1910-04-11

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called:
Mr. H. H. MILLER (South Grey).: I wish to refer to page 6692 of 'Hansard,' April 7. and to call the attention of the House to the following words that occurred in the speech of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth):
There is just one other thing I ought to say in that regard. My hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) read yesterday a letter I had written to him some two months ago on this subject. I certainly have no objection to his putting the letter on the pages Mr. FRASER.
of ' Hansard ' although I ought to say 1 never expected to see it there, and thought 1 was merely writing to him as one member of the House might write to another what my ideas were with reference to this question.
I shall only occupy probably four minutes of the time of the. House discussing this, and in speaking I am not actuated by any feeling of resentment whatever. I realize that in this matter every man has the right to his own views and I realize quite that those who opposed the Bill had just as good a right to oppose it as I had to vote and work for it. The hon. member for West Northumberland (Mr. McColl), the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), and the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) all spoke strongly against the Bill. As far as I am concerned, no feeling of personal friendship will be affected or altered by the action which any man took upon the Bill, nor will I for one moment think of seeking to injure any man politically because he has differed from me in his opinion as to the Bill. While I say that I will not be actuated by any resentment because of any action taken by any other hon. gentleman in what I say; neither will I be restricted in what I say by any party feeling or party affiliation. I do not object to any hon. gentleman differing from me in opinion, but I do like, when I fight a battle, t,o fight it fairly. The Minister of Justice complained that I did a dishonourable thing in making public a letter which it was not intended should be made public. What are the facts? I am sorry that I did not preserve a copy of the letter which I wrote to the Minister of Justice. I presume that he files his correspondence and I think he will have the letter. If he has I would ask him in justice to mvself to produce the letter and read it to the House. I think I stated in the letter that I wrote that a member of the special committee to which the Bill had been referred had requested me to obtain from him his opinion as Minister of Justice as to the jurisdiction of this House in restricting the length of race meetings. At any rate, I remember well that I stated that in conversation to the Minister of Justice. Suppose I did not so speak. I wrote to the Minister of Justice and addressed him as Minister of Justice, and I should also say that the Minister of Justice knew well that I was chairman of the special committee having this matter in hand. Those are the facts and suppose those are the only facts; when I asked the Minister of Justice for his legal opinion, surely the letter I received in reply, not being marked ' personal,' or ' confidential,' was a letter that one might expect to 'use when he was doing what I was, and I would ask, if the opinions of the Minister of Justice, asked for by a member of the

House and given to a member of the House are to be treated as private correspondence, of what value are such opinions? I think I have reason to complain of the reference that the Minister of Justice made in the House. I wish that every statement the Minister of Justice had made to me when I consulted him about this Bill and discussed the Bill with him was, as is this letter, in writing and over his signature. I have a great deal to complain of, I think, as to the treatment of the Minister of Justice in connection with this whole matter. Having discussed.the question with him, as I have discussed it with him and he having made the statements that he did make, and which it would perhaps take too much of the time of the House to discuss, I do say that if I had used the Minister of Justice as he has used me in this matter, I would have thought that I had struck below the belt and that I had not acted either honestly or honourably. That is a plain statement to make, but if the Minister of Justice demands of me. to make the fullest possible detailed explanation of my words I am ready to do so at any time either in this House or outside of it.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: I have only to say that I regret more than I am able to express, the fact that I have not been able to hear what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) has said, and I am sorrv indeed that he feels that he has any grievance or cause of complaint against me, either in regard to the letter he has referred to or in regard to anything I have said out of which this has arisen. I certainly had no idea of imputing to my hon. friend any dishonourable conduct in connection with the reading of the letter he has mentioned. I think the language which I used in speaking about it abundantly shows that no such idea was m my mind. I said at the time in the House that I certainly had no objection to his putting the letter on the pages of ' Hansard,' though I added that I never expected to see it there, nor did I. The hon. gentleman, being a personal friend, saw me repeatedly in friendly conversation in reference to the measure of which he had taken charge. I spoke to him freely with regard to the objects which he desired and I certainly never expected that anything which passed between us in those conversations would be matter of- discussion afterwards in public form. I regarded the letters which passed between us in precisely the same way. I did not consider-I do not consider now- that because I happen to be Minister of Justice I am in any way the legal adviser for the House as a whole or of any member of the House.
I am perfectly willing at any time to talk
with or write to any member of the House who thinks he can have any help from me in connection with any measure in which he is interested, or anything in respect of which he may apply to me. - It was precisely in that way that I understood my hon. friend was either speaking to me or writing to me in connection with this Bill, and all that I have said in reference to this letter is what I am repeating now, that while it was in no sense a private communication, while it was in no sense a breach of confidence that it should be made public, I did not expect that it would be. I was not upbraiding my hon. friend for the course he took, I was not complaining of it in any way.
I understand that my hon. friend has also spoken of the general course which has 'been taken with regard to the measure in which he is interested, as one in which he thinks I have done something unfair, or as he, as I understand, described it, ' struck below the belt.' I can only express my very great regret that any such feeling should he in the mind of my hon. friend, and I must also add some little astonishment, because during the few days which have passed since the occurrences of last week in the House, I have met miyyboni. friend' with 'quite the usual .cordiality which has always existed between us. it was the last idea in my mind that he had any feeling of being hurt with reference to the course of these proceedings. I should like simply to add that from the outset of this matter, from the opening of the session, in any conversations which had taken place between my hon. friend and myself, all of which have been of the most friendly-character, I have never concealed from him in any way that I was entirely opposed to the theory upon which the Bill he had introduced was framed. I have told him quite frankly from the outset that I very greatly preferred the English Bill. I thought that I was not doing any more than was fair to him in saying so, and I have in every way given him, I think perfectly clearly, to understand that I would not introduce such a Bill as the one which he introduced, that I did not approve of the scheme of the Bill, or the attempt which I thought it manifested to call the walking about taking bets the keeping of a betting house or place. That was a feature of the Bill which was essential to it, which was in a word the whole theory upon which it was framed. I regarded that as mere verbal trickery, and I certainly gave my hon. friend to understand thajt, as plainly I thought as any words I could use would enable me to do so. I think these circumstances that my hon. friend is scarcely justified in alluding to the opposition which I openly offered in the House to the mea-

sure which he had introduced, as in any way striking below the belt.


Henry Horton Miller: Just one word. When I obtained the views of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) at any times I distinctly stated to him, at least on one occasion, that whatever opinions I received from him I asked and hoped to receive for the purpose and with the object of making use of those opinions of the hon. the Minister of Justice, and he did not say that he did not desire or wish me to do that, he simply said in reply that when the matter came up to be discussed in the House he would probably have something to say himself.
A word as to what the Minister of Justice has just said. His objection to the Bill was largely because it would interfere with private betting. The Minister of Justice said to me, when I was consulting him about the Bill, as I said before in the House, that it had been very carefully drawn by three clever lawyers, Mr. Raney, Mr. Cartwright of Toronto, and Sir Thomas Taylor, late Chief Justice of Manitoba. The minister said: These are three clever lawyers, they have given a great deal of attention to the drafting of the Bill, and I do not think it can be improved on, and the Minister of Justice said he added the words ' for the purpose for which it was intended,' and if he says he added those words I take it for granted that he did. But I took the care at times to tell the - Minister of iustice that it was not the desire of the promoters of the Bill to in any way interfere with private betting. Knowing that that was not the intention, he suggested that the Bill could not be improved upon for the purpose for which it was intended. I said to .the Minister of Justice: If this Bill, in your opinion, would affect the man who makes a private bet, I would like you to suggest any language that you can suggest that would leave out the private bettor and exempt him. He said: I cannot suggest any language that would be an improvement on the Bill as it is drawn in that respect. Afterwards I myself, fearing the Minister of Justice might make some further objections to the Bill in that regard, that is was interfering with private betting, drafted a clause and submitted it to him, and as he in his own writing amended it in order, as he thought, to fit the case. I said: Will the amendment, as you have changed it, fill the bill, and exempt the private better? He said: I think it will. The Minister of Justice then must have known that that was my intention. The Minister of Justice looked carefully over the Bill. He said that clause 235 did not in any way interfere with the private Mr. AYLESWORTH.
bettor, but that it would with the recording or registering of a private bet.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member understands that we cannot go over all this ground again. The hon. gentleman's present statement may bring about another statement from the Minister of Justice.


Mr. HUGHES.: Do you not think the hon. gentleman should be allowed to explain himself after the mess he made of it the other night.


Henry Horton Miller: All I say is>
the Minister of Justice has advised me in one way when I consulted him, and has advised the House in an entirely different way.



THE INSURANCE BILL.

Mr. MACDONELL.: Is it the intention to proceed with the Insurance Bill this session?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: It is the intention to proceed with the Bill.



LAC DU BONNET FISHERIES.

Mr. BRADBURY.: I wish to ask the minister in charge of the Fisheries Department a question regarding Lac du Bonnet. I can perhaps, best do so by reading the following letter which I have received:
Lac du Bonnet, April 3.
Dear Sir,-Will you kindly give me some information regarding the Lac du Bonnet fisheries. It is rumoured that the Lac du Bonnet waters are thrown open for commercial fishing for the settlers and residents around Lac du Bonnet, which would be satisfactory to the people as long as the district is not invaded by Indians and foreign fishermen. There is a company preparing to buy the fish and they are telling us _ that they have bought the licenses and paid for them, and the settlers can get no license except through the company who wants an agreement signed which we do not think is right. If you could give ns some information in this matter you would do us a great favour.
Respectfully yours,



MARTIN WOLD,

[Stage Direction]
Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba.
I have had several letters to this effect. There is a company that has been trying very hard to .secure the control of Lac du Bonnet which the right hon. gentleman will remember was discussed before. The company, -I understand, have purchased a large number of these licenses from the fishery inspector at Selkirk, in the names, I presume, of settlers, and they come to the settler and say: We have a license here for you, and if you will sign an agreement to sell us the fish you catch under this license, we will give it to you. And they are going to the other settlers, and telling them that they cannot get a license except from them. Will the right hon. gentleman ascertain if

such licenses have been issued, to whom they have been issued, and to whom they have been handed? I would also ask him to see that the settlers, are protected in their rights.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 115), to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company-Mr. Pardee.
On section 1, incorporation.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Have the promoters of the Bill looked over the amendments which have been suggested, and come to a conclusion?


Mr. PARDEE.: Yes, as stated on Friday night, we are quite content to accept the amendment suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), and the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. S. Sharpe). There is no objection to those amendments.


Mr. LENNOX.: What about an amendment of which I gave notice, to enact as subclause 3 of this Bill clause 9 of the St. Lawrence Power, Company Bill? That is, re-enacting it so that the two companies would stand exactly on the same basis. It is somewhat more restrictive as regards the power of entering on property, it gives less extensive appropriation powers. Is the promoter of the Bill prepared to accept that?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I think that in so far as the acquiring of property by the transmission company for the transmission lines is concerned, it is amply guarded in the Bill now before the House, in this way that in the event of anything occurring they shall all come under the provisions of the Railway Act. There is a further provision that in acquiring either lands or easements it is absolutely necessary that they should acquire the fee simple. I think it is hardly fair to ask more onerous conditions, in fact I do not see how they could be imposed. Every interest is safeguarded thoroughly and absolutely. I would be quite content to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Middlebro), it is practically the same amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not given a great deal of attention to this Bili personally, but some hon. gentlemen on this side have come to me and made certain suggestions with regard to it. Another suggestion contained in an amendment was practically to this effect: This company is designed as I understand it according to the actual facts lor the purpose
of transmitting power which is produced by the St. Lawrence Power Company. The rates to be charged by this company are in effect made subject to the control of the Railway Commission of Canada. The St. Lawrence Power Company, however, was incorporated before we had any Railway Commission and its rates are not subject in any way to the Railway Commission of Canada. The difficulty which was suggested to me and which seems to me to have some importance was this: Suppose that the St. Lawrence Power Transmission company goes before the Railway Commission of Canada to have its rates fixed, it gets its power from the St. Lawrence Power Company; The St. Lawrence Power Company in dealing with the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company says:	We	are
absolutely untrammelled by any control of the Railway Commission, we were incorporated before there was any Railway Commission. Then the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company come before the Railwmy Commission of Canada and will say: We have been obliged to pay $25 or $35 or $40 per horse-power to the St. Lawrence Power Company. They are not subject to your control and we cannot do anything with them. Then the Railway Commission will have to say: You are subject to this condition of affairs: We cannot cut you below what you are paying, we must allow you what you are paying and something more and the net result wmuld be that there would be no effective control by the Railway Commission of Canada over the rates.


Wilfrid Laurier: As I understand there is no objection on the part of the promoters of the Bill to put in this Bill anything and everything that may be necessary in order to put as effectively as it can be put in the hands of the Railway Commission, the power to have control over its rates. I do not apprehend that the objection is a very strong one. If I understand the objection of my hon. friend it is not his own objection but an objection which was stated to him, and it is that there was some doubt as to whether the St. Lawrence Power Company, having been incorporated before the Railway Commission, would be made amenable to that commission. I do not think that the point is a strong one. We have created the commission and have provided that railway companies in existence 50 years before the creation of that board should have their tolls submitted to it. At all events, to make it doubly sure, I understand the promoter is quite willing to agree to the amendment suggested so as to clear that point and make it beyond doubt.


Robert Laird Borden: An amendment designed to cover that has been placed on the Votes and Proceedings of the 6th of April, page 796.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: The promoter has agreed to accept that amendment.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I would like the committee to consider whether in this private Bill affecting a power transmission line,' you can introduce an amendment affecting another company not under the view of this Bill, that is the St. Lawrence Power Company. I would like to have the opinion of the committee on that point. Whether this Bill affecting one company can properly be amended to affect the rights of an entirely different company by throwing on it duties not provided for in the notice given for the Bill before the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it can be done in this case, for this reason. In the first place, parliament can refuse to accept the Bill unless this amendment be made. In the second place, there is the question of notice, which is the more important question. It is admitted, I understand, that the corporations, although distinct in form, are practically one. Therefore, the promoters of this Bill have the right, on behalf of the St. Lawrence Power Company, which they also represent, to come before parliament and say that they will accept the Bill with these amendments.


Wilfrid Laurier: The point mentioned by the chairman is not so much a point of procedure as a point affecting our powers. As a point of procedure, if all parties have agreed to it, we can agree to it also.
On section 1, incorporation,


Robert Laird Borden: There are some other changes which I consider of a minor character to which I can refer as we go along. There is the one already referred to with regard to the curious change made with respect to the powers of expropriation. I refer to the use of the word 'easement'; and, of course, there may be other points of which I am not aware, because I have not given as much attention to the details of the Bill as have some other hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.
On section 6, powers,


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It was suggested .that after the words, 'with similar lines in the United States for the purpose of importation,' the words, 'into Canada,' should be inserted. They were introduced in the Private Bills Committee, but have been omitted from the Bill as reprinted.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Mr. GRAHAM.: I do not think that in a Canadian Bill the word 'importation' would mean anything but importation into Canada.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: As the words 'United States' aire used there, might it not be construed as importation into the United States?


George Perry Graham: This parliament could not legislate in regard to importation into the United States. We can only deal with importation into Canada or exportation out of Canada. The object of this is to enable the company to bring in power from Wad-dington.


Robert Laird Borden: I am inclined to think that if there is no objection, the words 'into Canada' had better be inserted, though the word 'importation' probably means that.


Samuel Hughes: The minister's statement that the object was to bring in power from Waddington hardly tallies with the statement of the Minister of Public Works, that in dealing with these gentlemen he would receive a guarantee that although 75 per cent of the power might be generated in the United States, one-half of it would be brought into Canada.


Mr.   S.@: 
Samuel Hughes: Would it not be stronger if the words ' to the company ' were omitted? That would cover the sale to any one.


George Perry Graham: I do not think you could very well do that in this Bill. There may be some excuse for putting it in this particular Bill, because it is said the two companies are composed of the same people, but I do not think that you could reasonably go further in this Bill than is already provided by this amendment.


Mr. SPROULE.: If they should sell to another company, and that company should sell back, would they not evade the law?


George Perry Graham: 
Samuel Hughes: The St. Lawrence Power Company is not brought under the Railway Act by this amendment, except for the sale of power to the St. Lawrence Power and Transmission Company. Why not bring it under the Railway Act for all purposes?


George Perry Graham: We should have to introduce a special Act.
On subsection 3; section 247 of the Railway Act shall apply to the works and undertaking of the company,


Robert Laird Borden: What is section 247?


George Perry Graham: I will read the opening lines of it, which will show the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) the general effect, and I will send him across the floor a copy of the Act that is before me:
When any company is empowered by special Act of the parliament of Canada to construct, operate and maintain lines of telegraph, or telephone, or for the conveyance of light, heat, power or electricity, the company may, with the consent of the municipal council or other authority having jurisdiction over any highway, square or other public place, enter thereon for the purpose of exercising the said powers, and as often as the company thinks proper, may break up and open any highway, square or other public place, subject, however, to the following provisions :
And so it goes on with the different subsections, covering, in all, two pages. But it begins with the provision that all should be subject to the consent of the municipality.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not understand that it says the consent of the municipality ' as expressed by by-law.' It i3 customary in the case of railway Bills, when we authorize the building of telephone and telegraph lines, to require that in building through municipalities all the work shall be done subject to the consent of the municipality as expressed by by-law. The municipality may then make conditions. I do not see why it would not be equally possible to do it in this case.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Subsection 5 of section 247 of the Railway Act covers that.


Haughton Lennox: This subsection 3 of the Bill is the one I propose to strike out, substituting for it the section of which I have given notice. It is very long, and I shall not read it. But I may say that it is much on the lines of section 247 of the Railway Act, but it does not give the company as broad powers as are given under that section. But the amendment I propose is an exact copy of the provisions of the St. Lawrence Power Company Act, section 9. One matter in which it materially differs from section 247 of the Railway Act is in subsection (i) :
Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to authorize the company to enter upon any private property for the purpose of erecting, maintaining or repairing any of its works, without the previous assent of the owner or occupant of the property for the time being.
I do not propose to take up much time over this matter. But it seems to me that these two companies are so much one company that if they wanted an enlargement of their powers of expropriation they*ought to come to us fairly and openly and propose an amendment of their Bill. Thi3 is a test of good faith, and a very important one. If the company are acting in good faith, they ought to be prepared, I think to accept the provisions of the original Bill. They are substantially one company, carrying out the same object, the present Bill being designed to make provision regarding the transmission end of the scheme. I do not think we ought to expand their powers in any way, and thus give them a more valuable franchise than they have at the present time. I do not want to repeat what I said on Friday night. I wa3 sorry I had not time to complete what I then wished to say. I was endeavouring to point out that we ought not to put the company in a position in which, in case of need of expropriating their franchise rights, we should find those franchise rights enhanced in value.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: 672S
have acceded practically to every amendment suggested, and we have it in such a condition that even those who were most strongly opposed to it in the Private Bills Committee and in the House are absolutely satisfied. Therefore, it is hardly consistent at this late stage to move that this paragraph be struck out.


Mr. GOODEVE.: Along the line of the argument raised by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), I may say that it was the intention of the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) to call attention to an Act similar in purpose adopted by the federal house at Washington. In addition to the fact brought out by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) that the state legislature of New York charged certain fees, it also provided that the federal Act should govern the Long Sault Bill, somewhat similarly as our Railway Act governs the railways, and I want to call attention to a most remarkable and very sweeping clause which these men are willing to accept on the other side. After setting forth that all the works will be constructed in accord with plans submitted to the Militia Office and Secretary of Trade and Commerce at Washington, and it is provided that these shall have absolute control, and the right shall be vested in the state and not in the company to regulate the flow of water, whether or not injurious to the company, and that at any future time the United States government may have this dam removed at once, either by blasting it or in any other way, if they consider that necessary in the interest of the government or navigation, and no claim can be made for damages or compensation of vested rights. That is a very broad clause which the company had to accept, and the reason I call attention to it is because it bears out the contention of my hon. friend from South Simcoe. It shows how valuable these franchises are considered by the nation to the south. As I read this Act. I feel more strongly than ever the necessity of our being very careful before granting franchises of this kind.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend were dealing with damming the St. Lawrence, the position he takes would be a wise one, but there is no question of that here. We have given other companies power to erect transmission lines throughout Canada, and in none have we insisted on any such provision. None of these is so restricted as the present company. If I were not very anxious to get transmission lines in order to obtain power in the vicinity where I live, I would advise the promoters to drop their Bill. If they were proposing to dam the St. Lawrence, that would be a reason for taking the precaution which the United States has taken, in case that should be found an interference to navigation, and Mr. PARDEE.
not give the company any claim for damages, but that is not the case here.


Haughton Lennox: I have the statute referred to by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) in which he pointed out the very considerable fees charged by the United States for such rights as are here given. I need not refer to that further. I also have before me the Act passed by the House of Representatives, which provides that all the rights and privileges given under that Act are to be subject to an Act of Congress containing the provision referred to by my hon. friend from Kootenay. That will be found in the general statutes of the United States, vol. 34, page 386. It is entitled An Act to Regulate the Construction of Dams across Navigable waters. The Act of the State of New York is made subject to the provision of the Act I have referred to, among which are these clauses.
Whenever Congress shall authorize the construction of a lock or other structures for navigation purposes, in connection with such dams, the person owning such dam shall convey to the United States,_ free of cost, title to such land as may be required for such constructions and approaches, and shall j/rant to the United States a free use of waterpower for building and operating such constructions.
Section 2. That the right is hereby reserved to the United States to construct, maintain, and operate, in connection with any dam built under the provision of this Act, a suitable lock or locks, or any other structures for navigation purposes, and at all times to control the said dam and the level of the pool caused by said dam to such an extent as may be necessary to provide proper facilities for navigation.
Section 3. That the person, company or corporation building, maintaining or operating any dam and the pertiment works, under the provisions of this act, shall be liable to any damage that imay_ be Inflicted thereby upon private property, either by overflow or otherwise. The person owning or operating any such dam shall maintain, at their own expense, such lights and other signals thereon and such fishways as the Secretary of Commerce and Labour shall prescribe.
It also provides that:
Upon refusal of the persons owning or controlling any such dam and accessory works, to comply with any lawful order issued by the Secretary of War or the chief engineer in regard thereto, the Secretary of War or chief engineer may cause the removal of such dam and accessory works as an obstruction to navigation at the expense of the person owning or controlling such dam. and suit for such expense may be brought in the name of the United States against such person, and recovery had for such expense in any court of competent jurisdiction.
It also provides in section 7:
That the right to alter, amend or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved as to

any and all dams which may ibe constructed in accordance with this provision, and the United States shall incur no liability for the alteration, amendment or repeal thereof to the owner or owners or any other persons interested in any dam which shall have been constructed in accordance with this provision.
A general provision is thus running through the statute, enabling the United States government to have complete control over the works and remove them if necessary in the interests of navigation and without being under any obligation to pay any damages. Unfortunately we have nothing of the kind in our statutes. I refer to this so that at some future time we may be given the benefit of some such legislation.
charter which would practieallv be a nullity.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: This phase of the question was discussed very fully in the committee, and a representative of the Ontario government who was present, Mr. Lynch Staunton, proposed thisi amendment to the Bill. However, it was voted down, and it is now before the House. The effect of this amendment is to prevent the company from expropriating the bed of the river provided they want to construct works in the bed of the river which is owned by the province. Possibly the difficulty might be compromised by allowing them to expropriate an easement to construct poles in the bed of the river without expropriating the land.
Mr, HUGHES. In addition there is a special Act before the American Congress dealing with this very thing. Inasmuch as the government has taken power to prevent the damming of the St. Lawrence, I shah not take up further time in discussing the measure.
^ Amendment (Mr. Lennox) negatived: Yeas 29; nays 39.
On section 11, expropriation powers, &c.


Samuel Hughes: In the absence of the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) I would call the attention of the committee to the fact that at page 704 of the Votes and Proceedings there is an amendment proposed by that hon. gentleman as follows:
Nothing in this Act contained shall he con strued to authorize the company to enter on take, or use any land or water, the .property of any province, without having first oh tamed by order in council of the Lieutenan Governor, the consent of the province t< such entry, taking or using.
As this Act has to do with the St. Lawrence Power Company, and the St. Lawrence Power Company have jurisdiction at the Long Sault rapids, Coteau, Cascades and the Cedars, I think it would be well that the provinces of Quebec and Ontario they having rights as to the bed of the river, should be consulted before any dam is constructed. I would, in the absence of the hon. member for Grenville, beg to move the amendment that I have read.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I do not think this amendment should go into the Bill. If the amendments keep on, the company will not be able to do anything at all under the charter. I cannot see why this should go in. If we grant a charter we ought to grant a charter giving certain rights. We are not granting them a charter when we absolutely tie them up at the very first step they propose to take. If these people are entitled to come, and get a charter they are entitled to receive certain rights, and not a


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That was when you thought they were going to build a dam.


George Perry Graham: The object of the amendment was to protect what the province claimed as its right to the bed of the river. That would only apply in case the Bill should give them authority to construct their dam. However, that question will not come up under this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see that this parliament has any more power or right to incorporate a company with authority to expropriate the property of a province than a provincial legislature would have to incorporate a company with authority to expropriate the property of the Dominion. The Dominion is supreme within a certain limit. The province is supreme within a certain limit. I cannot see that any argument applies to one case that does not apply to the other case except it might be in matters of great national concern, .such as defence. The question of defence is expressly provided for in the British North America Act. The government of the Dominion has the right to take the property of a province for purposes of defence. But the British North America Act, in so far as express provisions are concerned, permits the taking of the property of the provinces for no other purpose. Apart from that the right would appear to be co-reia-tive. If the right exists in the case of the Dominion to expropriate it must exist in the right of the province. I would think that the proper course would be to make it subject to the consent of the proper authorities in either case. You may say that that might render some plan unworkable. I do not see that it would be likely to render any particular undertaking unworkable. At all events, the whole theory of government both in Great Britain, and this country is based upon the supposition that men in authority will act bona fide, and reasonably, and our system of government, as well as their system of government, would be absolutely unworkable, and

inoperative unless that tneory were carried out in practice. The remedy, it seems to me, is that if persons in positions of authority acted unreasonably and improperly in connection with such matters it would be at their own risk, and they could be removed at the proper time.
Mr, SPROULE. This is declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, it is brought under the expropriation clause of the Kailway Act, and it gives the company power to expropriate provincial lands as well as the lands of private individuals. Because it is a work for the general advantage of Canada they might take what belongs to the province, whereas if the province were dealing with the same subject, it would only deal with it within its own provincial lines


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand the Bill, as now before the House, does not contemplate the expropriation of any provincial property. If the Bill provided that, there would be cause for some discussion, but as I understand the Bill now there is no provision which can empower the company to expropriate the bed of a river which would be the property of a province.


Mr. E. L. BORDEN.: Only by the Railway Act, the powers of expropriation of the Railway Act being made applicable to this company. The contention may be raised that such power of expropriation exists.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: We do not propose to take the bed of any river.


Haughton Lennox: The First Minister has made it clear that the government does not intend to interfere with the lands of the province. That being so, there should be no objection to the clause proposed by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reidh This is taking away nothing if the Prime Minister is right, as the company is not to have this right, it is not intended they should. The promoter of the Bill seems to think it does give them such a right. He does not wish to have the. right cut away. We had better put this clause in and have it quite clear.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not agree with my hon. friend in this. I say there was no necessity of raising the question, because as I understand the Bill does not contemplate giving the company the power of interfering with the land of a province, and there is, therefore, of co.urse no difficulty. Suppose the question raised by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition should arise. Under our system of divided legislative authority, I think the best interpretation is certainly to hold that both the Dominion and the provinces are supreme within the spheres which are allotted to Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
them by the constitution. But there will always be a difficulty and a question on the borderland as to where the right of the province terminates and the right of the Dominion commences. We have the right here to incorporate companies, and if, in the exercise of that right we deem that it is not possible for the entity which we create to exercise the powers with which it is vested without interfering with property, or rights of the province, the question arises have we that power or not? It would not do to have the question determined as suggested now by the hon. member for Simcoe. This is a matter which had better be left to the courts to determine, the only determination to be given ought to be by. a judicial authority. The judicial authority would then determine whether or not in giving such power we have invaded the rights of the province, and for my part I think that is the best interpretation.


Robert Laird Borden: There are two different considerations, one as to the power and the other as to the conditions on which the power should be granted. I shall not discuss the question of power at the present time, the legal power of this parliament to do it, except to say that if this parliament has the power to permit land of the Crown held in the right of the province to be taken by a private company it seems to me a province might exercise the same jurisdiction in respect to lands of the Dominion, for example, the western provinces. However, I do not think*that question has been judicially determined as yet, and it is useless to debate it at this moment. Let us assume that both the Dominion parliament and the provincial legislature have such a power. The next question is as to the conditions under which it should be exercised. What I was suggesting was, that it would be proper both for the provincial legislature and for this federal parliament to grant that power subject to the consent of the executive authority of the other body. If the province has the power, it ought to exercise it subject to the executive authority of the Dominion. The Dominion parliament, if it has such power, ought to exercise it subject to the executive authority of the province, otherwise it seems to me that a great deal of difficulty and friction might be created. I adverted to the argument which might be raised and no doubt would be raised, that to make the power subject to such consent would render the whole undertaking inoperative, because the necessary consent might not be obtained and I endeavoured to meet that objection by suggesting that to proceed on the theory that persons in authority, persons placed by the people of Canada in authority here, or persons placed in authority by the voters in any province over that province would exercise their authority in respect of such a

matter in bad faith, was not reasonable, and that if they did so the proper remedy would be by an appeal to the people.


Wilfrid Laurier: Taking the view of my hon. friend, if the two powers, the provincial legislature and the Dominion parliament were to agree to allow something of this kind, I would see some, force in it, but I would suggest that before we come to any such conclusion it would be far better to have a judicial determination as to what are the rights of the provinces and of the Dominion and how far they can be carried. My hon. friend is right. He says that if it be in the power of this parliament to invade, in the exercise of this power, property held by the Grown in the right of the province, why will not the converse proposition hold good that the province will have the right to expropriate land properly belonging to the Dominion, held by the Crown in the right of the Dominion? The argument is a strong one, and I could not see any reason why it should not apply in one case or the other. But it is a case which if it ever arose had better be settled by judicial authority, and if the action would decide one way or the other, it might be advisable for the two powers. Dominion and provincial, to come to some understanding as to its existence.


Samuel Hughes: As the amendment of the leader of the opposition, which practically nullifies any power the company might have had to construct a dam on the St, Lawrence, has been accepted, I presume that this is not so important as it would be without that amendment. But the situation is a very peculiar one. 1 spent some time in examining the ground. It is peculiar that 95 per cent of the power belongs to the United States, and that a dam of the length of 100 feet or so is all that would be necessary on the Canadian side to give away our entire property on the River St. Lawrence. The main dam would be from Long Sault Island to the American shore in American territory. The other dam would be betweeh the eastern lower corner of Long Sault Island and Barnhart's islands both in the United States. That is a wing dam. The dam between the eastern end of Barnhart's island and Canada is the only one where any Canadian property would be concerned. At present one can walk practically across the river except for about 30 feet at that point. At that point the whole stream of the water passes down on the American side. The stones are all there, and it would he very easy to dam that part of the river. Therefore, in case this parliament should ever allow this company to construct a dam over the St. Lawrence. I think it would be well to have the double precaution that it could not expropriate land without the consent of the provincial legislature.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I think it would be very disadvantageous to the public if the company were allowed to acquire an easement. This is a private company, and is not in the same category as the HydroElectric Commission; and under this section as it stands the company could string its wires along the houses or barns of the farmers by acquiring an easement, which might subject them to a great deal of inconvenience.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The company would have to acquire a fee simple.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: As the word 'land' in subsection 4 includes any privilege ox easement required by the company, it could acquire a right of way by merely acquiring an easement,


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: They would have to pay for it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: They might make misrepresentations to the farmers, and get them to sign for an easement, and in that way the company might avoid paying the compensation they should pay.


Robert Laird Borden: I think subsection 4 ought to be struck out, for a good many reasons. In the first place, it seems to me inconsistent with subsection 6. In the next place it would enable the company to go into any city, town or village and expropriate the right oi privilege or easement, to put up poles and string wires without the consent of the municipal authorities, and thus nullify section 247 of the Railway Act. Subsection 4 seems to me to cut out section 247 altogether, as this special provision would prevail over the general provision of the Railway Act in that regard.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The Railway Act is made expressly to apply to this Act where-ever necessary.


Mr. LANCASTER.: So far as it is not inconsistent with this Act.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The Railway Act, in section 247, says that this company cannot go into any municipality without its consent, and that in the event of that consent not being obtained, thev shall go before the Board of Railway Commissioners. Surely, then, subsection 4 of section 11 does not override that section of the Railway Act. Subsection 4 simply interprets the word 'land'. Then, subsection 6 simply provides that in the event of the company exercising its right of expropriation for the purpose of acquiring land for its right of way, such land must be acquired in fee simple. So that it appears to me that it is not so opposed to the Railway Act as the hon. gentleman thinks.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think the leader of the opposition is quite right in insisting that subsection 4 should be struck out, even on the argument of the hon. gentleman who is promoting the Bill. I understand that vve are not to give this company any greater rights than the Railway Act gives them. The Railway Act defines the word 'land', but the hon. gentleman wants in this Bill a 'special definition which gives that word a wider meaning. .That is, as I understand it, the import of the objection of the leader of the opposition. If the company gets all the rights as regards land that the Railway Act gives it, that is all that it ought to have. The Railway Act has hedged around the taking of land with certain precautions. The words of the Railway Act are not that you can take an easement. The owner of property does not want to give an easement over it, he wants the railway either to expropriate it, to take it and pay him the damages, or to leave it alone, not to have an easement. The effect of putting the word 'easement' is to beat a man down on his right of compensation, because it is impossible to give intelligent evidence as to how much he is going to be interfered with.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: We will strike out subsection 4.
Subsection struck out.
On subsection 6, of section 11.


Samuel Hughes: I would move as a new subsection the amendment moved by Mr. Reid, as follows:
Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to authorize the company to enter on, take or use any land or water, the property of any province, without having first obtained by order in council of the lieutenant governor, the consent of the province to such entry, taking or using.
Amendment negatived, yeas 30, nays 44.
On section 12,


Mr. BOYCE.: I presume the object of this clause is to specifically prevent the exportation of power developed or coming on the lines of this company to the United States of America. It has been pointed out that what the company might be prevented from doing directly it might, under the peculiar wording of some of the sections, be able to do indirectly, and I would, therefore, move to add:
And it shall not be lawful to export to the TJuited States any electricity, electric uower, hydraulic or other power or force which may come on the lines of the company, or in any wav use the undertaking of the company for and in aid of such exportation.


George Perry Graham: The clause in the Bill covers it.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: 


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: In the Private Bills Committee a motion was made to add to this section:
Or sell to any person or company for the purpose of export.
That I think covers the same grotmd.
Amendment negatived.


Robert Laird Borden: I would move as subsection 12a. the amendment standing in the name of Mr. Middlebro:
The Governor General in Council shall not give his approval to the construction of any further canals, water-courses, raceways, dams, wing dams, sluices or other works on the River St. Lawrence hy the St. Lawrence Power Company, Limited, under the provisions of chapter one hundred and eleven of 1 Edward VII., Canada, or otherwise, nor agree to or approve of any terms or conditions respecting the diversion of water or power from Canada, the consideration and rate to be paid therefor, the location of all dams and generating plant, the reservation of power for use in Canada, the safeguarding of our canals, adjacent lands and navigation, the procuring of consent thereto from the British government under the Ashburton treaty or other treaty, unless and until the plans, specifications, and all terms and conditions shall have been first submitted to and approved by par-1 lament.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: May I ask the promoter whether he can give an estimate of the quantity of power now developed?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No, it does not make any difference for the purposes of this Bill.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I think we should have a little different answer from that.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: All I can say is that we have heard that discussed. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) has told us several times what he thought on the subject. Personally, I have no idea of the quantity of power likely to be generated. But, as I have said, I cannot see what difference it makes fox the purposes of this Bill.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I think we ought to have some definite knowledge as to the quantity of power possible to be developed. The Minister of Railways and Canals should be in a position to inform the House.


George Perry Graham: The question of the amount of power to be developed is one, apparently, involving a difference of opinion. I have made a statement on the subject several times when, perhaps, my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) was not in his place. My opinion is that they have surplus power there at the present time. But, I know that there are those who do not accept that view. If power is going to waste there, I want to have the legislative con-

ditions so arranged that there will be no excuse for not developing that power, and selling it to those in that section who want power for various industries.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: The Minister of Railways and Canals ought to come down to facts and figures. He ought to know the capacity of the electrical machines installed there.- He could send one of his engineers, and in five minutes that engineer could see what is the capacity of those machines.


Wilfrid Laurier: We know nothing about machines.
company are in default under the provisions of the Act of 1901? If they are, the House should be very careful about passing legislation that will have the effect of reviving their rights.


George Perry Graham: My own opinion is that they are not in default. If I remember well, one of the amendments proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. S. Sharpe) deals with that-


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Yes, I have given notice of an amendment to safeguard that point.
._^r' jk A- CURRIE. The First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) must know that the capacity is stamped on every machine.


An hon. MEMBER.: He says we know nothing about machines.


John Allister Currie: I see. The machines to which hon. gentlemen opposite are more accustomed do not read in amperes and volts, but in votes. Tney are not so much electric machines as election machines. But, in the case of electrical machines, any second-class engineer could go down to those works and, in five minutes inform the minister whether the plant had more capacity than it was using. For each machine will certainly have " the brass plate showing its capacity. Then the engineer could read the meter, and a reference to the books will show the quantity they are selling. A very brief sum in subtraction would show whether the machine is working to its capacity or not. It is very surprising that the Minister of Railways and Canals, who has a staff of engineers and technical officers, should not be able to answer the question that has been put. In fact, the report made by his engineers should contain that information. The question is an important one. What is the use of giving a charter to a transmission company if there is no power to be transmitted? If the power company are now using up all the power their plant will develop, -what is the use of this line, and of all this flight in parliament? But, if they are using only, say, one-third of the power they might generate, I can see the necessity for further legislation.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the minister (Mr. Graham) say that he will send an engineer and investigate for himself the amount of power that is developed?


George Perry Graham: They can not develop any more power than the water will give them. If this Bill goes through and" we get po-wer to transmit electricity, we will soon find out whether they have a surplus or not.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would ask the Minister of Railways and Canals if the parent


George Perry Graham: There is no question in my mind that they have not forfeited their right.
On section 12 (a).


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for West Lambton proposed an amendment to be found at page 760 of the Votes and Proceedings. I should think it would be well to bring it in here as section 12 (b).


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I move that the following be added to section 12, as subsection (b):
Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to constitute an approval by parliament of any future development of water-power by erecting a dam in or across the St. Lawrence river under the Act 1 Edward VII., chapter 3, intituled: 'An Act to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Company/ or otherwise. Nor shall the company hereby incorporated be authorized to transmit power generated by the St. Lawrence Power Company other than the power generated by and in connection with the works already constructed by the said St. Lawrence Power Company.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. member (Mr. Pardee) has no objection, I would prefer to have that go in as section 12 (b).


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No objection.
On section 14.
Sections 130, 137 and 141 of part II. of the Companies Act shall not apply to the company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would the hon. gentleman please tell us what is the language of these sections.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Section 136, as I read it, relates to the law regarding changing the head office of the company. Section 137 says that certain by-laws should be sanctioned by the shareholders, and that in special cases, the Governor in Council should give his consent. In Section 141 deals with the amount that should be paid upon the stock subscribed for.


Robert Laird Borden: It is dealing with matters of internal organization.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would like to submit an amendment as follows:
Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to revive any powers of the company which may have become null and void by reason of the said company not having complied with the provisions of its Act' of incorporation.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I think we have had quite sufficient legislation regarding this company, and that we ought not to make a special enactment of that kind apply to it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: This is a very important provision. We are making some amendments to the Act of 1901, by reason of which we may revive rights that the company have lost. If the company have lost rights which they had under the Act of 1901, it is important that they should not be revived. The Act of 1901 gives the company power to dam the St. Lawrence some 57 miles and includes four water-powers. If the company have lost any Tights under the Act of 1901, we should not revive them, and the country should get the benefit.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Has the hon. gentleman given notice of his amendment?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It is so manifestly in the public interest that I thought the promoter would accept it without notice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: By unanimous consent we can proceed without notice. This amendment appears to be framed for the same purpose as the other.
Section 14 agreed to.


Samuel Hughes: Before this Bill comes up for third reading, the whole Bill should be reprinted, as there are many amendments. Has the right hon. gentleman any obiection?


Wilfrid Laurier: So far as I am concerned, I have none, and I can rely on my hon. friend having no objection and no bad intentions.
Bill reported.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.



HAMILTON, WATERLOO AND GUELPH RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 79) respecting the Hamilton, Waterloo and Guelph Railway Company-Mr. Harris.
On section 7,
Angus Claude Macdonell: Mr. Chairman, when the earlier clauses of this Bill were being considered, I had not the advantage of being in the Hduse. The Bill has gone part-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
ly through, but I would like to take the position now' that. I wrould have taken if I had been in the House when the first clause was reached. Perhaps it will be just as expeditiously proceeded with if I take the ground now that I intended to take, because the objections that are taken to this Bill were the same objections that were taken when the Bill was in the Railw'ay Committee. When the Bill was before the committee for a number of days, it was very fully discussed and was objected to as strenuously as the circumstances would permit. The Bill was amended very largely and some of the municipal objections-the objections by the city of Toronto-were removed. The principal objection that was taken w'as that the promoters who were asking for this Bill should have applied for whatever legislation they want to the Ontario assembly. The Bill is one that asks for a charter which is purely local in its character. The promoters are asking parliament to extend the powers contained in the original Act, being chapter 106 of the Act of 1906 of this House. This company was incorporated in 1906 under the chapter I have cited. The Act there gave the company power to construct a railway, properly speaking, from Hamilton to Waterloo, and another branch from Hamilton to Guelph, to be called the Hamilton, Waterloo and Guelph railway. By the Act, the undertaking of this company was declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. It was a purely inter-urban electric railway, which was given incorporation by this parliament. I desire to point out that four years have elapsed since the original Act was passed, and during those four years the powers conferred by parliament on this company have lapsed. The company have not carried out the requirements of the statute, and they are in the position of practically applying here for a new charter. I contend that they are in no better position than they would be were they applying here in the first instance, because they have lost whatever powers were given to them by their Act of incorporation. They have lost these powers because, of non-user of the powers, because they did not proceed, under the requirements of the Act, with the construction of the road. Not a rod of this railway has been constructed. It is contended by the promoters that a large amount of money has been spent in surveys and preliminaries of that nature. I am not aware whether that is so-I presume it is so-but even if it is so, the company has not, complied with the requirements of spending 15 per cent of the total cost in the construction and the commencement of the construction within two years, as mentioned in the original Act of incorporation. So that, they are here to-day asking for incorporation, and they are in the same position as if they

*were here for the first time. The objection I raised in the Railway Committee, and which I desire to raise now is that the matter is one of purely provincial concern, and that this is a railway that has its form, as it were, pointed out by the British North America Act. The sections of the Act are well known to hon. gentlemen present, and I shall just simply refer to them very shortly. Section 92 of the British North America Act, which contains exclusive powers of the provincial legislature, declares in subsection 10 that provincial jurisdiction shall be exercised with respect to;
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:
(c) Such wrorks as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provincs.
This work, because it is declared to be for the general advantage of Canada is, _b,y virtue of our constitution, a Dominion undertaking. The effect of having it declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada is, of course, to remove it from the provincial control and give it the status of a Dominion railway. What reason is there for it? It was argued on behalf of the promoters of the-Bill in the committee that these powers were essential. Some hon. gentlemen argued that because it crossed Dominion railways it should be declared to be a Dominion undertaking. That objection has long since been removed, if it ever existed in a case of this kind. Other hon. gentlemen urged, with regard to the handling of through traffic, that it was essential that it should be a Dominion railway and that it should be as such subject to the control of the Dominion Railway Commission. Section 8 of our own Railway Act removes both those objections. As hon. gentlemen will recollect, section 8 reads as follows:
Every railway, steam or electric street railway or tramway, the construction or operation of which is authorized by special Act of the legislature of any province, and which connects with or crosses or may hereafter connect with or cross any railway within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, shall, although not declared by parliament to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, be subject to the provisions of this Act relating to-
(a)	the connection or crossing of one railway or tramway with or by another, so far as concerns the aforesaid connection or crossing ;
(b)	the through traffic upon a railway or tramway and all matters appertaining thereto;
Both these reasons that were argued why it was necessary for this undertaking to receive Dominion incorporation are met, and provided for by section 8 of the Railway
Act which puts this railway, for these two purposes, under the control of the Railway Commission for Canada. This section 8 of the Act seems to have been enacted for the very purpose of meeting such cases as this. Otherwise there was no use in passing this. If short railways, railways that do not extend beyond the province or connect with a railway in a foreign country, are to be given incorporation here simply because they ask for it, what is the use of section 8? This section was surely passed for the purpose of allowing provincial railways to take provincial incorporation, and at the same time have the advantages of the Dominion Railway Board if they so desired. It has also been urged that for the purpose of financing a railway a Dominion charter was necessary, and while that may be so I desire to point out that if this were a provincial railway it would be governed by the Ontario Railway Act, as administered by the Ontario Railway Commission, and subject to all the advantages and restrictions of that Act. This- is in no sense a main highway of commerce. It is an electric railway, and as originally chartered it had power simply to construct from Hamilton to Waterloo, and from Hamilton to Guelph. Not a single foot of that railway has been constructed under that charter, and yet it now applies to this parliament for power to build a branch line from the city of Hamilton to the city of Toronto. So far as that new branch is concerned it is in the same position as if it were now applying for the first time for Dominion incorporation. That branch line is an entirely provincial concern, and in the respect that the most important feature of the Bill is with regard to its entrance into the city of Toronto, it is a municipal undertaking. It may be said that the interests of the city of Toronto are safeguarded, -and, while they may have been to a certain extent, yet to a large extent they are mot. This railway has not filed plans, it has not told the public how it is to enter the city, it has no route mapped out, and yet it gets a roving charter to come from the western limits of the city into the terminal station, and with certain rights of stopping at intervals, subject to the regulations of the Railway Commission. The provision for an entrance into Toronto is the feature of the Bill on which a fight was made in the Railway Commission, and as without that the Bill does not amount to anything, it is the feature which the promoters are anxious to retain. It was said in the committee that there was objection offered to railways entering Toronto, but that is not the case. The Toronto council make no objection to railways entering that city under proper conditions, but the people of Toronto certainly do believe that a railway should enter their city in a proper way, and that

plans and maps of the route should be filed, showing where highways are to be crossed, and how it is proposed to cross them. That certainly is a matter for the consent of the municipalities. This railway company has power to enter the city, and expropriate a right of way which is not delimited or* set down on plans, so that any one interested may know where it is going. The company has also the right to cross over, and under highways, and the Bill gives them power practically to force an entrance through the city in any way they may please. I would point out to the committee that this is at best a suburban railway, and that like other suburban electric railways it should be under the provincial railway board.


Mr. EMMEBSON.: Is Hamilton a suburb of Toronto?


Angus Claude Macdonell: We hope some day that it may be.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Some day Toronto will be a suburb of the whole Niagara district.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The Toronto railway, the Mimico railway, the Metropolitan railway, the York Eadial railway, and the railway running out the Davenport road are at the present time all under provincial control, and they experience no hardship from that. There are many reasons why this road should be retained under provincial control. It is a street railway. True, it is not going on the highway, so we are told, but there is nothing in the Bill which gives us any guarantee as to that. Let us assume that they will expropriate their right of way through the country and still they are a suburban road, radiating some forty miles from Toronto through two counties. Why should not such a road be governed by the provincial law as are othpr railways of a like character? We are asking that this railway should be under provincial control, and that it should have the consent of the municipality before entering the city. What is the fight of this municipality to-day will be the fight of another municipality to-morrow. Our cities are growing, and the railways are radiating from the large centres of population, and if this parliament is going to declare that all these suburban roads are for the general advantage of Canada then the various provinces might just as well here,and now drop the idea of incorporating any railways, and providing regulations for them.
Let me point out that the local conditions of each province are made by local feelings, and local requirements. These are not Dominion matters. The environments of Toronto are not similar to those of Montreal or those of Winnipeg or those of Vancouver. The different provinces have the right, under the British North Mr. MACDONELL.
America Act, to create their own local authority in accordance with their own local requirements and local sentiments; and I ask if that is not reasonable. Otherwise, vdiat would be the use of giving them these powers? The people of one province know that what is good for them may not be good for the people of another province. Take, for instance, Sunday regulations. The province of Ontario has adopted the Sunday law. Other provinces may not choose to adopt it. They may desire to have their railways run on Sunday. The province of Ontario has adopted a law providing that any city having a population of over 50,000 can hold a plebiscite as to whether the cars may run on Sunday or not. That is a matter -which concerns local conditions entirely. I submit that all these local matters should be left to be worked out by local authority. Let me mention a few conditions of the Ontario Bailway Act which are not provided for in the Dominion Act-conditions that have arisen because of local requirements and local sentiments in the province. These conditions may not suit other provinces, but they suit the province of Ontario. It is set down in section 81 of the Ontario Eailway Law that a railway operated by electricity shall stop at such places in addition to those fixed by the company as the board may from time to time by resolution direct. They have power to fix additional stopping places if they desire,. Section 171 is a very important section, providing that fares to be taken by a company on a railway operated by electricity shall not exceed for each passenger five cents for any distance not exceeding three miles and for any excess two, cents per mile; and for each passenger under ten years, three cents for three miles, and for additional distance one-half fare. Subsection 2 of the same section provides that pupils under 17 years of age actually attending school shall be entitled to eight tickets for 25 cents. These rates have been enacted as fair charges for the carrying of passengers. If this road were under Dominion regulation it would not be subject to this tariff; there would be no means of enforcing it; while other companies operating side by side with it, and under provincial control, would be required to observe these rates of fares. Why give one railway company advantage over another operating in the same district? By section 202 any privilege granted by a corporation to a railway company cannot be granted for a longer period than twenty-five years. Section 208 provides that no municipality shall grant to any railway operating by electricity any privilege to operate along a highway for a longer period than twenty-five years;. By section 221 all motormen are required to pass inspection by an examiner as to habits, phy-

sical ability, and intelligence. This applies to a street railway or a railway operated by electricity. By section 227 no company operating a line, of railway of.twenty miles in length or over shall permit or require conductors, engineers, etc., who have worked in any capacity for sixteen consecutive hours, to go again on duty unless they have had six hours rest. Section 193a provides that no employee shall be required or permitted to work for more than six days of ten hours each in any one week nor upon any Sunday when he has w'orked the previous Sunday. Section 256 provides that the board may at all times enter on a right of way, use the same, erect poles or place and put down wires and poles for transmission of electrical or other power from any plant in the province of Ontario to the works and plant of any municipal corporation. The board has a right, where power is being distributed, to enter on the right of way, and use the right of way and the poles, wires, etc.,-with proper compensation, of course-to supply the municipalities with electrical power. There are many more provisions >of the provincial Act which work out along local lines, and which give to the people of the districts through which these roads run the protection and the service which they require. Having regard to these facts, it seems to me that it is highly improper for the parliament of Canada to continue to assume jurisdiction over these railways. 1 think I am safe in saying that from one to two months of the time of the members of this House during the present session has been taken up with railway legislation, either in this House or in the railway committee. That time was taken up unnecessarily. The provinces are often heard. In this particular matter, a number of municipalities protested in the Railway Committee against this Bill, but it was of no avail. The government could have prevented this legislation if they had said that this is not the kind of legislation properly enacted at Ottawa. But no effort of that kind has been made. These little railways are not in any sense Dominion roads, and are not expected to merge into Dominion roads. If this were a short steam railroad, one might suppose that at some time it would be absorbed by one of the great railroads of the country. But it is only a suburban electric railway, which will never become a part of the great railway system of the country. If we are going to continue to pass Acts of this lvind, as the country grows as' the various capitals and other centres of population become as large as Toronto, history will repeat itself, and legislation of this kind will be continually asked for. Therefore, the time has surely come when this House should say whether or not we are going to deal out small railway charters which are
not properly within the province of this House. It is not as if this matter had not been already brought to the attention of this House. As long as I can recollect, this House has been passing provincial legislation of this character. Under the name of Acts for the general advantage of Canada, it has been giving to purely local undertakings broad Dominion legislation, which has enabled them to override the interests and rights of localities and provinces until conditions have arisen that are almost unbearable.
The original rights that were granted when this company was declared a work for the general advantage of Canada have expired. That time has gone by and they are coming now as if they were, asking in the first instance for this right and in addition to that, as far as the Hamilton and Toronto branch is concerned, they are here, now for the first time seeking an extension of their rights and seeking to get over that extended route the benefit of the declaration that they got when they were first incorporated. If they had gone on and completed their work one would suppose that they had some status here at least, but having done nothing but make their surveys and preliminaries of that kind and not having attempted to construct the road or do any actual work in the field or on the ground, they have no right to come here and ask to have this branch declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. For these reasons I say they should go to the provincial authorities and should be put under the proper regulation of the railway board and the Ontario Railway Act the same as other railways operated in a similar way within a local radius, and they should take the consequences w-hatever they may be. The company is supposed to be operating in connection with the Hamilton Radial railway which was incorporated here some two years ago. They have done nothing since, they have not built any works, they have made no headway with their undertaking and before the Railway Committee it became apparent, in fact it was admitted, that the interests were identical. You find much the same gentlemen applying in this case for incorporation, and the objection which was taken then was that they should be confined to the rights and powers given them by the Hamilton Radial railway and should work under that charter. Hon. gentlemen will perhaps recollect the contest that arose over the Hamilton Radial railway. That Bill was forced through this House and through the Railway Committee after a very long ana stubborn fight and these are the same gentlemen. What was said upstairs in the Railway Committee was that they should operate over ' the right of way and under the charter of

the Hamilton road. But that apparently did not suit the hon. gentleman who was promoting the Bill with the result that the rights given to the Hamilton Radial railway have been duplicated in this particular instance. What the effect is going to be one does not know, you cannot tell whether these people will build the road or not. They have made no manifestation of the character of the road or where it is going, one cannot say just what they are going to do about that. They are asking for this additional charter. The original Hamilton Radial railway have a charter under which they can now operate and the granting of this charter is an unnecessary duplication of the rights then granted. If nothing further is done with this Bill these people will not be suffering any injustice because they will still have the original Hamilton Radial Bill under which they can operate which gives them all the rights they should have and all that the municipality	of Toronto thinks they
should have. At that time it was Hobson's choice whether Toronto would take the terms submitted or go on in what was apparently a hopeless fight in further opposing this Hamilton Bill. So it is with this Bill. Certain amendments have been arrived at, they are before the House, but in this case again it is Hobson's choice. They are the best terms that can be made, and amendments are inserted which are now before the House and which I have said protect and safeguard the locality in so far as its local business and traffic is concerned. The main objection still exists that this is invading a municipality and municipal and provincial rights under the guise of being a work for the general advantage of Canada when in substance and in fact it is not. It is getting that name in a manner which is not justified. They have shown no reason except that they want it and the further fact that in order to finance the road they require these broader conditions. If that be so, if it is necessary in order to finance the road that this company should evade provincial conditions and, in fact, a provincial Act, does it not show on the face of it an admission that the safeguards thrown about provincial railways are such that they are in the public interest because the railways are constantly seeking to avoid and evade them? For these reasons it is right and proper that they should be compelled to take their local incorporation, to take the thick with the thin, to take the onerous parts together *with the rights conferred and work out their rights and existence under local conditions in the same way as other railways operating in a similar manner. I Mr. MACDONELL.
therefore think it only right to move that this committee rise.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: plying for provincial charters to-day. I do not think that, except in the case of an electric road, there has been any application in Ontario for a provincial charter by
a railway company within the last ten years. I know of no railway built under a provincial charter except a purely street railway -no railway connecting one town with another. These very restrictions which my hpn. friend points out as applying to provincial roads are the very reasons why these companies are forced to go to the Dominion parliament for incorporation. If we did not have a Board of Railway Commissioners protecting municipalities of all kinds, Toronto as well as the others, in all their rights, I could sympathize with the object of putting some special enactment into this charter to prevent the municipal rights of Toronto from being encroached upon. But the different sections of the Railway Act have hitherto protected Toronto and every other municipality, and the Board of Railway Commissioners is perfectly able and willing to protect all municipalities to the fullest extent. Another reason why I trouble the House on this matter is that some of the newspapers have taken me to task. As a rule I do not care very much what the newspapers say about me. In the ten years I have been in this House, I do not think I have ever risen to a question of privilege on that ground, but some of the Toronto newspapers have undertaken to assail me as a member of the Railway Committee in this connection, and I wish to inform them of the actual facts so that they may have no excuse for making such foolish attacks in the future. In the Toronto ' Globe ' of March 25, I find the following article:
,, ft is announced that the sub-committee of the Railway Commission of the House of Commons, appointed to frame a fair compromise between the corporation of Toronto and the Hamilton and Guelph Railway Company, has succeeded in its assigned task. The solution arrived at debars the company from crossing over or under the city streets except on pians agreed upon by its own engineers and those of the city, the Board of Bailway Commissioners to arbitrate in the case of an otherwise irreconcilable difference of opinion. The company is debarred entirely from running along any streets. This outcome of the dis" pute is much more favourable to the city than the original proposals were, and the keenness with which the representatives of the company contend for what they wanted gives some idea of the loss the city would have sustained if they had got it.
As an ordinary and very humble member of the Railway Committee for the last ten years, I resent the imputation contained in that statement. The Railway Committee has always been willing to protect the city of Toronto to the fullest extent. After this Bill had been before the committee for about three weeks, the mayor and other representatives of Toronto agreed to accept Mr. LANCASTER.
an amendment providing that the railway should not be built through the city of Toronto except on such plans as might be approved .by the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Hobson's choice.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then it is the choice that Hobson ought to have. It is all that any other municipality has ever asked for or obtained. What I object to is that the city of Toronto should be perpetually coming here asking for special privileges and legislation. What I would point out for the benefit of the_ newspapers is that all Toronto has obtained, it would have got at the first hearing of the Bill. If it had never sent a representative to the Railway Committee, the result would have been exactly the same. Under section 235 of the Railway Act, a railway cannot be carried upon, along or across any existing highway without- leave being obtained from the Board of Railway Commissioners, and that is subject to this special provision:
The board shall not grant leave to any company to carry any street railway or tramway, or any railway operated or to be operated as a street railway or tramway along any highway which is within the limit of any city or incorporated town, until the company has first obtained consent therefor bv a by-law of the municipal authority of such city or incorporated town.
By section 237, providing for crossings under, over or across a railway, the plans must be submitted to the Railway Commission. which must hear all concerned, and then make an order declaring where, in the best interests of the public, the railway should go. That would have applied to Toronto, had that city never been heard on this measure. The Railway Committee of this House does not require to be clubbed or worried into proper decisions by the mayor or the aldermen of Toronto or any other city. At the first meeting of the committee I pointed out that the Railway Act was sufficient, and that is all the city of Toronto is getting by the special section added to this Bill.
The representatives of the city of Toronto argued strenuously that they should dictate to the railway company where to put the stations, but in the end that decision was left to the Board of Railway Commissioners. That is the law to-day, confirmed by a decision of the 'Supreme Court at its last session. The Supreme Court decided that the power to locate and determine how many stations shall be built is absolutely in the Railway Commission. So that we heard a great deal with regard to this matter which should never have been mentioned. The rights of Toronto will be treated the same as those of any other city. The rights of Toronto may be greater in quantity but not in quality than those of



II, 1910

[Stage Direction]
St. Catharines? Wodstock, Hamilton and other municipalities; and notwithstanding the clause added to this Bill, I am bound to say that the position of Toronto was exactly the same, and its rights just as much protected as if its representatives had not come here at all. It was said in the ' Globe ' that we had to be clubbed and importuned by the representatives of the city of Toronto before we were disposed to pass a piece of legislation that fully protected the city of Toronto. Such a pretension is absurd. The Railway Act protects Toronto just as _ it does every other municipality. This railway was declared in 1906 a work for the general advantage of Canada-and no Toronto gentleman opposed that in this House, no Toronto alderman came here to argue against it. It goes to the city of Toronto, and we must know that no railway is going to build if it cannot reach the large centres of population, and when we find that it is going to Toronto, we have the city of Toronto, under the name of municipal rights, coming down here and engaging in what I am bound to say is nothing more nor less than municipal obstruction. They have had, and always will have, as far as the Railway Committee is concerned, exactly the same rights to protect their streets as any other place, and if the railway does not run upon the streets, they will have the right to ask the Board of Railway Commissioners to decide on the proper place for them to enter the city. The hon. gentleman first argued that they should have a provincial charter, but I can see no good reason for such contention. They could not now get a provincial charter, the road having been declared a work for the general advantage of Canada and consequently, having regard to the trouble that there is with regard to Sunday cars and of getting capitalization for provincial railways in the province of Ontario, I would be obliged to say that the Bill is a good one in the interest of the whole country, and I shall have to vote against the rising of the committee.
Mr. .7. A. CURRIE. It is extremely unfortunate that my hon. friend and colleague on this side of the House (Mr. Lancaster), should take the stand that he has taken on this particular Bill. He is usually well in-, formed, he is generally enthusiastic in the advocacy of public rights, and I have therefore followed him on many other occasions. But, on this question, there is an issue that is altogether different from any that could be raised, as far as the city of Hamilton, the city of St. Catharines, or the other cities in Ontario are concerned. Were the situation the same I doubt not but what I would follow him. He argues from the general principle that we should give to the city of Toronto no more rights than we give to any other city in the province. That is a fair position to take, but what are the facts? The rights of the city of Toronto in this case are certainly far and beyond the rights of any other city, as far as local traction is concerned. Many years ago Toronto purchased and paid hard cash for the franchise that then existed. It paid $600,000 to extinguish the franchise rights of the railway company and it bought under a contract, which was cemented and bound by legislation of the province, the right to the franchise in its own city. That put the city of Toronto in a different position from any other city or town in Ontario. That gave Toronto a proprietary right in the franchise, and in all the street railway traffic within the city, and I wish this House, in approaching this question, * to look upon this Bill, not so much as an invasion of provincial rights, as an endeavour to have Dominion legislation imposed upon the proprietary rights of the city of Toronto in its franchise. The city is in exactly the same position with regard to its rights in its franchise as the Grand Trunk railway is with regard to its rights in the Union station, or the Canadian Pacific railway is in with regard to its rights in its own tracks. If any man came to this House and proposed to secure a charter to carry on the business of a steam or any other railway in the city of Toronto, and this House gave the promoters the right to force an entrance into the Union station, which is owned by the Grand Trunk railway company, what would this honourable body do? They would say: Before you come here you must make a contract with the Grand Trunk railway; we will, if necessary force the Grand Trunk railway to make a contract with you; but you must make a contract and you must pay for that contract. What does the city get out of its proprietary right in its own charter?-the right to collect fare from every passenger who travels over the traction railways within its own bounds. These traction roads come to the limit of the city of Toronto, the passengers alight and go on by the cars of the Toronto street railway company, and a proportion of the fares that they pay on these cars goes to the city, and amounts to a large sum every year. The position of the city of Toronto is that of a proprietor. It is not some visionary jurisdiction that 's possessed by the city, it is not a matter of a franchise which seems to have 'dropped down from heaven, but the city has rights which it has paid for. This House which has always endeavoured to prevent any invasion of private rights should maintain the traditions of this House and of the greater House in England where private rights are also always respected. The ingenuous arguments of the hon. member for
[Stage Direction]
Lincoln drop to the ground the moment you approach the question from the standpoint that the city of Toronto was the owner of its own franchise. It is true that it has leased that railway to the Toronto Street Railway Company, the same as it might lease a portion of its rights to any other railway company. Another matter that has been brought up is the question of provincial jurisdiction. The hon. member for Lincoln knows very well that he had no ground for arguing that there was any right in this House under any of the old conditions that used to obtain, to grant this railway charter with a clause giving it supreme jurisdiction as far as being a railway for the general advantage of Canada is concerned. The Railway Committee, with very few exceptions, has laid down certain rules, as far as this is concerned, and these rules provide that where a railway crosses the frontier between Canada and a foreign country, this parliament should have jurisdiction to charter the road, that where a railway crosses from one province to another the jurisdiction should rest in this parliament, and that when a railway with a provincial charter crosses a Dominion railway this government should have jurisdiction, not over the provincial railway, but over the crossing. That, as far as I understand it, is the course that has been laid down, and that is as far as they permit jurisdiction of this kind to extend. No one would for a moment attempt to argue that this road is covered by any one of these rules. It is not a provincial road, it is not an international road, it is purely a local road, and there is no argument in favour of granting a charter by this House except the absurd argu*-ment about a Sunday law, advanced by the hon. member for Lincoln. What jurisdiction has the province in this case? What does the provincial jurisdiction do? It charters railways of this kind and would grant this railway company a charter had it asked for it. The argument of the hon. gentleman that if that railway company does not get its charter here it cannot get one anywhere else is absurd. Ontario will grant this railway a charter.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: It cannot by law.


John Allister Currie: I do not know where the law is that will prevent it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then the hon. gentleman has no respect for the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is, that a line having been declared by the parliament of Canada to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, it must always remain so, and the provincial jurisdiction is lost for ever.


John Allister Currie: 


John Allister Currie: The hon. member is petty fogging and quibbling; he knows very well that this charter has expired by eflux of time.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It has not.


John Allister Currie: He knows that when a charter expires- by eflux of time the men who own that charter can go to any province in the Dominion, and get a similar charter.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I want the hon. gentleman to distinctly understand that his proposition is again absolutely wrong in law. When the time for building a road has expired the company does not die. The company has been declared for the general advantage of Canada, and it continues in existence.


John Allister Currie: Does the hon. gentleman claim that a company incorporated by this House to build a railway, and which has never turned a sod continues in existence when its charter expires. Why, all the affairs of that company are virtually in liquidation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You are all wrong.


John Allister Currie: I don't think so.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Privy Council has decided against you


John Allister Currie: Well, there must be a tremenduous sized morgue to hold all these charters that have died. Outside the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern none of the hundreds of private oompanies that have been chartered for the past ten years ever built more than ten miles of road, and the man that built that ten miles is in an asylum. Now, these men can obtain similar charters from the provinces, but the difference is that when a company of. this kind gets a provincial charter the province takes care to- protect the interests of the municipality. The provinces look upon the dealings of such a company as this with the municipalities, in the light of contracts. The argument used by the member for Lincoln, and which is unfortunately not made clear by the member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) has been used in the corridors to canvass for this charter, and it is that the province of Ontario will not grant a railway of this kind a charter for a longer term than twenty-five years, and that it would be impossible for the company to finance on such a short period. Well, that is a quibble again. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) knows the law.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are you sure I know the law?


John Allister Currie: Perhaps you don't, but I always thought you did. I have a good deal of confidence in the hon. member's knowledge of the law, but he sometimes has a convenient faculty of forgetting the clauses of an Act when it suits his purpose.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Come again.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member forgot to tell the House that where a provincial steam or electric railway wishes to carry on its business on its own right of way it can do so to the extent that in that respect its franchise is perpetual. And, it is only when such a railway wishes to use the streets of a town or municipality that the provincial Act obliges them to make a contract with that municipality. Time and again this parliament has put a similar clause in railway charters, and so far as that is concerned there is no difference between the provincial and Dominion law.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will the hon. gentleman tell me of some charter which we granted, saying that the company must come back here again at the end of twenty-five years?


John Allister Currie: Yes, sir. The municipal Act of the province of Ontario says that a municipality cannot grant a franchise for a longer term than twenty-five years.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am talking about this parliament.


John Allister Currie: Wait till I get through; I have got you pinched right there. The municipalities in Ontario only have the power to make contracts of this kind for a term of twenty-five years, and if, as we have done in this parliament, we provide that the railway cannot pass through the municipality unless it makes a contract with the municipality, and that municipality can only grant a charter for twenty-five years, the argument of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) falls again. Now1, let us consider for a moment the rights of the Crown, and as we know this question of jurisdiction has been disturbing us a great deal in this House. We have been granting charters which have purported to over ride the right of the province to the land, and the control over the streets of municipalities. I doubt very much if this parliament has the right to give any jurisdiction over the streets of any municipality in Ontario, because as I understand it the province was in the first place the sovereign power owning its own Crown lands, and I cannot find anything in the British North America Act to show that at confederation the province gave up that right. So far as I can see this company is in no sense a bona fide company, it has had a charter for
a great many years; it has not expended a dollar on the road, and it comes back here time and again for certain Tights. We have no guarantee from this company that if we pass this Bill they will not be down here next year asking for a little more, and this fight will be renewed, and this House will be bothered by this company asking for further privileges. The city of Toronto is in a peculiar position so far as these traction roads are concerned. The gauge of the street railways in Toronto differs from the standard gauge of the railway companies which cannot enter the city on the existing tracks, and consequently they must have a special track built for them along the streets on which they run. Until this session of the provincial parliament the city of Toronto had not the right to admit any of these traction roads on its streets, because it had given, a franchise over its streets, which extends for a term of eleven years more making thirty years in all, to the Toronto street railway. This year the provincial legislature passed an Act enabling the city of Toronto to grant the right to traction companies of this kind to enter the city, and if the street railway does not accommodate them the city of Toronto can build these tracks themselves, and let the companies in. I am very sorry that this Bill has been a bone of contention, but the factjs that the city of Toronto feel that the company which is behind this road has come to this House for the purpose of obtaining by an underhand method a franchise to run right into the city of Toronto, and interfere with the proprietary rights of the city.
I agree with that. I think that if this charter passed this House, in spite of all the limitations placed in it, the first provision that should have been insisted on is that this company should make a contract with the city of Toronto under which, if it entered the city, it would be required to pay the city a certain percentage of its earnings as is done by the company at present in control of the streets of that' city. I do not see a clause of that kind in this Bill. There are a great many other provisions which I would like to see inserted in it. The argument with regard to the Sunday law does not hold good, for the simple reason that if this road enters the city of Toronto, it comes within provincial jurisdiction. I do not agree with the position taken by hon. members that these roads should be permitted willy-nilly to run on Sunday. I think that the people who live along these roads should have the right to say whether they will run on Sunday or not. They are the people interested, not we in this House. Anything touching the rights of conscience should, I think, be left to the people concerned. In that respect we should follow the rule established by the


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I regret that 1 cannot agree with the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) in his conclusions regarding this Bill. He contends that Toronto wants something that no other city of Ontario wants. Well, that may be so; but Toronto is confronted with conditions that do not exist in any other city of Ontario, and therefore very properly asks parliament to grant those which her conditions require. She has a congestion of traffic; her streets are closely built upon; and it is difficult for more railways to pass through the city without interfering with the rights of the people. The city contemplates an arrangement whereby all railways may enter by one tube or subway, and she is entitled to have some consideration shown her in the legislation we pass.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Can the hon. gentleman give any Teason why the railway board could not give all these rights to Toronto without Toronto insisting on being herself the judge?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know whether the railway board can or can not do so; but once a company is before us for legislation, I do not think we are doing anything amiss if we impose restrictions upon

it and make it subject to the rights of the city which is charged with the responsibility of dealing with these local conditions with which we have nothing to do either there or in any other city in the province of Ontario, because there is no other city of the size and with the same congestion of traffic and density of ponulation as the city of Toronto. Therefore, I claim that if Toronto does look for and expect special provisions it is our duty to consider her situation and her requirements, and if we think she is entitled to what she asks we should give it to her. Toronto objects to the Bill because it is declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada and is so brought under the Railway Act. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) says that is right as that clause is in the general Act passed in 1906. I always thought that we had a right to amend or repeal an Act and I still contend that we have.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman seriously say that once you have assumed this jurisdiction this parliament could delegate it to the province?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think we could repeal the whole Act. There is no doubt about our right to do so, whether it is wise or expedient is another question. The original Act shows the line of railway to consist of two short lines. It could not conflict with any Dominion railway, nor is there any railway that intends to amalgamate with it. A strong argument for its being a provincial railway is that it is an electric rail-way. Clause 8 of the original Act says that steam may be used for the purposes of constructing the railway but shall not be the motive power for its operation. I think we have now a better understanding of the rights of the provinces and of the Dominion in matters of that kind, and that if the original Bill were being passed to-day the work would not be declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, I have not looked at the amendment to the charter to see if the company then acquired the right to use steam, but there is nothing in this Bill giving them that power, and so it is not a work for the general advantage of Canada, and it is not claimed that it is a portion of any through line of railway intended to handle the traffic of the country, either freight or passengers.
_ I notice that in the original charter it is said that they can only enter a municipality when the municipality, by by-law, gave them permission and upon terms set out in the by-law. The present Bill is very different and says that it cannot enter the city of Toronto unless with the consent of the council of the city of Toronto
expressed by by-law

 not upon the
terms set out. It is generally held -when we incorporate a company to do a certain thing, as for instance the construction of a railway, that, prima facie, gives them the right to do that thing and municipalities cannot refuse the right to run through their territory, they are obliged to consent and if that be held to be good law, Toronto cannot refuse the right to enter that city.
Another reason why Toronto should have special consideration is that the city owns the charter of the street railway, in about 30 years that charter must revert to the city of Toronto. I hold that when a municipality owns a franchise it should have a perfect right to handle the traffic, and we should not give any other corporation the right to go into the city of Toronto, and handle that traffic to the detriment of the city. The city should be entitled to all it can make out of its own franchise in reason, so long as it serves the public properly and cheaply. It is natural to assume that they will do that, therefore if this railway is given charter rights to invade the city of Toronto, and handle the traffic of Toronto, a great injustice will be done to that city. The company are hedged about in many ways under this Bill, yet I think that they might seriously interfere with the earning powers of the municipal franchise which Toronto will own in thirteen years. I am opposed to this Bill, first because it is an interference with provincial rights; I hold that this is a corporation that should have received its corporate powers from the provincial legislature. I am opposed to it because of the city'3 right to provide for the handling of its own traffic, and because of the congested condition of traffic, and the value of land, and of street rights, including those rights under the street which, in my views, should not be interfered with. If they take authority to build underground, they may interfere with the sewers, or other conveniences of the city; they might make it expensive and difficult to carry on the corporate work of the city. I am opposed to this Bill because I believe that we have improperly declared this to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. I believe that Toronto is not asking anything that this parliament ought not, in fairness, to grant.


Mr. HENDERSON.: We have had a great deal of discussion on this Bill in the Railway Committee, and I presume that everything has been said that can be said to any purpose. Objection has been made to this Bill being dealt with in this parliament on the ground that the company should have a provincial charter. To my mind, it is too late in the day to discuss that, for, years ago, the company obtained a Dominion charter in which this work was declared to be a work for the general

advantage of Canada. The present Bill does not seek to make that declaration; it will be unnecessary, for it was made by a previous parliament. I am not a lawyer, nor, I believe, is the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) who discussed this question freely, and took strong exception to the statements of the hon. member for Lincoln. As the hon. member for North Simcoe is not a lawyer, our opinions will be somewhat on a par. I have listened to the best lawyers in this House for many years, and have heard this question discussed over and over again. The conclusion to which I have come is that once a work is declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, that cannot be altered; according to the decision of the Privy Council it remains a work fol the general advantage of Canada, for all time. Perhaps we might pass a Bill repealing the whole charter, and the effect of that might be to discontinue this as a work for the general advantage of Canada, or for the advantage of any other country. But I cannot agree with the hon. member for North Simcoe when he says that, because the work of construction on this road has not gone on, therefore the charter ha3 lapsed. To my mind, the charter continues until it is repealed by parliament. The power of construction may be lapsed, but the charter exists as before, and will continue to exist. I may say that that is one reason why I have raised objections to many of the charters we have dealt with respecting water rights and railway rights combined; while I felt that the railway rights would lapse by reason of non-performance of the work, the charter, so far as it affects water rights, would continue for ever, and might hamper people fifty or a hundred years hence, who would wish to use these water-powers. However, that i3 aside from the question. I wish to be particular on this point of jurisdiction, because on the next Bill on the order paper, I shall take the opposite view, perhaps, from that which I now express. I refer to the Bill relating to the Toronto Eastern Railway Company. I shall oppose that Bill.


Haughton Lennox: It does not go through Halton.


David Henderson: I know the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) is joking. He will give me credit for better sense than that. The Bill with which we are now dealing has to do with a company whose work has been declared a work for the general advantage of Canada. But the Toronto Eastern railway, to my mind, is a road that, under the British North America Act, comes exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. I know that the Minister of Railways has expressed in the Railway Committee a Mr. HENDERSON.
different opinion, or, at least, the chairman announced a different opinion as being that of the minister. However, I am perfectly willing to disagree with him. This road coming into Toronto from the east does not cross any provincial boundary, nor does it connect with any other road that will take the jurisdiction away from the province. It has not yet been declared a work for the general advantage of Canada. It has been argued here today that it was a mistake to make this Hamilton-Waterloo road a work for the general advantage of Canada. Let us not make the same mistake with regard to the Toronto Eastern. I shall oppose that charter distinctly on the ground that the jurisdiction does not lie in this House, but in the legislature at Toronto. But the position in the case of the Hamilton and Waterloo road is that years ago it was declared a work for the general advantage of Canada, and, therefore, comes here properly for amendments to its charter, we being the only legislature having jurisdiction in the matter. I am sorry that the hon. gentleman should have moved that the committee rise. That would kill the Bill, on which a great deal of time has been spent and which would give us a very useful road. It may be said that I am somewhat prejudiced because the road is intended to pass through the county I have the honour to represent.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are you any more prejudiced than Toronto?


David Henderson: I am not prejudiced at all. I am willing to give Toronto all the rights to which it is entitled. I want to help that city. I want to send its people the best vegetables and fruit produced in the county of Halton. We are willing to give them the best we have, but do not want to be compelled to send it to them in the most expensive way. What do you think the fruit growers of the township of Nelson, county of Halton, are doing? Hon. members may not be aware of the fact that this road has been constructed from Hamilton to Oakville, some 20 miles, and we want it continued into Toronto. Well, fruit growers in the southern part of the township of Nelson have actually loaded their fruit on the Hamilton radial railway, shipped it into Hamilton, and then transferred it to the Grand Trunk railway, in order to have it conveyed into Toronto. That is a round about and very expensive way. Whereas, if we had this road continued to Toronto these goods would go straight from the place of production into that city.


George Perry Graham: Hear, hear.


David Henderson: I am not so much concerned about passengers as about freight

traffic, but strange to say, all the discussion has taken place with reference to passenger traffic. Passengers can get into Toronto by means of the Grand Trunk railway or Canadian Pacific railway; but what we are more concerned with is getting our fruit and vegetables and other perishable freight into Toronto without the necessity of transhipment. By means of the radial railway, we could get them into the city at every hour of the day. The people of Toronto want our fruit and ' vegetables, and it is just such impediments as we are striving to remove which bring about the increased cost of living. These people are hurting themselves by making it more expensive than necessary to have produce brought into their city. We can supply them with all these goods they want, so that the benefit would be mutual. Do not, therefore, compel this company to build its line in the most expensive way simply because the Toronto Street railway might possibly lose a few fares. They talk about protecting their city, but I think this Bill amply protects it. Why, when this company gets to the boundary line, it cannot take on another passenger, and it cannot take on a passenger in Toronto at the terminus and let him off at any place in the city. It can only take him from the central part of the city and dump him out after it gets him outside. To my mind the street railway is amply protected. True, the city of Toronto 20 years ago made a bargain, and undoubtedly a good bargain, and leased to the Toronto Street railway the right to use its streets for 30 years. Some ten years have yet to expire, and the city is bound to protect its covenants or be liable to damages. I am not sure but that the city may yet see the propriety of making an arrangement with the street railway, paying it a bonus to extinguish that franchise and give over the whole thing, and then deal more generously with other railways coming into the city. I question whether the city of Toronto would not be the gainer if it "had more freedom to deal with new railways coming in, even at the loss of the $600,000 per year it now gets from the street railway company. I repeat that I regret very much the hon. gentleman should have moved that the committee rise. I am not going to vote to kill a Bill that I know would be of advantage to the people of my county, and which I believe will also be of advantage to the people of Toronto.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: A few words on the interesting points raised in the discussion on this Bill. On the question of jurisdiction, from the facts stated here, primarily the local legislature ought to enjoy it, but we are unfortunately in the position that the Dominion government years ago granted a charter for this particular line. If the principle of law be as I understand it, 215i
once the Dominion government assumes jurisdiction, it cannot divest itself of that jurisdiction or vest it in the local government. My hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) will remember the argument used with reference to the School Bill, when the Dominion government was trying to vest in the local governments the jurisdiction vested in this parliament. Our argument was always that whatever power be vested in the Dominion parliament, that parliament cannot divest itself of. I think that the legal proposition is as clear as possible that if we pass an Act divesting ourselves of our power over this road, it will not reinvest it in the local government, and the local government cannot deal with it. Another nice question arises with reference to the duration of the life of a corporation. Several hon. gentlemen have argued that a corporation ceases if the conditions imposed by the charter are not complied with. We give a franchise to a company for the building of a road and it must be commenced within one year and finished within five. The argument is that if they did not commence operations within one year,' the charter lapsed. The old opinion -was that once you give an entity to a corporation it exists for ever. For a great many reasons it ought to be so. A corporation might incur liabilities, and if the corporation terminated with its failure to carry out its undertaking, you could not sue it or collect debt from it. The old principle is that once you give a corporation its entity, it exists for ever. I do not know anything about the merits of this road, but the question as raised by m,y hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) is as to the proprietary right of the city of Toronto in all their local undertakings. I think they ought to have such a right for the benefit of the country, but it is a monstrous thing to say that we are precluded from giving a charter to a particular company because its railway ends in Toronto unless the company get the consent of the city to enter within its limits. If it invades any municipal rights let us make other provision for it. I think the Railway Act does make provision for such a case. The Railway Commission have power to impose such conditions as will fully guard every interest in the city of Toronto.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to say one word in reference to what has been said by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) with regard to the question of rights that we take in this parliament. My understanding of the British North America Act is that we cannot divest ourselves of any rights which are given to us and we cannot give to the province any rights other than what they enjoy under the provisions of that Act. But, I think we might claim rights that we would not be upheld in if

we went to the courts. We might assume lights and the courts might decide that we did not have those rights. I do not think we can claim a right because we assume it. I remember one time hearing the late Sir Oliver Mowat say: If I am in doubt as to whether we have the right to do a thing I go on, take authority under the law to do it, and let the courts decide whether we have the right or not. It is a kind of confiscation, but I do not think that taking a right would give us the right if the British North America Act did not in reality give it t'o us, and that we would be sustained by the courts.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Privy Council have already decided the very opposite of the hon. gentleman's contention.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the hon. member who has the Bill in charge if the corporation, if this Act went through, could operate its road by any other power than electricity.


Mr. HARRIS.: As I understand, it could not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, I think the hon. member is right in that, because I do not see anything in the first Act which says it shall and in the second Act there is nothing at all said about it. In the Act of 1908 there is the following clause:
Section 10 of chapter 106 of the statutes of 1906, intituled, an Act to incorporate the Hamilton, Waterloo and Guelph Railway Company, is hereby amended by substituting for the word ' thousand ' in the second line thereof, the words ' seven thousand five hundred.'
That is only enlarging its borrowing powers, and it is the only thing that is in the Act; therefore there is nothing in the amending Act that would give it power nor is there anything in the Act which was originally passed. These -would seem strong additional reasons why this company should be under the control of the local legislature. The original Act says:
The company and its undertaking, shall be subject to such provisions of any general Act now or hereafter passed by the legislature of the province of Ontario as provide, in the interests of public health or safety, for the control and regulation of the transmission, distribution or supply of electricity in any form.
I do not know how it could carry out that portion of its charter with the declaration that this is a work for the general advantage of Canada. I do not see how it can be placed under the provisions of that Act and yet refrain from being under the control of the legislative assembly.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I wish to say a word with reference to the view put forward by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart). Of course, he is familiar with the Railway Act, and I do not suppose that he


Thomas Simpson Sproule: has overlooked the section to which I wish to call his attention. This charter which was granted four years ago has not been renewal since, although an Act was obtained to amend the original Act for the purpose of giving the company additional bonding powers. Section 150 of the Railway Act says:
If the construction of the railway is not commenced and fifteen per centum of the amount of the canital stock is not expended thereon within two years after the passing of the Act authorizing the construction of the railway, or if the railway is not finished and put in operation within five years from the passing of such Act, then the powers granted by such Act, or by this Act, shall cease and he null and void as respects so much of the railway as then remains uncompleted.
The conditions of that section have not been fulfilled. Four years have gone and the railway has not expended 15 per cent of its capital upon the work. I do not say that the company has expired, but I say that the construction cannot be proceeded with under the charter. That is proved by the power that is sought by section 6 of the Bill now before the committee, in which the company asks that the time be extended during which it can do this work.


John Graham Haggart: 1 stated that while the power of doing what the Act authorized the corporation to do ceases, it does not affect the corporation.


Angus Claude Macdonell: It affects the question of their power to proceed.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonell) negatived, and Bill reported.



TORONTO EASTERN RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on. Bill (No. 116), to incorporate the Toronto Eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Fowke.
John Allister Currie: As the promoter of this Bill is not here, and as there will be a fight on it, I would suggest that the Bill be laid over. I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Samuel Hughes: I think the House is ready to go on with the Bill.


John Allister Currie: I do not think so. The custom of the House is that if the member in charge of a Bill is not here to look after it, and if it is a contentious Bill, it invariably goes over.


George Perry Graham: I think there is no particular reason Why we should not go on with the Bill, unless the powers of discussion have not been exhausted by the Hamilton and Guelph bill. I understood that the discussion was to take place on one or other of these Bills.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member does not want an all-night fight, does he?
M f. GRAHAM. The hon. gentleman should not make that remark. A threat of that kind does not influence me one iota -I am a sort of night hawk myself. That is really not the intelligent way to approach a question of this kind. We want to go on with the business, but if there is a strong objection on the part of hon. members to going on in the absence of the promotor, we might let the Bill stand over.


Samuel Hughes: The Bill is just the same as the other Bill. Why not put it through? These gentlemen are only bluffing.


George Perry Graham: We are getting near the end of the session, but if every time a contentious Bill comes up hon. gentlemen ask that this be put off, we shall make very little progress. Let us go at it and dispose of it, unless a number of hon. gentlemen wish it to be put off. I am not pressing for one thing or the other, but I appeal to hon. gentlemen whether anything is gained by side-stepping the question.


David Henderson: I have taken objection to going on with a private Bill when the promoter is not present. As the minister says, however, we are getting near the end of the session, and we should not stop legislation for a reason of that, kind, although it is a very good one. I intend to oppose this Bill, but I would rather oppose it when the promoter is present, and therefore, it would suit me just as well if the Bill were laid over until he can be here.


George Perry Graham: Urould it be a fair arrangement to leave the Bill on the order paper "where it is, and let it stand until the hon. member in charge of it is here ? I want to do everything to expedite the business of the House.


David Henderson: No doubt the hon. gentleman will be here to-morrow, when after eight o'clock there will be an hour for private Bills.


John Allister Currie: There is no reason why we should not clear the order paper to-day of all the Bills except contentious Bills, and let them stand over. The business of the House has been much delayed by these contentious Bills, and if under the Rules of the House these were put automatically at the bottom of the list, or the rule of the British parliament were followed, and members balloted for the place a Bill occupied on the order paper at the beginning of the session, the business of the House would be expedited.


Samuel Hughes: I would certainly object to this Bill being held over in order to let any other Bill take precedence of it. If there were any valid objection to this Bill, I would be found fighting against it; but I cannot understand why one gentleman supports one Bill and opposes another of the same character.


David Henderson: Had the hon. gentleman been in his place while we were putting through the other Bill he would have understood my reasons for supporting one and opposing the other. I am satisfied the premier quite understands it.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do.


David Henderson: I think my hon. friend should withdraw the charge that I am inconsistent in supporting one and opposing the other. My grounds were well taken and are based on the British North America Act, and I am prepared to stand by the British North America Act, let the hon. gentleman diverge from it just as much as he likes to suit his convenience. I am going to stand by the constitution.


Samuel Hughes: I did not hear the latest excuse that the hon. gentleman gives for supporting one and opposing the other, I am simply taking the case he gave in the Railway Committee that it runs through his county.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman has no right to make that statement. Would parliamentary language permit it, I would say it was not true. The hon. gentleman did not hear that. Mr. Fowke, the hon. gentleman who is promoting the Bill now under discussion, threw out an insinuation that that was why I was opposnig it, and I immediately rose and repudiated the insinuation. I do remember some years ago stating that I was in favour of that Bill because it was for the general advantage of Halton. That is what I am here for. I am here to support legislation that is for the general advantage of Halton, and legislation in accordance with the constitution of the country, and I am opposed to legislation not in accordance with the constitution. The Hamilton Radial Bill is under Dominion jurisdiction and this Bill, to my mind, comes exclusively and entirely within provincial jurisdiction.


Angus Claude Macdonell: This Bill is going to be contested, and I think the rest of the time available for private Bills will be consumed in its discusson. I do not think it wise or fair that the minister should proceed with the Bill in the absence of the promoter.


Samuel Hughes: Then the whole question I of private Bills should be set aside for

to-day, and some other business should be taken up because it would be a simple matter for gentlemen opposing the Bill to say that this should stand over and make it contentious to the end of the session. There should be no giving way unless the whole private Bill order is set aside for the day.


John Allister Currie: I think it is unfair that the House should be clubbed because this Bill happens to have a certain position on the order paper. There is other important legislation on the order paper and when a Bill is contentious the word of the Prime Minister is sufficient to make it stand over. To-day in his absence the Minister of Railways should have said it should stand. I cannot see why the hon. member should blame the hon. member for Halton for supporting one Bill and opposing another, because one railway goes through his riding. I cannot see why the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) interferes with railways in other people's constituencies. Neither of these railways touches his riding. The Prime Minister will recognize that necessity knows -no law in this matter; this Bill is going to he fought and it is as well that the member who has it in charge should be here.


George Perry Graham: After hearing the discussion my opinion is that this Bill is going to be fought for quitte a long while. If we are to close the session as proposed we have very little more time to discuss these Bills. If it is to be discussed why not go on and have the discussion. I think on the whole, in the interest of every one we might as well hear the arguments because we will hear no arguments on Thursday or Friday, so we had better go on with the Bill.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: In the absence of the promoter, who would accede to any amendments?


Samuel Hughes: The member came to me and some others, and he asked me to look after the Bill in his absence, and I am prepared to do so.
On section 1, incorporation.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I have to object to this Bill. Some of my objections are covered by those urged to the last Bill, and there are further arguments against it. The Bill in the first place does not pretend to qualify itself, so to speak, for appearance in this House under the constitution of the country. The railway is admittedly an electric railway, running between three or four counties, and not going anywhere within 100 miles of the limits of the province. The Bill in that aspect of the case is entirely a provincial Bill, entirely an inter-county or interurban Bill.


Samuel Hughes: 


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman said this railway did not run within 100 mile3 of the border of the province?


Angus Claude Macdonell: Yes.


George Perry Graham: It runs to the lake shore.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Yes, and the American shore is 60 miles across, and the Minister of Railways might have some good ground for correcting me if the railway were to be constructed across the lake, which, of course, is impossible. There is no justification whatever for the presence of this Bill in this parliament. As originally drafted the Bill simply provided for the building of this railway to the limits of Toronto, but during its progress through the committee it thought it would like to get the same powers as had been given to the Hamilton, Waterloo and Berlin railway, and so the Bill was amended in that respect. In the case of the latter Bill, certain hon. gentlemen took the view that its prior incorporation by this parliament gave it a federal status which ought to be maintained, but the present railway has not even that excuse for seeking a federal charter. It was entirely an afterthought that this company asked for power to operate in the city of Toronto, and the provision to that effect was inserted in the Railway Committee. When the Bill met with opposition in the Railway Committee the promoters sought to give the railway an international character by stating that it was the intention of the company to run a ferry service across the lake, so as to connect with the New York roads, but in the Bill itself there is no right given to run any such ferry. That also was 'an afterthought.


Samuel Hughes: How can you tell that?


Angus Claude Macdonell: There is no difficulty in telling that, because if it were the original intention of the company to operate a ferry it is reasonable to suppose that the promoters would have asked for that power. They might as well have left out reference to the Victoria-Haliburton branch, and then said afterwards that they desired to have it inserted. Why should the parliament of Canada give a franchise to anybody that asks for one. Why should this railway company be given running rights through the city of Toronto in face of the opposition of that city? Why should this parliament give to railway companies rights derogatory to the municipalities in the opinion of those who govern these municipalities. When the former Bill came before the Railway Committee the province of Ontario was represented by counsel, and in the name of the premier and on behalf of the government he contended

that this was purely a local undertaking, and he asked that this parliament should send the company back to the legislature of Ontario. The voice of the government of Ontario was heard, and it should have been listened to, and this company should not have been, in open defiance of the British North America Act, declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. Years ago it was an easy thing to have a work declared for the general advantage of Canada. It was given almost for the asking. But the right was not then regarded as of very great importance-certainly, not of the importance attached to it now. The people now are declaring against the improper use of this phrase, and are demanding that ' a work for the general advantage of Canada ' must be a work for the general advantage of Canada, or otherwise it is not to be so declared. I say, without fear of contradiction, that there is nothing in the British North America Act that justifies this railway in coming here; on the contrary there i3 everything in that Act to make it clear that it should go to the provincial authority of Ontario. If certain little railways are to be granted this right of being made Dominion roads by the mere exercise of our power, let us take down the bars altogether, and accord this privilege to anybody that comes here to ask for a railway charter, whether for an electric railway or any other. In that case, of course, provincial railway legislation, and the provincial railway commissions are useless. We ought to be consistent; there ought to be a line drawn somewhere; and if the line is to be drawn at all it will exclude such companies as this from coming to this parliament. For there can be no argument that I can see in support of these people coming here. I do not want to repeat what I tried to say on the Bill which preceded this, but I say that under section 8 of the Railway Act this railway has ample rights and powers to get the full benefit of the Railway Act of Canada. There is a reason for the company coming to this parliaments-there is no disguising that fact. That reason has been stated on the floor of this House on previous Bills, and the Teason is that a railway whose charter is got from the Dominion of Canada is more easily financed. I believe that to be the fact, and I believe that to be the reason why the railways come here. But what does that mean? It means that the obligations imposed upon railway corporations under the Railway Act of the province of Ontario are more onerous than those imposed by the Dominion Railway Act. For instance, there is the regulation as to fares, which, as I pointed out, in regard to the other Bill, oblige all railways incorporated by the Ontario authority to give cheap fares, special fares to children,
and to pupils attending school, and so on. Also, they are obliged to give protection to their motormen, and other workmen, give them certain periods of rest, choose them by examination which will assure their qualification for the work they are to do. Surely, these are public safeguards that the government of Canada should give heed to. But, in the case of a Dominion railway, the public have not the same safeguards. I submit, then, that the time has arrrived when the parliament of Canada shall decide whether the railways shall be favoured, or whether the people shall receive justice. Is this parliament to be guided by considerations of the benefit of corporations, or is the public to be considered, and due restrictions to be imposed? We seem to be clearly at the parting of the ways, and it is for this committee, and this House to decide upon its course. This railway company comes to this parliament because under our law the public will be left without certain protection that they would have if the charter were given by the province of Ontario. It seems to me that this is a fair way to put it, and that the position is unanswerable.
Much was made of the plea that the Railway Commission was the proper tribunal for the hearing of railway questions generally. But they have a railway commission in Ontario. We must assume that that commission will do its duty; we must assume that the province has appointed properly qualified commissioners who have due authority, and will exercise that authority for the public good. We find that very little attention is now paid to the cry of provincial rights. There was a time when conditions were different. I can well recollect the time, before the change of government in the province of Ontario, when my hon. friend the Minister of Railways . (Mr. Graham) was in the Ontario legislature. I believe the hon. minister was a member of that body in 1903.


George Perry Graham: He was.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The Liberal government of the province of that day objected, a3 its successor has objected since, to the parliament of Canada dealing, with these railway matters, and many other matters that come properly within the area of provincial jurisdiction. Perhaps the hon. minister (Mr. Graham) recollects a certain resolution passed in that House during the session of 1903. The provincial government became so impressed with the necessity of protecting provincial rights that they formulated a resolution, and sent it to "Ottawa, protesting against further encroachment by this parliament upon the provincial domain. That resolution will be found in the journals of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for, 1903,

page 329. It was moved by Mr. Pattullo, seconded by Mr. Bowman-both ardent supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite- and resolved:
That this House protests against the tendency of late years on the part of the Dominion parliament in the matter of legislation whereby companies are being incorporated by special Acts, though such companies have purely provincial objects and come within the purview of subsections 11 and 16 of the British North America Act.
That the expedient which it has become customary to adopt of inserting in Bills the mere assertion ' that the works of the company being incorporated are declared to be for the general advantage of Canada/ afford no reasonable protection against encroachments upon provincial jurisdiction, the Bills being entertained and classed apparently in ordinary routine and without reference to any serious consideration of the question of jurisdiction.
That there is involved in this growing tendency toward encroachment on the provincial field of legislation and invasion of the rights of municipalities, which this House regards as of serious importance.
That the provincial laws relating to electric railways have been designed to safeguard in many respects the rights and interests of the municipalities through which these railways run or are chartered to be constructed, and the protection to municipalities thus afforded will be prejudicially affected, if not entirely removed, by the assumption and exercise of the right to legislate regarding these local railways on the part of the Dominion parliament.
This House, therefore, respectfully urges the Dominion parliament not to pass legislation of this nature pertaining to matters heretofore generally understood to be within provincial jurisdiction, and which, in their nature, are matters of purely local concern.
If that resolution had been drawn yesterday as a protest against this particular Act, it could not have been couched in more appropriate and pertinent language. That request was made by friends of hon. gentlemen opposite, and there it stands as true as when committed to print. If anything further were needed to emphasize the propriety and urgency of the resolution, I have quoted, it is what has taken place since. Time and again since then, this principle has been violated with the result that the province of Ontario has again and again sent down its duly accredited representatives to this House* to protest against the_ improper use of this term in cases of this kind. In this very case the Ontario government felt it incumbent to make this protest and sent its representatives here for that purpose.
At six o'clock, Committee took recess.
After Eecess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Angus Claude Macdonell: When this Bill was before the committee much stress was laid


Angus Claude Macdonell: upon the fact that the incorporators of the company were men of means, substance and position in the locality. With that statement I entirely agree; I have nothing whatever but good words to say of the applicants for incorporation in regard to their status in the community. But, I submit with all diffidence that because that fact exists it is no reason why this House should grant these gentlemen incorporation in a case where it would not be proper to grant it to other people. The promoter of the Bill made the statement, I think, that any one of these gentlemen could build this road as easily as he could take his breakfast.


Samuel Hughes: ' Some ' of them.


Angus Claude Macdonell: There is tery little difference between ' any ' and ' some,' I think I am right in the statement I make all the same; however, I will accept 'some' of them.


David Henderson: Put it ' most ' of them, and you will be about right.


Angus Claude Macdonell: ' Most ' of them. If that be so, if these people are of that calibre, if they are bona fide in their intention to prosecute this work, why should they object to curtailing the provision in this Bill permitting them to amalgamate with the Canadian Pacific railway, or Grand Trunk railway, the Oshawa Railway Company, the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company, or any of them? I protested in the committee against these powers of amalgamation with these powerful railway organizations, and I did so because this company, which is now seeking incorporation, is supposed to operate a purely electric railway of practically a local nature running between these counties'-an intercounty railway operated by electricity. If these parties are of the calibre that they are said to be, and I quite agree that those whom I know are men of means, and if they are going to build this road, then why need they be given such broad powers of amalgamation? These various railway companies that this company is given power to amalgamate with are to-day in the city of Toronto. They all have their rights of way to that -city, they all have whatever terminal facilities they require, and why should they be given this duplicate entrance into the city with certain powers, that, I submit, should not be given to them at all? That position was not met. There was no statement made as to why this railway sought power to form this amalgamation.
I object to this amalgamation upon the ground that a small railway company of this nature is given certain powers, and privileges that I submit would not be given to a large railway corporation. Just because it looks to me like a small undertak-

ing, and because it is apparently going to carry passenger traffic it is given certain powers. If this company amalgamates with and merges into one of the big railway companies, then one of these big railway corporations will have all the powers that this company has got under this Bill if it passes. I submit that this is not along the lines of prior legislation in this House. It would be an objectionaible measure upon that ground. That contention was not in any way met. This company has, at the eleventh hour, sought and received from the Railway Committee power to enter, and operate in the city of Toronto. If a railway is building throughout the west, through the most unsettled part of that country, or in any agricultural or Tural district, before the company comes down to Ottawa and appears before the Railway Committee it must be properly equipped with plans, and surveys showing its route. If that be so in the case of a rural district, I ask how much more should it be a requisite when a railway company proposes to enter a thickly populated, and large metropolitan city of the size of Toronto. Is there going to be one rule 'for certain applicants for railway charters, and a different Tule for certain other applicants? It looks very much as if that is to be the case. The hon. gentleman who promotes this Bill came here without any idea of having a local service in Toronto, and because he saw that a local service was being given to the Hamilton, Waterloo and Berlin rail-[DOT]way he, forsooth, thinks it very desirable to have, asks for it, and without either plan or route, or without showing how he is going, whether with a service underground or overhead, he is given this roving power to go at will through the city of Toronto from the eastern limit to a central station and even the central station is not mentioned. No location is fixed, no location is suggested. I do not think it is a proper way to treat this committee, or the House, or the locality in which it is proposed to operate in this blanket way. l7his railway is simply given blanket powers to enter the city of Toronto at will where it likes, and in the manner it likes without any limitation.


George Perry Graham: Is it not a fact that they cannot enter the city of Toronto unless they first get the approval of the engineer of the city, and if they cannot make an agreement, until they get the permission of a board of engineers? They cannot go in as they like, and they cannot locate a foot of this railway until the Minister of Railways approves of it, and they cannot go into the city until the Board of Railway Commissioners approve of it.


Samuel Hughes: He knows all that.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I resent with emphasis the unfair statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes). He has made an unfair statement. He insinuates that I am making an argument that I do not believe in, and that is not sincere, and I ask him to withdraw the insinuation.


Samuel Hughes: I reiterate with tenfold force what I said that if the hon. gentleman knows anything, he knows that everything he has stated here is not in accordance with the facts as stated in the Bill.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw the statement.


Samuel Hughes: I will make it again.


Angus Claude Macdonell: You will?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is a well known rule that every hon. gentleman in this House shall be credited with sincerity in anything that he says.


Samuel Hughes: I did not doubt his sincerity.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the hon. gentleman does not cast any doubt on the sincerity of the hon. member for South Toronto, then there is no question of order.


Samuel Hughes: What I say is this, and I repeat it, that the statement which the hon. gentleman made, that this road enters Toronto at its own sweet will, without any control, is absolutely contrary to the fact, and he knows it, because he fought it out in the committee.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to compel the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement, that I made a statement that was untrue to my knowledge.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is quite true, the rule prevents an hon. member from indicating that another hon. member has stated anything which he knows to he untrue. I have not gathered that meaning from the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton. It seems to me to be really more a dispute as to certain facts than any denial of an intention on the part of the hon. member for South Toronto to give the facts as he sees them.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I am simply taking the point of order on the words of the hon. member, who said that I had made a statement which was not true to my knowledge. That is unparliamentary and inaccurate, and I ask that it be withdrawn.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The statement put in the form in which the hon. member for Toronto puts it would be out of order, but I did not gather it in that form.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Then. I will continue where I was interrupted. It is quite true, as the Minister of Railways pointed


Samuel Hughes: Jf the iteration of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonell) that he thinks so and so where the British North America Act does not say so, I have no hesitation in saying that he has made out a very good case, but, unfortunately for him we have had just such railway charters passed by this House for a great many years. I received my political training under Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir John Abbott


Angus Claude Macdonell: You did not profit much by it.


Samuel Hughes: Ii will compare favourably with that of the member for Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) I say that without hesitation..


Angus Claude Macdonell: You say lots of things without hesitation.


Samuel Hughes: I had my training Isay under Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir John Abbott, Sir John Thompson, Sir Mackenzie Bowell and Sir Charles Tupper, and I shall read to the House a few of the names of the railway charters which were passed by this House when they were leaders, and which, by so doing, according to the logic of my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonell) parliament tore the British North America Act into shreds. Here are the names of a few purely provincial corporations that were incorporated in one year under the Conservative government: The Calgary Street railway, the Chilliwack Railway Company, British Columbia; the Columbia and Kootenay Railway Company, British Columbia; the Drummond County railway, province of Quebec; the London and Port Stanley railway, the Nakusp and Slocan railway; the Nelson and Fort Sheppard railway, British Columbia; the Western Counties Railway Company, Nova Scotia (a little one horse inter-county railway). These were passed in the old Conservative days and according to my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonell) the constitution was smashed. Then there was also the Yarmouth and Annapolis railway. Now, in another year there were incorporated by the Dominion parliament the following provincial railways:	The Windsor and
Annapolis railway, the Trail Creek and Golumbia railway, the South Shore Railway Company; the Shore Line Railway Company, New Brunswick; the Temiscou-ata railway, the St. Catharines and Niagara Railway Company (later on it became an international road); the Red Mountain Railway Company


John Allister Currie: That is international.


Samuel Hughes: As a matter of fact the road was never built. The Quebec, Montmorency and Charlevois Railway Company, the Oshawa Railway Company (a little street railway running from the wharf up to the town). The Manitoba and South Eastern Railway Company, the Lindsay, Haliburton and Mattawa Railway Company (a purely inter-county railway), the Jamies Bay Railway Company, the Brant and Southwestern Railway Company, the Cariboo Railway Company, the Cobourg, Northumberland and Pacific Railway Company, the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company, the Edmonton Street Railway Company, the Erie and Huron Railway Company, the Gleichen, Beaver Lake and Alberta Railway Company, the Guelph Junction Railway Company and many others obtained their charters here, and bo it is in any year you choose, you will find any number of similar companies provincial in their character, obtaining their charters from this parliament. The examples I have cited were all under Conservative administration. Section 92 subsection 10-constitution of the British North America Act assigns to the Dominion of Canada

Suck works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
There are many arguments in favour of all railways that purchase their own rights of way that run on a standard gauge no matter what the motive power may be, coming under Dominion jurisdiction. There should be for all such railways the same signals, the same rules, the same system of lighting and regulations, the same means of guarding the public. These should be uniform throughout Canada, and they can only be made uniform by having these roads declared for the general advantage of Canada.	,
I have taken pains to ascertain the feeling of the business men of Toronto since this obstruction has been going on in connection with the council or a few members of the council. I do not know whether they are all aspiring for public positions or further promotion, but I find that the leading business men outside of what you may pall the little municipal gentlemen are anxious to have all the roads enter that city they can get. They know what built up that city in the early days, they know it was the railwavs and they are anxious to have them there and they deplore the conduct of the council and representatives of that city in coming here to obstruct the Bill. They thought at first there was a desire on the part of the railway to run on the streets of the city, but when they found that was forbidden and that the road could not enter the city without first obtaining an agreement with the city engineer and then have

it come before the Dominion Board of Railway Commissioners, and that whether the Railway Commissioners approved or otherwise the company could not run along any street in Toronto without the permission of the board and the city, that they merely had the right of crossing the streets by overhead or underground crossings, and they must purchase the right of way. The council of the city of Toronto accepted the clause in this^Bill and the other Bill as satisfactory to them.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is stating something that is not correct, is not true; the city of Toronto did not accept them.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: That would not constitute a point of order. .


Angus Claude Macdonell: I contradict the hon. gentleman; I will not allow him to make a statement that is not correct.


Samuel Hughes: I was present in the committee when the mayor and council agreed with the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Harris) on the clause that is in this Bill today. I appeal to the hon. member for Brant if the municipal representatives of Toronto did not accept the agreement about the entrance of the other railway into the city of Toronto on the same conditions as are here


Angus Claude Macdonell: I rise to state the facts.


Samuel Hughes: I object to the hon. member taking the floor.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman can only interfere with the consent of the hon. gentleman who has the floor.


Samuel Hughes: I will read the clause:
Unless with the consent of the city of Toronto, expressed by by-law, the railway of the company shall not be constructed upon or along any highway, as defined in the Railway Act, or easement acquired for public works in the said city east of Roncesvalles avenue, nor shall the railway of the company be constructed under, over or across any such highway or easement unless the plans and specifications thereof are approved by the engineer for the time being of the said city, or such engineer as may be appointed for that purpose, and the engineer for the time being of the company, and in the event of tlie said engineers failing to agree, by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
Clauses 9 and 10 about carrying passengers in the city, I understand, are also similar in the. other Bill. Did not the mayor of Toronto or some representative oi the city of Toronto agree to those clauses in the other Bill?


Lloyd Harris: I think that the member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) drafted that clause himself, and it was accepted by the sub-committee.	'


Samuel Hughes: 


Angus Claude Macdonell: The hon. gentleman thinks.


Samuel Hughes: Then I am stronger in my position that these clauses were accepted by the representative of Toronto, and the understanding I had was that these Bills would go through unopposed. The city of Toronto is properly guarded, no one of these railways can run along the streets without the absolute authority of the city. The Board of Railway Commissioners has not the option of saying whether it shall or not. It is the city of Toronto alone that can say whether the railway shall run along its streets or not. No greater protection can be afforded the city than is afforded by these measures. Several of the prominent business men of Toronto with whom I have conversed are very much opposed to any further or any factious opposition to these Bills, they want all the business they can get there. These are the men on whom the interests of the city depend and not alone the men in the council. Why do the city aldermen appeal for these restrictions? Look at Pittsburg today-a hundred aldermen indicted for bood-ling. Why should we place a railway entering the city of Toronto at the beck and nod of the aldermen there? Ought we not to protect the interests of the city? I contend that the Railway Commissioners of Canada should be the arbitrators in case the engineer of the city and the engineer of the railway fail to agree. The enterprise will be destroyed if left to the beck and nod of aldermen elected by fire-hall influence or anything else.


Mr.   .T. A. CURRIE@: The inference drawn from the remarks of the hon. member will be that he intends a comparison between the hundred boodling aldermen of Pittsburg and the aldermen of Toronto, and it seems to me, that requires a little modification.
I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) should be a little guarded in his remarks. There are many honourable men in the aldermanic body of the city of Toronto, and I do not think that the hon. member's way of speaking of them is fair.


Samuel Hughes: I am obliged to ' the hon. member (Mr. J. A. Currie). But Toronto has fallen before and may fall again. Now, the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) -objected to the powers of amalgamation given this road. Why, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific railway each have had power to amalgamate with other roads. The Grand Trunk has amalgamated with the Northern, with the Nipissing and with the Midland, and the Canadian Pacific railway has amalgamated with half a dozen roads around Toronto, and why should they be forbidden to amalgamate with this road or it with them? Why should this road be singled out for different treatment from that .accorded to

others? I have already given instances to show that, for generations back, this parliament, under Conservative or under Liberal rule, has passed, not one, but scores of charters for small railway companies. And the constitution of Canada is still intact. I must say that I could not understand the language of the hon. member when he told us that no plan of this road had been submitted. Why, there was a plan on the wall of the committee room which was referred to by the promoter of this Bill. That plan showed this road, its branches and terminals, all in detail. 1 wish to say, Sir, that the name of William Cowan standing at the head of this Bill- a man who practically owns two of the best banks of the Dominion of Canada-is of itself a guarantee that this Bill is worthy the best attention and consideration of the people of Canada and of this House of Commons.
Another very serious objection urged by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) was that there was no control over the rates for school children. Let me tell him that every morning children by the dozen travel on the Grand Trunk from points near Toronto, practically for nothing. Children travel to the Markham high school from both sides of that town. They get tickets at a rate so marvellously low- I think it is half a cent a mile, but I am not sure-that it is cheaper than walking would be. And, wherever they are wanted and wherever the trains run, suitable rates are made for school children. After the amendment of the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) which, certainly .was made with the consent of the mayor and the council added to the other Bill and to be added to this one. I must express myself as astonished at the opposition engendered to these measures.


David Henderson: My opposition to this Bill is simply on the point of jurisdiction. I contend that this company should have gone to the province of Ontario to seek a charter, as provided under the British North America Act. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) disagrees with that contention. I am not going to try to convince him any more than he need try to convince me that I am wrong. I will draw attention, however, to the statements which the hon. gentleman made with regard to the charters that were granted during the regime of the Conservative party to companies whose works were declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. It was quite impossible for one to follow the list as the hon. member read it. But I remember that he commenced by * mentioning the Calgary street railway, and , then referred to the Edmonton street railway, and to the Red Deer Valley road. Of course, he could name all the railways in
the Northwest that had received charters up to the year 1905, and say they were all obtained from this parliament, and that would be quite true.


Samuel Hughes: How about the Guelph Junction, in your own county?


David Henderson: I remember very well that I had charge of an amendment to that Bill. It was a Bill to authorize the construction of a railway from the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway to the city of Guelph. But I was speaking on these roads in the Northwest. Where else could they have got their charter before legislatures were established in the western provinces?


Samuel Hughes: I only named four.


David Henderson: I could not pretend to say how many the hon. member mentioned. But the names of those I do recall lead me to believe that, if the list were gone through, a good many cases would be found in which his argument was not well based after all. But, suppose that, in those days when less attention was paid to the rights of the provinces, such a thing was done, does that justify us in doing it to-day? I take a firm stand on that question. I do not want to see this trouble and difficulty that is looming up between the provinces and the Dominion perpetuated. I would .rather see peace and harmony. And to-day I think we ought to stand by the constitution as it is declared by the British North Amei'ica Act, attending to those railway matters that properly pertain to us, but leaving to the provinces those railway matters which are in the field of provincial jurisdiction. I do not propose to say anything with reference to the advantage or disadvantage to Toronto of this road being constructed or not. I am not interested in that point at all directly, but I have no doubt that there are people in Toronto who would be delighted to see that road get there, just as it appears there are others who do not wish to see it reach that city, because it will interfere with the arrangements made with the Toronto Street Railway. On that point I do not now express any opinion, but give my views purely on the constitutional ground.


George Perry Graham: There never was a time in our history when the question of transportation was so important as it is at present. Whatever is in the interest of the general transportation of the goods of the people or the people themselves, is to my mind to the general advantage of Canada. The time has gone by -when we can make a distinction between electricity and steam as a propelling power. It may only be a short time when railways will be run. across the peninsula of Ontario at any rate, by electricity, and that will not make them

provincial railways. There are large railways running to the city of New York by electricity and that does not make them local railways. It is not a question how railways are propelled, and I was surprised to hear the fact that railways are propelled by electricity used as an argument. The time may come when in this country the ruling propelling power will be electricity.


Angus Claude Macdonell: We are not there
yet,


George Perry Graham: We are getting there very fast and we are providing for the future. The question is such a large one, that we ought to view the case fairly, apart from provincial proclivities. I admit that, from every point of view, I am disposed to give the benefit of the doubt, whenever there be any, in favour of Dominion jurisdiction. Why? Because it is in the public interest that we should have uniformity of rates as far as possible, in every part of the country where our products are carried. This railway, it is said, ought to have a provincial charter because the British North America Act says so. I do not think it says anything of the kind. That Act points out certain railways which must be under Dominion jurisdiction, but it does not follow that these are all the railways which should be under that jurisdiction. The British North America Act points out others that might be under local jurisdiction, and evidently the men who framed it had in mind just such cases as we are dealing with now-because the Act provides that railways of an international character should have Dominion jurisdiction, and only those of a purely provincial character should have a provincial charter. But in addition, the framers of the British North America Act provided that if, in the opinion of the parliament of Canada, other works should be declared for the general advantage of Canada, they will fall, not under the jurisdiction of any one province, but of the Dominion, so that evidently the fathers of confederation had in mind just such works as the present. It does not seem to me the proper interpretation of the Act to insist that the Dominion jurisdiction must be confined to a few. individual cases since they left it open for this parliament to say what works outside these should be declared for the general advantage of Canada. Evidently it was their intention that we should give this parliament and members of its committees credit for dealing with these matters as men of intelligence, justice and fairness; and in that view they gave this parliament power to declare that any works, such as the one in question, are for the general advantage of Canada. This railway is evidently a work for carrying on the general transportation of the country.


David Henderson: 


David Henderson: Is that the meaning which the hon. minister puts on the words ' for the general advantage of Canada?-'


John Allister Currie: I do not suppose that the hon. minister desires to widen that term, because in that case an ordinary wagon road might be interpreted as being for the general advantage of Canada.


George Perry Graham: It might and it would be, if it ran the length of one province and into another, or even if it ran only the length of one province. But we must remember that wagon roads are usually the property of the municipal owners.


Samuel Hughes: There are a couple of wagon roads for the general advantage of Canada to-day. One is the Monk road running from Ottawa westward.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend asked me to state why I think this road is for the general advantage of Canada. Let me say that anything which will tend to develop or solve the transportation problem, which make the carriage of goods easier and cheaper, is for the general advantage of all the people. Suppose this road, as I think it will, should carry many thousands of tons of coal from Oshawa, that will be used in manufacturing goods that go to all parts of the Dominion, then the cheapening of the carriage of that coal is in the interests of trade and commerce and consequently for the general good of the people. Anything which will help to solve the transportation problem, and the general advantage of the people, and the framers of the British North America Act had evidently such works as this in mind when they made this proviso. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) says that this railway ought to be under provincial jurisdiction because all electric railways in that district are under such jurisdiction. He is wrong. The former government gave the Oshawa electric road a Dominion charter.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I said that the Toronto railway and all the railways running from Toronto within the limits of the province are under provincial jurisdiction, but the Oshawa railway is a road running two or three miles from the lake and connects with the Grand Trunk railway.


George Perry Graham: I understood my hon. friend to say that all the railways in the radius of this Bill were under a provincial charter; but if that point were well taken, then at least the portion of the line near Oshawa should come under Dominion jurisdiction. The question to me is whether this railway we are now discussing, is for the general good of the people. The Oshawa railway got such a charter because of its connection with the Grand Trunk railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was not that the very xeason a Dominion charter was asked for?


George Perry Graham: The same reason would apply in this case because this railway asks the right to join with the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk, and become a portion of these roads, so far as the delivery of freight is concerned. My hon. friend will not find a business man say anything else than that this railway is for the general advantage of trade and commerce, and that consequently it ought to come under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. It is all very well to argue theoretically, but you cannot get a wholesale man .who will not say that any road going to the city of Toronto will be the better for coming under the Railway Board so far as its rates and operations are concerned. Toronto is a great distributing centre, and it is important that to and from the centre, goods should be carried cheaply for the benefit of the people. Just let me refer to the Osha-wa railway. At the present time the Osha-wa street railway carries the freight from the Grand Trunk by perhaps the most convenient way that any small electric railway in this country could do it. It has a Dominion charter, it has a connection with the Grand Trunk railway, and it delivers freight at the door of manufacturers in Oshawa and takes their freight from there to the Grand Trunk. I do not believe that there is a merchant, or any person who sells goods in Oshawa, who would ask that that road be disconnected and made what you might call a little jerk-water line by itself. I take a strong view on the question of provincial rights, and I say again that when it comes to the great question of transportation, cheap rates between one part of the country and another means cheap prices to the community and, therefore, it is for the general advantage of Canada, and I believe that the framers of the British North America Act anticipated just such an undertaking as this when they put that clause into the Act. As to the protection of municipalities, I say that ample protection is afforded to the city of Toronto by this Bill, and that when the Hamilton Radial Bill was passed to which the city of Toronto agreed, through their board of control, they gave greater privileges to that company than those which are given under this charter, and Toronto agreed to that only two years ago.


Angus Claude Macdonell: They had to.


George Perry Graham: Nothing of the kind. Does my hon. friend mean to say that the great, intelligent, broad-minded city of Toronto was compelled to agree to anything they found objectionable?


Angus Claude Macdonell: Yes, what could they do? The Bill would have passed without
those amendments if they had not agreed to them.


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend mean to say that even that would compel the big city of Toronto to agree to that which was wrong? This Bill will probably pass. Will my hon. friend say: I will not object because this Bill will pass? That would not be a satisfactory excuse to present to his constituents; neither is it a sufficient excuse for the city of Toronto agreeing to this other proposition. As a matter of fact, that company came to myself and asked for a charter. I told them that they could not get that charter through in that shape, and that they could not get it through unless they agreed with the city of Toronto. They went to Toronto and came back with a signed agreement from the representatives of the city, and the city gave more to the Hamilton Radial Railway 'Company than we are going to allow this company as far as concessions are concerned. The city of Toronto is fully protected. In the first place, the railway cannot be located for 100 yards without the consent of'the Minister of Railways. The plans and profiles of the whole line of the railway must be approved. Then, further than that, when it comes to be finally located the company cannot proceed with the construction of one mile of their line without the consent of the Board of Railway Commissioners. That is all protected. Are we prepared to do away altogether with responsible government? Is my hon. friend prepared to say that no government can do this business properly? He cannot say that, because the people and this parliament say otherwise. In addition to that they had the protection of the Board of Railway Commissioners. The commissioners settle where and how they enter the city of Toronto. They cannot go in where they like or how they like. There are special conditions that exist in Toronto that do not exist in smaller municipalities. I am prepared to frankly admit that every protection should be afforded, and I believe that such protection should be provided. The company cannot cross a street, above, below or on the level, and that means that they cannot get in at all, because they will encounter a street as soon as they get to the limit of the city, without first obtaining the consent of the city engineer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not a crossing of the street.


George Perry Graham: The engineer of the city of Toronto and the company must agree.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not as to the crossing of a street.. That may be if they want to go underneath or above, but not in crossing.


George Perry Graham: They cannot get in anyway. They cannot get in unless they agree, and if they do not agree, then the Railway Commissioners must approve.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Suppose they will not agree, what happens?


George Perry Graham: Supposing they do not, they are in the position that every other city in Canada is in. I say that the amendment was agreed to by the representatives of the city of Toronto in the committee. Let me say frankly that I would rather, were I fighting for the city of Toronto, have the protection of the Railway Commission under the Act than any section as to an agreement between the engineer of the city of Toronto, and the company. Only a short time ago the city of Ottawa agreed with the Canadian Northern Railway company to certain level crossings, but the Board of Railway Commissioners refused to ratify the agreement between them and the city. While consenting that this clause should go in for the better protection of the city of Toronto I submit that Toronto is not as well protected as it would be if it relied upon the Board of Railway Commissioners. Every safeguard that any municipality could desire, every safeguard that the city of Toronto could think of, practically, has been put into this Bill, and there is no reason, to my mind, unless we simply take the ground that we are not going to allow any railways to be constructed where anybody objects to them, why this Bill should not become law because no provincial rights are infringed, and every right of every municipality is fully protected by the amendment.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I just want to correct a few impressions that the minister has created. The minister has stated that the representatives of Toronto agreed to this Bill.


George Perry Graham: I say so now.


Angus Claude Macdonell: That is not correct. What was done is this, the same as was done in connection with the Hamilton Radial Bill. For days and days, this Bill was debated in the Railway Committee, and several votes had been taken on minor portions of the Bill. The Bill was not passed, but it became self-evident that it would pass in a most obnoxious form unless the city made some concession. They did not agree to what was put in the Bill, but they accepted it as Hobson's choice. It was the best they could get, they had to take it or nothing, and so it is that this Bill comes to this House in this shape. The section that was spoken of by the minister, and other hon. gentlemen to-night as having been drawn by Mr. Bristol was referred to a Select Committee of which Mr. Bristol was a member, and that committee reported this amendment back to the House. I was not present at the meeting, and I do not know who was at the committee, but it was the best that could be got at the time by the representatives of the city.


George Perry Graham: 


George Perry Graham: Did they not agree to it?


Angus Claude Macdonell: No


George Perry Graham: Yes, excuse me they did agree to it.


Angus Claude Macdonell: What do1 you mean by agreeing to it?


George Perry Graham: The representatives of the city of Toronto agreed to that clause.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Agreed to take the best they could get.


George Perry Graham: Nonsense.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I want to place before the committee the following telegram from Mayor Geary in reference to this Bill. It is dated April 5, and was sent when the Bill appeared on the order paper last week: Toronto, Ontario, April 5, 1910. Claude Macdonell, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
You may state in the House that Hon. Sir James Whitney and his government are strongly opposed to the granting of the proposed Toronto Eastern Railway charter.
(Sgd.) G. R. GEARY,
Mayor.
So that Toronto does object to it. It is the best they could get.


George Perry Graham: It is well that there should not be any mistake about-this. We spent weeks upon this Bill. When this amendment came back from the special committee I asked the gentlemen representing both sides: Is this amendment agreed to? This is not second hand. They both said to me: Yes, if this goes through there will be no objection, they handed in the amendment, and it went through. If you can call anything an agreement I would say that that was one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems that that agreement is very much like it might be supposing the minister was condemned to be hanged. If he were asked if there was not some more humane death and some one suggested bleeding him to death, he would accept what he regarded as the easiest mode of dying because he was going to be killed anyway. It is very much on the same principle that the mayor of Toronto and the hon. members representing that city accepted these provisions, because they could not get any better. I am opposed to this Bill in the first place because the province has strenuously objected to interference with provincial rights. We are provoking the antagonism of the provinces by our invasion of provincial rights with regard to water-powers and chartering provincial railways and in many other directions, and that feeling of ill will is bound to grow until ultimately it may cause us a great deal



II, 1910

[Stage Direction]
of trouble. We should dp everything possible to avert such a condition of things. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) cited a number of charters of a similar character to this which were granted by this parliament when the Conservatives were in power, but the fact is that in the early history of confederation very few people objected to the federal parliament granting these charters. The only province for many years after 1878, that protested against our granting charters to institutions of this kind was the province of Quebec. I then thought that these objections were fairly good, and it was a surprise to me that so little heed was paid them by the federal parliament. We did not then appreciate the full intent of the clause of the British North America Act which referred to a work being for the general advantage of Canada. For a long time we regarded that as a mere formal thing, but our ablest lawyers have come to conclude that these words must have had some substantial reason at the back of them. The Minister of Railways has to-nighjt given a very strong argument for declaring a work to be for the general advantage of Canada when he said that such a work should be in the interest of trade and commerce, or in the interest of the transportation of the produce of the country generally. Another strong argument is that they might be applied in regard to the legal status of those who tried to secure their rights against common carriers who handle the produce of the country generally. But, let me give an example of what I think would be a very strong reason for incorporating a provincial undertaking under the declaration that it was for the general advantage of Canada. Suppose the Canadian Pacific railway reaches Toronto from the east and the Canadian Northern reaches Toronto from the west, and authority is sought to build a line to connect these two railways so as to make them one continuous transportation route, we might fairly say that the connecting line was for the general advantage of Canada; but, in the case of a short railway entirely within a province which does not connect with other transportation lines there is no justification for saying that it is a work for the general advantage of Canada. Whether right or wrong that is the view I entertain. Now, the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) told us that the fact that Mr. William Cowan, a man who. owns two banks was at the head of this railway ought to be a guarantee that it is all right. Well, he might have told us that Rock-feller of the oil trust is at the head of a railway but that would be no argument to me. The very fact that a man is wealthy , 216
may enable him to build the railway, but at the same time it may make him a power for evil instead of a power for good. We all know that many of these rich corporations and rich men exercise the power of their wealth not for the good of the people but to their detriment. I repeat that the exceptional condition in the city of Toronto justifies the city having exceptional control over railways proposing to build their lines through the city. Then, as to the railways mentioned by the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) as having obtained their incorporation from the federal parliament under the Conservative regime, such railways as the Calgary railway and the Edmonton railway had to come here because then there were no provincial legislatures in these provinces, and many of the others mentioned were extensions of the Canadian Pacific railway which being chartered by this parliament, the branches had to come here for incorporation also. But, the line which we are now asked to incorporate is not connected with any of the great transportation, transcontinental or interprovincial lines. It is merely a local railway which may take freight from the Canadian Northern railway or the Canadian Pacific railway and charge an extra freight rate for hauling it a short distance. They may do as some of the railways are doing to-day, pick up a car at West Toronto and take it to Leaside, and charge for handling it as much as a railway will for taking a car a hundred miles, because it is on another line. The Railway Commission should have some control over this company, but that does not afford a strong argument why it should get its corporate powers from this parliament unless it is connected with other railways.
John Allister Currie: I do not wish to delay the House in the consideration of this Bill, but I would, like to offer a few remarks on some of the issues which have been raised to-night in connection with it. The first issue has been raised by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes), who says that a great many charters for small railways throughout the country have been granted by Conservative governments, and possibly by Liberal governments in the past. Any one who knows the history of railway legislation in this country knows that the words ' for the general advantage of Canada ' have been inserted in railway charters granted by this parliament, so that the railways might be able to secure the government subsidy of $3,200 a mile which was granted by the Dominion government. The most recent case in point is that of the Ontario government railway, which was built from the town of North Bay as



far north as Cochrane, a colonization road in every sense of the word. Application was made to this government by the legislature of Ontario for the customary subsidy, but it was refused. Now, I understand that the policy of parliament is not to grant subsidies to railways in the thickly settled parts of the country; and in those sections electric railways are taking the place of steam railways. For a long time the charters for these electric or traction railways were granted by the provincial legislature. I can remember a great outcry which was raised in the province of Ontario, when the Minister of Railways wa3 a minister in the provincial government, and when charter mon-gering became a scandal; and it was chiefly for that reason that the people of Ontario put out the Reform government there. It was whispered that it would not be many years before the applications for these charters were made to this House, and we now find that to be the case more and more every day. For my part, as a Conservative who wishes to see a change of government in this country, the more charters of that kind that are granted the more it will be for the advantage of the Conservative party. The mere fact that one or two members on this side of the House are in favour of a particular charter does not indicate that the Conservative party are in favour of the granting of these charters. The Minister of Railways states that the city of Toronto is satisfied with the amendment proposed. I asked the mayor and the city solicitor of Toronto, on their way home from attending the Railway Committee, if it suited them, and their reply was that it was the best they could get, but that they were not satisfied with it, and that statement is borne out by the telegram which the hon. member for South Toronto has read. The Minister of Railways is very strong in regard to the control of rates. Let me tell him that a great many industrial institutions have been established in towns and villages_ of the province on the distinct understanding that certain specified rates should be given to them by the railways in order that they might compete with similar institutions in the city of Toronto. But what do we findi? We find that they enjoyed those rates for many years; but as soon as the Railway Commission was established the railways took advantage of it to compel the people of those towns and villages to pay the same rates as they did before those agreements were made.


George Perry Graham: Would not that come under the statute which provides against discrimination?


John Allister Currie: The hon. minister must bear in mind that there are certain points such as Newmarket, which have to M. J. A. CURRIE.
compete with the city of Toronto, though they have not the same advantage of competitive rates, and they are at a disadvantage under the regulations of the Railway Commission. In this respect the regulations of the commission have not inured to the advantages of towns and villages scattered throughout the provinces, which are on only one line of railway. Another point I wish to bring to the attention of the House is that this matter is left entirely to the engineer of the city of Toronto, and if he, and the company disagree, it goes to the Railway Commission. The hon. member for Victoria and Hali-burton (Mr. Hughes) says he does not believe in placing any company at the mercy of a band of aldermen such as those in Toronto. I would rather trust the rights of the people to a dozen or half-a-dozen men, than to one man; but from the point of view of the company I admit that _ it would be more advantageous to deal with one man than with a dozen. If there is to be any dealings with the city of Toronto, it should be with the city council, and not with the engineer. The hon. member (Mr. Hughes) should consider seriously this question from the standpoint of public and provincial rights. I think this House would be justified in rejecting this Bill because it is a vicious measure in principle, the public are not in favour of it, and if the Minister of Railways thinks the city of Toronto would justify him in it, I am sure the member for South Toronto (Mr. A. C. Macdonell) would be prepared to meet him there at any time, and discuss the question before the electors. I am sure if he were to discuss it he would have a warm welcome.


Mr. CROTHERS.: It is to be regretted that the Minister of Railways on behalf of the government has not made a frank declaration of the policy of the government, namely, that it is to abolish the distinction entirely between provincial and Dominion rights in reference to the granting of railway charters. If they will say that they will give charters to any company asking for them it will save a great deal of time. We have devoted much time to discussing the question of provincial rights in this connection within the last two sessions, and I do not remember one case in which the government has refused to grant a charter on the ground that the province had a right to deal with the matter. Every argument advanced by the minister in favour of this charter would be just as applicable to an application to this parliament for a charter to run a street railway in the city of Toronto because large merchants in Toronto live three or four miles out of the city, and it is important that they should get to their offices early in the morning. I suppose in one sense an indus-

trious old lady who keeps a cabbage garde/i is carrying on an industry for the general advantage of Canada. Where the British North America Act gives jurisdiction to grant charters under certain circumstances, it must be implied that there are some cases where provincial governments have the right to grant charters. I would like the minister to give a case where this government could not grant a charter on the ground of provincial rights. It -would be a great saving of time if the government would announce its policy in this matter.


David Henderson: The hon. member for Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) asked me a question which I neglected to answer. I enumerated a certain number of railways, such as the Calgary street railway and the Edmonton street railway, that were chartered by this parliament and said also that throughout the western provinces there was no other parliament to charter railways. The hon. member put the question: What about the Guelph Junction railway? I do not know if he had in mind that I had charge of a Bill in the late eighties amending that charter, and had discovered that I had permitted the passing of the Bill declaring that to be for the general advantage of Canada when it did not come within the jurisdiction. The original Guelph Junction Act was passed in 1884 and the Bill to which I referred was an amendment. The Railway Act at the time provided as follows :
The Intercolonial railway, the Grand Trunk railway, the North Shore railway, the Northern railway, the Hamilton and Northwestern railway, the Canada Southern railway, the Great Western railway, the Credit Valley railway, the Ontario and' Quebec railway and the Canadian Pacific railway are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada, and each and every branch line or railway now or hereafter connecting with or crossing the said lines of railways or any of them, is a work for the general advantage of Canada.
The Guelph Junction railway connects with the old Credit Valley railway and consequently I was right in promoting that Bill and having incorporated in it a clause that it is for the general advantage of Canada. I admit that the law has been changed since, and that the connection would now only make it a work for the general advantage of Canada so far as the point of contact was concerned, but at that time the law was different.	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: I accept your apology.
On the preamble:	.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to. Yeas, 31; nays, 21.
Bill reported.
216i

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 146) respecting the Kingston, Smith's Falls and Ottawa Railway Company.-Mr. Harty.
Bill (No. 171) respecting the Dominion Bank.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill (No. 177) to incorporate the Morris-burg Ferry and Dock Company.-Mr. Broder.
Bill (No. 183) to incorporate the Ottawa, Rideau Valley and Brockville Railway Company.-Mr. Devlin.
Bill (No. 189) to incorporate the Protectorate Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Turriff.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 178) to incorporate the Ottawa and Montreal Power and Transmission Company, Limited.-Mr. Perley.
Bill (No. 176) to incorporate the Lauren-tian Insurance Company.-Mr. Rivet.
Bill (No. 190) to incorporate the Gatineau and Ungava Railway Company.-Mr. Devlin.
QUESTIONS:

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Does the government intend to operate the fish drier at Souris, Prince Edward Island, during the coming summer?
2.	What has been the total cost to the government of the erection, equipment, operation and expenses connected with this fish drier up to the present?
3.	If it will not be operated by the government, is it the intention of the department to lease it? If so, will public tenders be called?
4.	Who is at present, and during the last twelve months, in charge of this property, and what is the remuneration?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	No.
2.	$65,519.86.
3.	Tenders for the leasing of the plant were called for last year. The question of the disposition that will be made of the establishment is now under consideration.
4.	The drier has been under the care of the fishery overseer at Souris since operations therein have ceased.



GULL COVE BREAKWATER.

Mr. MADDIN:: 1.	In reference to a survey made last fall at Gull Cove near Gabarus in the county of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, for a breakwater, what were the recommendations of the engineer ?

2.	Did he recommend the building of a breakwateV ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to build a breakwater at Gull Cove? If so, when is it proposed to start work and will it be built by contract or day work?
4.	Will a sum for this purpose be placed in the further supplementary estimates?


George Perry Graham: A survey was made last fall at Gull Cove, near Gabarus, Nova Scotia, but the report of the engineer in charge has not yet been received.



GRAND MIRA WHARF.

Mr. MADDIN:: 1.	What was the cost of the wharf built at Grand Mira, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, last fail?
2.	Was it built by contract or day work? If by contract, were tenders called for? If so, where were they advertised?
3.	Who supplied the timber, how much was supplied by each, and what was the cost of the timber?
4.	If by day work, who were employed and how much did each receive?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	$1,139.52.
2.	By day work.	.3.	Angus McLellan	
$13	20Anthony McEachern	
48	20


Joseph J.: McDougall	 15	84


John A.: McDougall	
25	74Archie McIntyre	
30	31


Alex.   A.@: Gillis	 42	22


James D.: McEachern	 10	62


John J.: Gillis	 75	46


John R.: McDougall	 32	53


John A.: Gillis	
24	40Leo Campbell	
15	98Duncan McDougall	
16	54Phillips & Nicoll	
97	50Total	$448	544.	Dan. J. Gillis, foreman.. .. $153	50J. S. McNeil	
63	00Duncan McDougall	
49	50


Joseph J.: McDougall	 31	50


John A.: McDougall	
31	50Michael McArthur	
15	00


Neil L.: Gillis	 26	25


John L.: Gillis	 34	50


Neil J.: Gillis	 34	50


Joseph A.: McDougall	 31	50


Joseph L.: Gillis	 19	50


Angus D.: McLellan	
19	50Donald Gillis	
14	00Ronald Gillis	
6	00Total	
$516 25



MR. JUSTICE BRITTON.

Mr. CROSBY:: 1.	Is the government aware that, notwithstanding the provisions of section 33 of


Air. MADDIN.: chapter 138 R. S. C., 1906, Hon. Mr. Justice Britton is said to have been acting as a director of the National Trust Company, Limited, with head office at Toronto?
2.	If so, what action does the government propose taking with regard to the same?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	The government has not been so informed.
2.	The attention of the learned judge will be called to the fact that this question has been asked in the House of Commons.
18TH REGIA1ENT.


Mr. GIRARD:: 1.	Has Lieutenant-Colonel Savard of the 18th regiment, sold some old uniforms? If so, in what year and for what amount?
2.	Have the proceeds of the sale been returned to the treasury?
3.	For what purpose was this money used and by whom?


George Perry Graham: 1, 2 and 3. Officers commanding units of the non-permanent force are permitted, under the provisions of paragraph 68, clothing regulations, part 2, to sell all clothing that has been condemned by the inspecting officer, as time expired and unserviceable, the proceeds of the sale being credited to the regimental funds of the unit.


Mr. GIRARD:: 1.	Does the government know that Captain Rene Talbot of the 18th regiment, has, it is alleged, never received the allowances which were due him in 1907 and 1908, of fifty dollars each year for his company?
2.	Has the government paid the money and to whom ?
3.	Will the government see without delay that Mr. Talbot is paid?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The government is not aware of the fact.
2.	Yes; the ' care of arms ' allowance due to Captain Talbot for the years 1907 and 1908 were paid to Lieutenant Colonel J. E Savard, the officer commanding the 18th Regiment, together with the allowances for ' care of arms ' due to the other company commanders of the regiment. Allowances for command pay and drill instruction and postage were paid to 'Captain Talbot direct.
3.	Inquiry will be made into the alleged non-payment of ' care of arms ' allowances to Captain Talbot for the two years in question.


Mr. GIRARD:: 1.	Does the government know that since the retirement of Colonel Wurtele of the 18th regiment the pay-lists of the different camps which have been held are, it is alleged, covered with false names of persons who were never present at those camps?
2.	If so, does the government intend to taka proceedings without delay to have refunded

the money thus said to have been taken from the country?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The department has no knowledge of any such irregularities, this corps, like others, having been mustered in camp by the camp paymaster, and the men in each case answering to their names when called.
2.	An inquiry will be made, and if there is found to be any truth in these allegations, proceedings will be taken.



OTTAWA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into committee to-morrow 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 chanter 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.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General having been acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business to-morrow?


Mr. FIELDING.: The Combines Bill, and supjdy in the Public Works estimates. [DOT]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not the Naval Bill?


William Stevens Fielding: At the suggestion of hon. gentlemen opposite that Bill has been deferred over to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 12, 1910.