bill. I have listened carefully to the discussion. If the minister's object is to obtain a confirmation of rights, then, I submit, that the language

used in section 4 is not very apt-not as lawyers usually read it. The first portion of section 4 vests in the Crown, the rights to the water ' unless and until and except only so far as some right therein, or to the use thereof, inconsistent with the right of the Crown, and which is not a public right or a right common to the public, is established.' Now, that language, especially the phrase ' is established ' is not found usually in public statutes and is not one of which we can get a ready definition in any judicial dictionary known to me or in any law relating to the interpretation of statutes. Where you have a law passed confirmatory of deeds of title, the statement that such grants at a certain time, setting them out in general language and declaring these to be confirmed, is sufficient, unless there is a desire to becloud the question. The other is entirely unnecessary for the object if the object be merely to confirm the rights regularly obtained in the past. There have been grants I understand made by the Crown under order in council. I am told that- they are in the nature of quitclaim. But, so far as I have had experience in dealing with grants from the Crown, I see nothing but quitclaims in them. The Crown never guarantees titles to any grantee, but simply gives the grantee whatever right is there, and this means nothing more in law or in fact than a quitclaim deed passing between individuals. If 'the right to grant these quitclaim deeds, to use the ordinary phraseology, has been exercised in the past, I do not see the point of my hon. friend from Yukon (Mr. Congdon) about this legislation being necessary to give the minister power to make these grants, because that power has been exercised in the past. And as a matter of policy, it would seem right that a clause should be passed confirming rights which have been regularly obtained from the authorities whom the public had a right to suppose had the power to give these in the past. The whole question as to water-powers is under appeal, leave to appeal having been obtained from the Privy Council. The Privy Council sits in July, and decision will be given before we meet again in October. The policy of parliament in the past has not been to go in and assume a right to exercise any power affecting property or civil rights while these matters were sub judice.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As an ordinary individual, the Crown could not do it. If the Crown were an,ordinary individual, it would be prevented from butting in in this way when the case is sub judice.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: To say that we are going to set up a system under which the government are going to deal with the rights in these water-powers while we are Mr. MACDONALD.
awaiting the decision determining whether such a power exists, is an anomalous situation. If the minister states that his desire is to confirm the rights granted that is a pre-eminently proper proposition and one that I would support. But, I say that section 4 does not do that in the clear language that should be contained in an Act of parliament.


Frank Oliver: Section 4 is not intended to do that at all. The provision that is intended to do that is section 6. Section 4 simply segregates the water rights and the land rights.


Hugh Guthrie: It goes further.


Frank Oliver: No, in section 4 there is no mention of a confirmation of right to any one.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: There is the government right in everything that has not been granted.


Frank Oliver: Precisely. It declares the right of the government in everything that is not being granted.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The hon. minister constitutes himself the judge of whether it has been or not.


Frank Oliver: Who is to be the judge? Does my hon. friend want it to be declared in the Act how these rights shall be established? If it comes up for the consideration of the government, it is established as a matter of administration; if it comes before the courts, it is established by the courts. Why should it be stated here beyond declaring merely that it is to be established? As I stated, this section 4 is intended simply to segregate the water rights from the land rights. It is not intended for any other purpose, and it does not effect any other purpose; it is simply a plain statement of a fact which everybody admits to be desirable. But section 6 sets out, in so many words, to confirm rights which have been already granted. It may do so properly or improperly, but my hon. friend must not look in section 4 for provision contained in section 6, nor find fault with section 4 because it does not do what section 6 is intended to do. Section 4 is for declaratory purposes, and section 6 is to confirm rights which have been granted. I am ready to accept criticism of the terms of section 6, but I think it unfair that the hon. member should attribute to section 4 a purpose which is covered by section 6 and then find, fault -with the terms of section 4 because it does not accomplish that which it was not intended to accomplish.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I wish I could agree with the minister in his interpretation of

this section, but, so far as my legal judgment goes, it does not permit me to do so. I take it that section 4 does give the Crown the rights to water in British Columbia, with the exception of certain rights which *are not inconsistent with the rights of the Crown, and the rights must be ' established ' in some way. Where I disagree with the minister is as to the effect to be given to the words ' is established.' He says these rights may be established by him or by somebody else. That is, the Crown may not respect any rights given by a power which granted these rights in good faith. The confirmation ought to be absolute, so as to protect the person who has obtained rights from the Dominion or from the province as the case may be-rights which either power had the authority to grant at the proper time. This Bill gives to the Governor in Council power to make grants within two years, but this power is to be exercised by the minister in a peculiar way. If a man has had a grant from the British Columbia government and a quitclaim from the federal government, this would limit the grant under the Act to the extent that he would have to be subject to the power of the minister in regard to licenses. I disagree with the minister as a matter of interpretation of law. I may be wrong and he right, but I reiterate that the fair and proper way would be to confirm in the parties who hold them vested rights in these waters obtained from the British Columbia government but confirmed by the federal government by order in council or otherwise.


Frank Oliver: That is exactly what is done in section 6. My hon. friend cannot read section 4 in its proper effect. Section t does not give anybody any right, it has nothing to do with the right to use the water that my hon. friend is speaking of; it is simply a declaration that anything that is not under a private right is under the Crown right, and is reserved from being dealt with as a part of the land law. This is of the nature of a confirmation of the grant and ownership in all waters, it has nothing to do with the administration of waters. Then we come to section 6, which confirms those Tights already granted, and there is no difference between a provincial right and a Dominion right. There is no declaration that the person who has received a provincial right must come under a Dominion right. It makes provision for the unconditional confirmation of every right that has been granted for that period of two years, in other words, it carries those existing rights past the time when we will certainly have a decision of the Privy Council.


Mr. BURRELL.: What is the minister's position as to jurisdiction over those lands
which have passed from the Dominion government control, those lands that have been actually alienated from the Dominion government? Does the minister intimate that he has any control over the water on those lands? Because the decision of the Exchequer Court seems clear that the Dominion had granted the lands, and, therefore, the grantee became subject to the enactment of the legislature of British Columbia.


Frank Oliver: My advice is that the amended section 3, which has been placed before the House, covers that point. I may say that that section, and an amendment to section 6 which I am going to propose, were agreed to between the Department of Justice and the deputy Attorney General of British Columbia; therefore, I assume they are good law and good drafting. I am not prepared to say that the government of British Columbia approves of the present Bill as a matter of policy, but I am prepared to say that so far as the drafting and purpose of these sections are concerned, they certainly have the approval of both the Department of Justice at Ottawa and of the deputy Attorney General of British Columbia. I can give no better authority for my belief that I was correct.


Robert Laird Borden: Why does the minister fix a period of two years in section 6?


Frank Oliver: It is for the purpose of carrying the existing rights without change over the period of uncertainty until the decision of the Privy Council has been rendered; when this Bill is passed and these rights are dealt with, there will be no need of any other interference until the question has been absolutely settled.


Mr.   R L. BORDEN@: It seems to me that on the whole it would be better to leave the matter until there is a certainty as to what the actual rights are. The difficulty I have at present with this Bill is that I really could not undertake to say just what the effect of it would be, notwithstanding the minister's explanation. Take section 4, I really would not know what would be the effect of it, and I endeavoured to follow the minister's explanation as well as I could. I understood him to say that it was for the purpose of segregating the water right from the land right.


Frank Oliver: So far as the right of the land already rests in this government, it is to separate the water rights from the land rights.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me he uses curious language for that purpose. As a matter of fact, section 4 seems to say that the right to water, in so far as it has not passed out of the Crown, shall remain in the Crown. You Teally do not need to make that clear by statute. When I find

a statute declaring something that is absolutely obvious, and when I find that embodied in a somewhat complicated section *of considerable length, it occurs to me that -a court, in endeavouring to interpret that -section, might find itself landed in great difficulties.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: That must be read with the next section, which provides that those rights can only be disposed of under this Act.


Frederick William Borden: Eeally, I do not see that that makes it any better. Then when we come to section 6, we find a provisional arrangement for a period of two years, and after that period has expired then everything is left open. That does not seem to tend to certainty, I do not think one really gets much stability out of a provision of that kind. The whole Bill seems to be so complicated and of so unusual a character, that I venture to suggest to the minister that it would be better to let the matter stand until we get an absolute knowledge of what the law is, and that knowledge can only come to us by the decision of the pending appeal.


Frank Oliver: If there was some process of law or some authority that would stay all proceedings in regard to water rights, in the province without injury to the province, then I could appreciate the hon. gentleman's suggestion. But there is no possibility of that being done. Development must go on, or there must be injury donei and I take it we are here for the purpose of preventing that injury, for the purposei of so adjusting the title that development can go on.


Frederick William Borden: I am impressed with the sincere desire of the minister td act in the public interest in regard to this matter, but I have a different opinion perhaps as to how that can be accomplished. I understood the minister to say that the larger proprietors had in some way got an assurance of confirmation from this government. If that can be done as respects the larger proprietors, I suppose it can be done as respects the smaller proprietors. At all events, the government might declare its policy in that regard, namely, to deal with the smaller proprietors a3 they; have dealt with the larger ones, and stay\ its hand in the meantime until it is abso-i lutely sure that this parliament can legislate effectively. Then so far as investment is concerned, any person who has a grant in the province of British Columbia, the validity of which is not yet assured, upon which doubt has been thrown by decisions already given, any person having such a grant and desiring to invest capital, could I suppose, come to this government and get an assurance as to its Vfr. E. L. BORDEN
future action. The legislation of thi3 parliament should become absolutely assured by the judgment of the Privy Council. It seems to me that all the hon. gentleman desires can be done without this legislation. I admit that I do not understand this matter as well as the minister does, but it occurs to me that all that he desires to do can be done without this legislation, and perhaps better. I speak, however, with a great deal of diffidence, because the minister has given more atten-, tion to the matter than I have.


Frank Oliver: There might be arbitrary and unwarranted action by this government that would protect private interests, but I do not think the government should be required to place itself in that position, I do not think that is a safe position. I do not think we should expect or look to property interests to employ capital in the development of the country without that parliamentary authority to which the investment of capital is fully entitled. This government may give an undertaking or enter into an understanding with private capitalists without the sanction of parliament, but I do not think it is a good thing to do, and I do not think it will produce good results. We come before parliament, with a fair proposition to meet a condition which actually exists, and a condition which requires to be dealt with. We put a fair proposition before parliament for dealing with that condition, and we ask parliament to assent to it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is not a condition that is going to exist with any certainty for more than a few months. That is the trouble that the minister is in. Instead of the certainty that the minister wants to accomplish there will be uncertainty. Some poor fellow will think that he has some rights, and he will be foolish enough to spend all he is worth in trying to vindicate them. The minister will be the cause of a lot of inocent people getting into a couple of hundred law-suits under the conditions existing now between the province and the Dominion. If the minister wants to act pro bono publico he should say to these people: Now, boys, do not invest any money until the decision of the Privy Council is given. But, he notifies them to go in under this Act of parliament which will probably be quashed by the decision of the Privy Council. The hon. gentleman's argument is the very best reason why this Bill should not pass.


Martin Burrell: The minister seems to be afraid that in this interregnum there may be some piratical attempts made upon the existing provisional rights. As I understand the matter, the British Columbia government, under the Act which they passed

last session, appointed a special body of three commissioners and they are still issuing certain water records in conection with the various waters in the railway belt. I do not think that these titles, such as are issued by the provincial government, will be interfered with piratically by any body pending the decision by the Privy Council, and after all, the security of title which the minister is going to give by this Bill is only a provisional one, because it is a title which will be wiped out immediately when the Privy Council decision is given. Under section 6 the minister says that this validation is only to be for a period of two years, and then the whole thing is in the melting pot again. No body knows where he is at. He does not know what regulations will be, or what title he will have. The -whole thing is wiped out after two years, and that is an additional reason why I am rather reluctant to see the Bill pass. While I understand that the minister is sincerely anxious to protect the rights of those who have gone in, and acquired water-rights; yet, this Bill goes farther than that, because it foreshadows certain legislation which seriously jeopardizes the existing rights of those who are dealing with these matters under the British Columbia regulations, and it is not clear to me that the minister has yet answered my question as to whether the Dominion government, even if the Privy Council decision were to favour the Dominion government, thinks that it has any rights over the water after the land is sold.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is clear that it would not have.


Martin Burrell: No. This is simply a validation clause and no body would dispute it until the decision of the Privy Council is given. I cannot see, considering the short period of this validation as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has said, why, if you can give a quitclaim deed by -order in council to the large acquirers of rights, the same process cannot go on with respect to the smaller ones.
On section 4, confirmation to Crown of ownership of all waters.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That section should be struck out, because, as pointed out by the leader of the opposition, if it means anything, the result must be the same as it would be if it were not written at all, and for that very reason the court would be likely to strain at some other meaning. It is well known that when the courts are told that a section means what would be the effect without it being there at all, in construing that section they seek for some other meaning that would not be so ridcu-lous as the one suggested. Although that
section means perhaps, in the opinion of the minister what he said, I have not the least doubt that the courts will take it to mean something altogether different-I do not know what. I cannot grasp what that section does mean. It is a complication of language, of adjectives, verbs and adverbs, and two or three nouns to a sentence making it absolutely impossible to understand what it means. I do not believe there is any one who can take that section, and conscientiously [DOT]tell what it means. It is the most incomprehensibly drawn section that I ever saw in a statute. If it is drawn for the purpose of creating confusion it will certainly accomplish that object. If it is drawn to accomplish anything, then it ought to be expressed in simple language that people could understand.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to put my legal knowledge against that of my hon. friend.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It "is not legal knowledge; it is common sense.


Frank Oliver: 
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have the British Columbia Act which my hon. friend from Yukon (Mr. Congdon) was kind enough to hand over to me, and it contains no such language. There is a clause that everybody can understand. It is clause 2, as follows:
The right to the use of all water at any time in any river, watercourse, lake, or stream not being a navigable river or otherwise under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, is hereby declared to be vested in the Crown in the right of the province, and, save in the exercise of any legal right existing at the time of such diversion or appropriation, no person shall divert or appropriate any water from any river, watercourse, lake, or stream, excepting under the provisions of this Act, or of some other Act already or hereafter to be passed, or except in the exercise of the general right of all persons to use water for domestic and stock supply from any river, watercourse, lake, or stream vested in the Crown, and to which there is access by a public road or reserve.
This clause 2 is a work of art, compared with clause 4 of this Bill, which should be dealt with as a curiosity and put in a museum. When the land is alienated it becomes the right of the province to administer it and the province declares in plain English that it is vested in the Crown in the right of the province of British Colum-

bia. What capitalist will be afraid of understanding the law in the provincial Act. Why not leave well enough alone. Why complicate matters by this legislation, which will cause innumerable lawsuits between individuals.


Hugh Guthrie: Would the minister have any objection to simplify this section?


Frank Oliver: I got this drafting from the Department of Justice, and it certainly is in line, with similar sections in the Irrigation Act and in the British Columbia Act.


Hugh Guthrie: The wording is different.


Frank Oliver: Because what is contained in one section in the British Columbia Act is divided into two in this Act with the object of making it plain, I suppose. I do not feel I would be warranted in changing the considered drafting of the Department of Justice which I submit is more to be relied upon than a momentary suggestion made on the floor of the House.


Hugh Guthrie: This is not a momentary suggestion.


Glenlyon Campbell: Can the minister construe this section himself?


Frank Oliver: Yes, and so could my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) if he took the trouble to read it.


Hugh Guthrie: If the minister and I have the same desire, as I think we have, the section can be put in very simple language. It is intended to be a declaration of the right of the Crown in all water except what has hitherto been granted away, but what it really means is that the Crown is the proprietor of all water which has not been granted away and the right to which granted away water is established. Why not strike out the words ' is established ' and establish the Crown's right to all water which has not been heretofore acquired from the Crown prior to the 10th of May, 1909. As the language at present reads, it renders the highest right very very uncertain. I think it is highly unreasonable of the minister to refuse the request that is made here. It is not a question that has been sprung upon us; the clause has been thoroughly considered and I think there are those in this House who are just as competent of drawing a clear section, as is the deputy Minister of Justice.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I will join the member for Wellington in this request. The use of the word ' until ' here creates some kind of suspensory right in the Crown, a sort of Miahommet's coffin between heaven and earth, and a thing that is unheard of in such legislation. The request of the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) is so reasonable that if the intention is to vest in the Mr. LANCASTER.
Crown all the right to waters except such as have passed into the title of other persons, it is very easy to say so.


Frank Oliver: Does my hon. friend suggest that this wording does not say so?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I say it does not. 1 say the use of the word 'until' in that connection is unheard of.


Frank Oliver: In my humble judgment, I will take the drafting of the deputy Minister of Justice and be satisfied with it. The trouble of my hon. friends from Wellington and Pictou is that they persist in confusing the purpose of clause 4 with the purpose of clause 6. If they remember that the purpose of one has no connection with the purpose of the other, they will be perfectly satisfied.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister may say he claims all the water, and the applicant may say the minister does not, but the minister will answer:	Oh, but you have not
established your claim and until you do establish it you have no claim, and the applicant has to defend a title which he probably had secured years ago.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: How can the minister find that some one has a claim unless that claim is established? This section is merely descriptive of the rights cut out of the realty which under the next section must be granted expressly separate and apart altogether from the grant of the water. I may say that I could not understand it and I spoke to the deputy Minister of Justice about it and he agreed that possibly it might be better drawn, but he pointed out that this was the language used in the Irrigation Act and he thought it desirable that all this should be under exactly similar legislation.


Hugh Guthrie: Is it the opinion of my hon. friend (Mr. Congdon) that it is in the discretion of the minister to say to a man holding the Crown grant in the water: Your claim is worthless, or, it is not established?


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: Certainly not.


Hugh Guthrie: Then what is the meaning of the language 'until it is established '?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No two men in this House take the same meaning out of that section, and in the name of common sense why should we pass a law of that kind? The Minister of the Interior says it was drawn in this way because some other legislation was drafted in the same way. I ask the Prime Minister if it is not a farce to pass legislation of that kind? Hon. members called ' Carried.' They seemed to agree that was the meaning of this section.


James Conmee: Is" it usual for lawyers to agree about matters of this kind?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We could get lawyers in this House to draw a clause which would mean something.


Wilfrid Laurier: With the permission of my hon. friend, I would move that the committee rise, report progreS'S and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS. INJURIES DUE TO MOTOR VEHICLES.
[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for the second reading of Bill (No. 13) to amend the Criminal Code respecting injuries due to motor vehicles.-Mr. Lewis.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is a principle involved in this Bill that is a little strange. As it is worded ' the driver of a motor car, by giving his name or address, can escape liability both criminal and civil.' If we are going to put a statute of this kind on the statute-book, let us put it in a more sensible form than this.


Wilfrid Laurier: The section of the Bill as reported by the committee imposes a penalty on the motor car driver, who, with intent to escape liability, either civil or criminal, drives on without giving assistance or his name or address. Does my hon. friend think it is a hardship if a man is arrested and brought to trial in such a case?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, I do not think that at all, but I think he ought to be liable under the code for the greater offence, as this reads he would escape that liability by simply calling out a name. You are creating a confusion of legislation; you are saying that a man is liable to a fine of $50 at the most no matter how many people he might injure, and that he can escape that penalty by simply shouting out his name and address.


Mr. CARVELL.: If the hon. member, (Mr. Lancaster) will look at the Criminal Code, he will find that there is a provision making a man liable for an accident. This is something in addition. I have not the Criminal Code before me, but I was on the committee, as was the member for Portage la Prairie, I think, and we discussed it very carefully with the Minister of Justice. The hon. member will find that there is a provision in the code against furious driving, and this is only an additional provision in case the driver of the car fails to stop.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It will become substitutional so far as motor cars are concerned. That is my pbjection to the legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
Wilfrid Laurier: The whole point of my hon. friend's objection, as I understand it, is that this will be a substitute for the legislation already in existence. I do not think so. That was not the intention of the committee. The intention was simply to create a new offence.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand the object of the legislation it is this. When an accident has occurred on the highway owing to the presence of a motor car, whether there has been negligence on the part-of the persons driving the motor car or not, absolutely irrespective of that consideration, the motor car must stop and the driver must tender assistance and give his name and address. If he fails to do that,; then he is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $50 in costs.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is correct.


Robert Laird Borden: That would be irrespective of whether he is in fault or not. If the accident occurs, and he drives on without tendering assistance or without giving his name and address, then he is liable. I think, perhaps, the wording of it might be improved a little in the last line, but apart from that it would seem to; me to have that meaning.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What I mean is this. Under the general Criminal Code, I do not have it here, but I think I know its effect* if any man whether he be a motor car driver or a wheel-barrow runner for that matter, or the driver of a horse, drives furiously' negligently and dangerously along the highway he is liable. But under this section, it seems to me that if a motor car driver does that he will escape the penalty imposed by simply giving his name and address, without rendering assistance to the parties he has injured. Under this section he is not required to do both, and I think he should be made to do both. I would, therefore, suggest that the word ' or ' be struck out and the word ' and ' substituted. If a man causes an accident he should not escape liability by merely-shouting out his name and address. If he is a man at all, he ought to render assistance to the injured as well as be known so that he may be sued for civil damages.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree entirely with my hon. friend, but I suggest that the purpose might be served by inserting the word 1 without ' after the word ' or.'
Mr. LANCASTER, If you say that he should render assistance and give his name and address I would agree. As long as the driver is required to do both.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, The Bill has been carefully considered by the committee, and certainly the intention was not to substitute one .offence for another, but

simply to add an offence to the one already existing. It seems to me that intention is so obvious that I cannot understand the objection of my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster).


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. Prime Minister may be right in saying that the intention was to create a new offence, but even if that is so, the legislation as framed will be of no practical benefit if a man can escape liability by simply shouting out his name and address without rendering assistance. I am pointing out that he ought to do both. I would move that the word ' or ' be struck out and the word ' and ' substituted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 65) to amend the Winding-up Act-Mr. Meighen-was considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion that the House go into committee on Bill (No. 75) to amend the Criminal Code.-Mr. Harris.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that, as a matter of principle, this Bill is not good. A person dealing with ordinary property in the way referred to by this Bill would be, .prima facie, guilty of theft. But it is proposed here to pass a Bill for a minor punishment in this particular ease. The provision of the Bill is that if any person takes a motor car, or automobile to be used, or driven, without the consent of the owner, he is liable to a penalty. But if he were to take a mante horse or wheel-barrow he would be prima facie guilty of theft.


Wilfrid Laurier: Prima facie only.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, unless he can show his authority. But the plea of a person that he intends to return the property, judge or jury might not conscientiously accept. But if such a thing is made to apply to motor cars, it should apply to horses, wheel-barrows, kits of tools, and other property. Why protect the owners of motor cars as against the owners of any other property? If people take motor cars without the owners' consent they should be punished. But why special legislation respecting motor cars that does not apply to other property such as I have described? We should have the same Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
legislation for all. So on principle, I am not prepared to vote for the Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This Bill was before the special committee, and its passage was urged by a number of gentlemen who said that this taking of automobiles for use without the consent of the owners requires special legislation. IMs claimed that nearly all the accidents are caused by chauffeurs, who are on what are known as ' joy rides '. Having taken the owner to his office, let us say, the chauffeur goes off without the owners consent and somebody is injured. The only argument used against this measure is that it is special legislation. But it is legislation that is needed to meet a special difficulty.


Mr. RHODES.: The hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) objects to this Bill because it is special legislation, and in favour of motor car owners. His position is amusing in view of the fact that a moment ago he supported a Bill dealing specially with motor cars. But in that case it appeared to be directed against the owner of the car. There is no legislation providing that if a man is driving a horse-drawn vehicle, and somebody is injured, he must stop and give his number and address. This Bill is necessary, because, as the hon. member for Garleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), has said, a large proportion of the accidents are due to the fact that cars are taken without the consent of the owners. It is almost im-posible to punish this offence under the existing law. In England they have found it impossible to punish a man for taking a car without the owner's consent, and have even been driven to the expedient of trying the offender for theft of the gasolene used, and they are obliged to meet the case by special legislation. It is not for the benefit of motor owners, but for the benefit of the public at large, and for this reason , I am heartily in favour of this measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Notwithstanding what has just been said by the hon. gentleman, I think this is legislation purely in the interest of the owners of motor cars. It does not say anything about furious driving, there is not a word about doing injury to any one else. It is idle to imagine that this is intended to 'protect people on the road; it is intended to protect the owner of the car so that it will not suffer any injury, so that the machinery may not be damaged, and he will not have to spend money to repair it. I do not agree with the hon. member for Carlton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell) that the owners of motor cars are entitled to any special legislation. The farmer with his horse in the pasture, the

livery stable keeper, with his horse in the barn, the artisan with his kit of tools, are just as much entitled to protection as the owner of a motor car. But some people who may have influence enough with the government to send agents to Ottawa to plead for special rights, have been successful with the government. I move in amendment to add the words ' or other personal property,' after the words, 'motor car.'


Wilfrid Laurier: I hope my hon. friend will not persevere in his amendment. He will see at once the reason of this legislation. There have been occasionally parties who have stolen a ride, or stolen a horse, or a kit of tools from another workman, but the cases have been so rare that there has been no need of special legislation. But since the motor car has come into general use the daily papers are full of reports of accidents which have been caused by chauffeurs taking a car without permission of the master, or some one jumping into the car and moving it. Now the motor car is a vehicle of such a character that unless it is directed by a skilled man, accidents are likely to be numerous.
Amendment, Mr. Lancaster, negatived.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


GOVERNMENT RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
George Perry Graham: I wish to ask the House to return to the order for the introduction of Bills, in order that I may have leave to introduce Bill (No. 232) to amend the Government Railways Act. The other day when I was putting through a measure amending the general Railway Act, I gave notice of this Bill. It transpires that we have made the government railways subject to all the liabilities of an ordinary railway as to fires, the Act has been changed to place them in the same position, but we have not put in the saving clause in reference to the $5,000 that is in the Railway Act. I merely wish to put the government railways in the same position as ordinary railways.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.	_
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: There is not much left, but what will you take up to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: First the tariff resolutions, and then Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.30 a.m., Tuesday.
HOUSE or COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 3, 1910.