1917-08-10

THE REPORT OF JUSTICES McLEOD-TELLIER.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved:: That the report of the McLeod-Tellier Commission and the evidence taken before the said Commission, laid on the table of the House on July 27 ultimo and August 9 instant, re-< spectively, he printed forthwith and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. MURPHY:: Does that include the evidence taken before Judge Galt?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it does. I do not know whether that has been laid on the Table; I will make inquiry.



FIRST READING OF SENATE BILL.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Albert Edwin Gordon.-Mr. Edwards.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM: In order that the Bill in connection with the Canadian Northern may be expedited, I would ask the Minister of Finance-in his absence, the Prime Minister-to bring down a statement showing how much had been paid by the Canadian Northern Railway company on interest account under section 29 of the Act of 1914 and how much money the Government had advanced on that interest account. Section 29 reads:
The Governor in Council may at the request of the Canadian Northern out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund pay all or any portion of the first six half-yearly payments of interest on the guaranteed securities falling due after the opening for traffic as part of the Canadian Northern system of the through line from Vancouver to the city of Quebec, but in suchl case the Governor in Council shall not enforce the repayment thereof against the Canadian Northern under the New Trust Deed until the maturity of the principal of the guaranteed securities. The Canadian Northern shall, however, pending the repayment of interest so, paid by the Governor in Council, pay to His Majesty half-yearly interest on such interest at the rate of four per cent per annum, and such interest upon interest until so paid shall form a charge upon the mortgaged premises under the New Trust Deed.
What I want to know is how much money the Government paid out on this account and how much money the company paid as interest on the interest so advanced by the Government.
Robert Laird Borden: I shall ask the Minister of Finance to see that the information is provided.



ATTENDANCE OF SOLDIERS AT POLITICAL MEETINGS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: I wish to call the attention of the Government to a despatch appearing in the press this morning, as follows:
London, Aug. 9.-Members of Canadian forces have had their attention drawn to the King's regulations forbidding them the right of attending political meetings in uniform. A similar reminder has been issued to the Imperials.
The despatch further says that the question having been raised in the British

House of Commons, Mr. Macpherson, for the War Cabinet, replied:
I understand the War Cabinet have decided that the regulations are to be strictly and impartially enforced and soldiers are not to join soldiers' and workmen's councils.
A large number of returned soldiers are now in Canada, still in uniform-men who have done their bit and who are of no further military service, though they are still ajuenable to military discipline. I should like to ask the Government if they have noticed this statement and whether they will make provision whereby these men will have the ordinary citizens' rights and will not be affected by any such order as is mentioned in this despatch.


Robert Laird Borden: The attention of the Government had not previously been directed to the subject. We will give it the consideration which the hon. gentleman asks.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Several soldiers are candidates.



GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Frank Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals) Bill No. 118, to amend the Government Railways Act, was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Davidson in the Chair.
On section 2-Definition:
Mr. MACDONALD:: Will the minister explain the purport and effect of this measure?


Mr. COCHRANE:: The effect of the Bill is to put the Government railways under the operation of the Railway Commission. Everything is put under the control of the commission except the expropriation clauses; and .any actions taken against the railway go to the Exchequer Court instead of being dealt with in the usual manner.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Has the minister received any representations from persons or interests in the Maritime Provinces asking that this be done?


Francis Cochrane: No, I have not.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Or any against it?


Francis Cochrane: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This measure is a very important one, affecting the business interests of the Maritime Provinces and I
think that more notice should have been given to the public of the Government's intention to deal with it. In view of the other subjects that have been engaging the attention of Parliament, the people of the Maritime Provinces are not familiar with this very important measure which the minister is introducing.
In brief, it is an anomalous position that the Government which owns and has been operating a public utility and which still purposes operating it, should create a condition under which an outside body should form a sort of regulating influence upon the Government of the day. One can well understand the reason why a private company controlling a railway should be placed under the supervision and regulation of a commission. The Board of Railway Commissioners, which has been in operation for some ten years, was constituted so that the public might have the advantage of the control and regulation which a commission would have over the operations of a private company which was handling a great enterprise. The minister now says that the Government which owns and operates the Canadian Government railways, are not able to deal with this question themselves, but they must create a commission which is to direct and control them in reference to certain matters concerning the operation of this railway. That is an anomalous position and one which is entirely new in the realm of government ownership and operation of public utilities, concerning which we hear so much nowadays. Does the minister mean to say that he has no confidence in himself or in his officials, and that he must, therefore, have the benefit and advantage of the control of Sir Henry Drayton and his officials in order to properly operate this railway, because that is what is involved in this Bill?
There is another phase of the situation. The Intercolonial railway is the only railway in Canady which was constituted by virtue of the terms of the British North America Act. It will be recalled that, what were at the time of Confederation these far away provinces of the Dominion, viewed, with some doubt and misgiving, the proposition of entering the Confederation by reason of the effect that would have upon their business interests, and the scheme of constructing what was known as the Intercolonial railway was put forward by the Fathers of Confederation for the purpose of doing .away with the isolation by distance of the Maritime Provinces from the



then central provinces of Canada. The viewpoint of the people of the Maritime Provinces-particularly of the province from which I come, where our industries arising out of our natural resources are of such character that to a very great degree our products so far as the markets of Canada are concerned, must be transported over the Intercolonial railway-has been that the extension of that railway as a government work, on account of the conditions which exist in consequence of the Government of the day being responsible to the people and thereby able to deal with particular matters as they may, from time to time, arise, and it is a matter which is not lightly to be disregarded. I have never heard of any agitation from any part of the Maritime Provinces that this railway should be dealt with in such a way that the Government should be under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and the proposition will be viewed with a considerable degree of doubt and hesitancy by the people of those provinces. I am, therefore, surprised that at this juncture, without any preparation of the public mind on the subject, without apparently the interests affected in those provinces being considered, the minister should take such a radical step. It is due to the House and to the country that the minister or his colleagues should explain in the fullest possible manner the reasons that have led the Government to take this course, and why it is that the Government of this country want to subordinate themselves, in so far as the operation of a public utility is concerned, to the Railway Commission. Is there any reason why my hon. friend, as Minister of Railways, or his officials, could not, with regard to any phase of the operation of the Canadian Government railways, if there is any advantage to be gained by so doing, exercise this same supervision which is conferred upon the Railway Commission? This is the first time that I have ever heard of a Government of a country, which was operating a public utility, declare that they required some watch-dog to look after them, or somebody who should dictate to them what they should do. If this is to be the case with the operation of the Canadian Government railways, why should there not, for instance, be in regard to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries some board to direct and control what his movements should be as regards the operation of the vessels belonging to his department? Why should there be anybody 
greater or stronger than the Government of the day who should undertake to tell the Government that they should do this, that, or the other thing? Why should the Government not move in the interest of the people themselves?
In view of the absence of any suggestion from the provinces affected, and in view of the fact that the minister has never submitted the matter to the people in those provinces, I am at a loss to know why the Government should make this proposition at this time, to a very large degree in a surreptitious way. Neither the press nor the people of this country ever heard of this proposition until it w.as mentioned in this House the other day.


Francis Cochrane: As regards our not giving any notice of this proposition or of its not having been discussed, I may say that the hon. member was * member of the special committee on Bill No. 13. This matter was discussed several times in that committee, and it was urged by some hon. gentleman opposite. The matter has been discussed more or less ever since I have been in this House, and I therefore cannot take the same view as that taken by my hon. friend from Pietou (Mr. Macdonald). No matter what minister may be operating that line, there will always be a difference of opinion between him and the patrons of the road, and I think we should have this safeguard, especially as it looks as though the Government were going into further government ownership. Therefore, the more independently those government lines can be operated, the better it will be in the interest of the country. I certainly am a strong advocate of this proposition. The Railway Board is a splendid institution in the interest of this country, and as long as I am Minister of Railways, I am willing to go under their direction and to abide by and obey their decisions. The only reason why I am not putting the expropriation of lands under their control is because the Exchequer Court was created for that purpose. I am sure a number of my hon. friend's colleagues on his side of the House will agree with me that this proposition is in the public interest.


Mr. CARVELL:: I am very sorry to be compelled to disagree with my hon. friend from Pietou (Mr. Macdonald), whose views on public matters are usually orthodox, but I must differ from him on the question of placing the government railways under the control of the Railway Board. My only objection is that the minister is not going

far enough. Possibly there may be some reason for withholding from the operation of the Railway Act the expropriation rights. I can quite understand that if the Crown wishes to acquire property or land, possibly the better way for the Government to obtain it is under the Expropriation Act. Then the damages are assessed by the Exchequer Court. I think possibly, so far as the Crown is concerned, it works out better than the ordinary arbitration proceedings under the Railway Act, but I never could understand why, if the Government is going to be a railway company, and is going to assume all the rights and duties of a railway company, they should not also be liable for all the obligations' of a company, because, so far as the people 'are concerned, they are simply a public utility corporation. They have the right to build their road, levy tolls, run their engines through the country, and burn up people's property as an incident of operating a railway. You cannot run a railway by fire without having the danger by fire, or without the danger of killing the people's stock.


Francis Cochrane: We are providing for that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I realize that in small actions we already have the right to sue the Government in the ordinary courts of the country, but I cannot see why there should be. any distinction between suing the Government in the small action and suing them in a large action. I think the amount is now limited to $400.


Francis Cochrane: 


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I had a case within the last few months which illustrates this point very well1. A man living up at St. Leonard, in New Brunswick, had a barn burned in the spring of 1916, and there is not the faintest doubt in the world that the barn was set on fire by a spark from an engine on the Intercolonial, because the engine went by, and in about ten minutes the barn was on fire and consumed. The value of the property lost amounted to about $1,000.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: That proposition would not carry you through a logical school, would it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have won lots of cases under just such circumstances.


George Green Foster: That is the way the lawyer gets along. *


George Perry Graham: No wonder they kick on the judges.
275J


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The circumstances I
have related are good evidence. I have won cases on just such evidence, .and other counsel have succeeded on similar evidence. It is .a good cause of action. But the difficulty was, here was a poor farmer, ,and I had to advise him that, unless he reduced his claim to $500, his only recourse was to sue the Government in the Exchequer Court. He wo.uld have to see the Minister of Justice and get a fiat authorizing him to bring the suit. Then he had to fight it out in Ottawa. The man said to me: "I will lose my farm. It is out of the .question. I could not do it." I do not want to go so far as to say that I advised him to start the lawsuit, but at any rate he would not do it, because he said " I am not .going to take chances of losing all the rest of my farm. I have lost my barn and .my personal property, but I want to keep my farm." I wrote to the minister and it was referred to the general manager, and be sent somebody up there a second time. They sent the claims agent who turned the thing down in the first instance, and I do not know whether they have settled or not. I think they have arranged the matter. However, that is a case in point. If we can bring an action in the ordinary courts up to $500, why on earth should we not use them for $1,000 or $5,000? Surely the ordinary courts of any province in Canada are to be	trusted in	an action against
the Crown, just as well as the Exchequer Court is trusted. The litigants and solicitors all over Canada know the practice and know their rights. You can tell a man in the province of New Brunswick :	" I can bring an action for you in
the Supreme Court of New Brunswick; it will be tried at home, under our ordinary laws and! rules." And he will say: ."All right, I am sure I will get justice." And hie brings the action.	But if you
tell him he has to go to Ottawa and get the consent of the Minister of Justice before he can start his suit, and that it must be tried by the Exchequer Court, he says, " No, that is beyond my means," and he will not do it. For these reasons I think the Minister of Justice might very well consider the advisability of not withdrawing from the operation of this Bill suits against the Crown. If he wishes to withdraw the right of expropriation, I have not much objection. As to the general principle, .perhaps I ought to state that I think I was the first member to suggest, in the proceedings of the special

committee on Bill 13, for the codification of the Railway Aot, that the Intercolonial should be brought under the operation of the General Railway Act of Canada. I have heard very much discussion about it, I do not know whether it would be popular or unpopular in the Maritime Provinces, because it has not been discussed to any great extent, and I was not approaching it from that standpoint at all, but from the standpoint of one who has had some practice in the courts, and some knowledge of railway affairs, and I do not see why one railway should be singled out in Canada to be governed by different laws and different principles from those that govern all other railways in Canada, especially as it is a government railway. There is no earthly difference in the object of the Intercolonial and that of any other railway. The object ought to be to serve the public at a fair remuneration, and give the people the very best service which possibly can be given for the money. I am not finding fault with the present minister in what I am going to say, because his conduct, or his operation of the road, is only a continu-, ation of what has taken place for a great many years. Therefore, there is no political significance in this statement.
I think I am voicing the sentiments of every hon. gentleman in this House who has travelled and has had business with the Intercolonial, and with other railway companies, when I say that everybody admits that a very unsatisfactory condition of things exists, as far as the Intercolonial is concerned. Yon are tied up by all sorts of rules and regulations. If you want a siding put in on the Intercolonial it will take you six months before you can obtain consent to it, because the first man you go to will put the responsibility on somebody else, and then the second man will put the responsibility on .somebody else, *and finally, after a process of elimination, they will get it back to the minister, and the minister eliminates everybody else' and gets it back to the general manager, and probably at the end of six months you might get a decision, and I would not say that you would get what you want. There ought to be some way by which you could go to a board like the Railway Board and let them lay down the law. They would say that the Government of Canada, if they are going to be a railway company,ought or ought not to give the man the accommodation which he demands. Get away from all political feeling, and give the people to understand that politicians have nothing to 
say about it. Under the ordinary railway law, if you want a siding, or a right to establish a certain thing, or if a certain right be taken away from you, you go to the Railway Board, and they will say yes, or no, and they will say it in about five minutes. The first time I appeared before the Railway Board I complained of the Canadian Pacific railway taiking a siding away from the warehouse of a client of mine, and I came there armed with quite a brief, and witnesses .to substantiate the case, and 1 got the decision before I knew it.


George Perry Graham: Did you get a fee?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and the siding.


George Green Foster: Very much disappointed?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I got what I was after before I knew it. That is the w.ay business is done by the Railway Board. If that had been a government railway I would not have got the decision yet, and that is eight or ten years ago. I give this illustration to show the great benefit of having these matters under the Railway Board, instead of under a political management. I do not care whether it be my hon. friend the Minister of Railways who is operating it, or my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), it is a political affair, and you cannot get away from it. The present operation of the Intercolonial is a political operation, and as long as it is run as a government road I am afraid it will be a political operation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not necessarily.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend says
"not necessarily." Well, there must be a great regeneration in the minds of the people of Canada if you can run a government railway without having it a political affair. I think my hon. friends opposite will pretty nearly agree that what I am saying is correct.


George Green Foster: If my hon. friend from Pietou (Mr. Macdonald) had charge of it, he would run it as a non-political railway.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Possibly he would, but
he is an outstanding exception. Ordinary people obey the ordinary laws of humanity. You can talk all afternoon showing wherein you can get things done under the Railway Board on the Intercolonial, which you cannot get done at the present time. I know many people in the Martime Provinces fear that there may be an increase

in freight rates if the road is placed under the control of the Railway Board. I would be very sorry indeed to see such a result, but we must realize that Canada is facing the most serious financial condition she ever dreamed of, and if the Government is going to run a public utility it must be run on business principles. It must 'be made to pay, if it is night and proper it should pay. While I would be sorry to see an increase in freight rates, still if it is necessary in order that the road may be run as a business proposition, the Tates should be increased. Those are things we have to face, and I am getting old enough that I would like to see these utilities run on a business basis, so long as they are going to take the place of utilities that ought to be run on a business basis.
The press has been paying some attention to me in the last few days in connection with my views on public ownership, and I rather feel like reiterating them. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways may be a good business man, but he cannot run a railroad, as a government railroad. I think if he were president of a company railroad, and were running it as a business proposition, I would have about a6 much confidence in him as in any man I know, but he is not big enough to control the politicians, and he is not big enough to give the service we should have on the Intercolonial. Compare the service on the Intercolonial with the service on the Canadian Pacific, and you will wonder if both roads are in the same country. If a man starts out on a journey on the Intercolonial he allows twenty-four hours leeway. If he wants to be in Montreal on a ertain day, he is pretty sure of being there at the same hour the day following, whereas if he travels by the Canadian Pacific railway he is safe with fifteen or twenty minutes leeway.


Francis Cochrane: That is all nonsense.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it is not nonsense. I know what I am talking about. I travel by the Canadian Pacific railway once a week, and I travel by the Intercolonial about once every three months. I have never travelled over the Intercolonial in the last ten years that I have not registered a vow of " never again." I have broken my vow, but I always register it. This condition of affairs is not the fault of the minister. It is the fault of the system. It is the fault of government ownership, or government operation. If you can get the Intercolonial established on a business
basis in certain things, and get certain rights from the Railway Board, it might have a rejuvenating effect on other portions of the railway. For those reasons, I am in favour of the proposition, except I think the minister should place the rights of suit against the railway under the ordinary law of the land, and treat the Intercolonial as an ordinary public utility, subject to all the laws and obligations of the country; and if it trespasses upon a man's rights he should be entitled to go before the ordinary courts of justice to obtain redress, just as he would do if he were dealing with the Canadian Pacific railway or any other private corporation.


Mr. MARCIL:: It must be admitted that the Intercolonial occupies a unique position among the railways of Canada. It was-built as part and parcel of the Confederation arrangement. The Intercolonial railway has had many difficulties to overcome, and! if the road had been' built merely for commercial purposes, probably a very different route would have been followed. For various reasons they were obliged to follow the route they did in OTder to overcome natural obstacles, to fulfil political considerations, and to complete the bargain that had been arrived at in the Maritime Provinces. I have heard it contended in this House on many occasions that the Intercolonial railway, the Post Office Department, and various other branches of the public service which are operated by the Government for the benefit of the public, should not be operated merely for the purpose of making money. The Intercolonial' railway is not in the position of an ordinary private company with dividends to pay. The Intercolonial is serving a great public purpose along a route where a private company would have been very loath and very slow to build a line. The road is subject to water competition over practically its whole length. We are told that it was built in that way because the Imperial Government requirements had made it necessary that it should be close to the water. However, that is a remote question at the moment. About twenty-five miles of my constituency is served by the Intercolonial. I know if anything is sent direct to Halifax or St. John the same rate prevails on the Intercolonial as on the Canadian Pacific railway, but in what position would the people residing between the terminal noints be, following the change now contemplated? Will the rates be reduced, or will they be increased? Every one
43*

admits the fact that the creation of the Railway Board of Canada was a boon to the public. At the time this board was organized it was said by the Hon. Mr. Blair, then Minister of Railways, that any man in Canada could send a postcard to the board and secure justice from it. Personally, I believe the board has done immense service to the public. I would like to know from the minister if this change will confer any advantage on the people of Bonaven-ture county, for instance, who have no other railway but the Intercolonial?


Francis Cochrane: All I can say is that the rates will be subject to the Railway Board. They cannot be raised without the consent of the board. I hope and trust they will not be lowered, because we would like to get something for running the road.


Charles Marcil: Are the rates now in effect on the Inter colonial railway in that district lower than they would be on a corresponding railway where there is competition?


Francis Cochrane: The Intercolonial Railway rates are lower than they are on the regular railways.


Charles Marcil: Is it proposed to have them increased as a result of this transfer to the Railway Board?


Francis Cochrane: That would depend on the Railway Board.


Charles Marcil: Would the Governor in Council still have some control, and be able to take the peculiar situation of those communities into account, or will they be left to the tender mercies of the Railway Board?


Francis Cochrane: The whole matter will be under the Railway Board, and that is the proper place for it.


George Perry Graham: It may as well be taken for granted that the result of this railway going under the Board of Railway Commissioners will be to Taise the rates. Notwithstanding all that has been said, there are many points on the Intercolonial where the rates are much lower than they would be under similar conditions on a company road where there is no competition. If you were to ask the manager of the road whether it is right or wrong to raise the rates, he will shut one eye and say: "We want it under the Board of Railway Commissioners because we will then get an increase in rates which will then be put on a par with the rates charged by private companies under similar circumstances. My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) has talked about

sidings. He does not live on the Intercolonial.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I do.


George Perry Graham: He lives on the Valley railway which is operated by the Intercolonial.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Intercolonial has been brought within my county during the last two or three years and I have not seen any lowering of the rates. This talk about low rates on the Intercolonial under the Government is all moonshine.


George Perry Graham: There was no railway where the St. John Valley railway, operated by the Intercolonial, now is. That railway came in. At competitive points rates are the same but at non-competitive points the government railway rates have been less and those rates will be raised by the Board of Railway Commissioners because this railway will be put on exactly the same basis as -that occupied by a company railway. My hon. friend from Carle-ton is not living on the Intercolonial; he is on the St. John Valley railway and he has no sympathy with the old Intercolonial *as it was constructed for political and national purposes originally. He spoke of sidings. That made me smile. I smiled inwardly and outwardly at that. If he had been on the Intercolonial and if he had wanted a siding he would not have gone to the Board of Railway Commissioners and asked for siding on certain terms but he would have gone to the Government and asked for a siding for nothing. That is one of the difficulties of the government system. Hon. gentlemen will find this entering into their own experience. There are certain conditions under which railway companies -put in sidings. I think in all my experience I only found one man who wanted -to comply with the conditions when asking for a siding on the Intercolonial railway. They would urge that there were , special conditions under which the Government itself ought to build a siding and the men who ask for sidings do not want to make any contribution towards them. We had all these things to contend with. Under the Board of Railway Commissioners they will likely get an order for a siding but it will be on the terms that a railway company will get and that is that the gentleman making the application for the siding will have to pay a share of the cost.


Mr. NESBITT:: Certainly, why not?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why should he not?


George Perry Graham: I am not saying that
he should not but I am pointing out that in ninety per cent of the cases in which applications are made for sidings, the people applying for the sidings are not wiling to be treated as they would be if they applied for a siding from a private Tailway company. What will happen if the application goes before the Railway Commissioners and the plea is made that the person making the application should not pay? If the Board of Railway Commissioners make an order a member need not go before the minister and say to him: Do not do this; you ought to pay for it, and my friend should not pay at all. He will have to do what the Board of Railway Commissioners order.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: On a business basis.


George Perry Graham: On a businses basis. I am pointing out to my hon. friend from the Maritime Provinces what the Bill means. My hon. friend from Carleton does not appreciate what I am trying to get at. If he had been Minister of Railways for a number of years he would see the significance of what I am saying.
There is a clause of the Bill which strikes me as rather peculiar. While the Board of Railway Commissioners will be given the right to malke orders as to sidings, service and that kind of thing, it has no power to enforce its ruling and that is expressly provided for in the Bill. Section 4 says:
Notwithstanding anything contained herein or in the Railway Act, His Majesty shall not nor shall the Minister of Railways and Canals be liable to any fine or penalty, nor shall the board have power to impose any fine or penalty on His Majesty or on the Minister of Railways and Canals, and no order or judgment of the Board under or in consequence of which His Majesty would have to pay or expend any money shall have any force or effect until it has been approved by the Governor in Council.
That is the anomaly of putting the government railway under the Board. It cannot impose any penalty. The Canadian Pacific railway running side by side, .say, at some point, can be fined, a penalty can be imposed upon it, if it does not comply with the order of the board. But owing to the very condition of things His Majesty cannot be fined by the Board of Railway Commissioners. Unless there be some amendment by which the railway itself is divorced from His Majesty for practical purposes and can be compelled by the board to carry out its order, this Act may not amount to much.


Francis Cochrane: Could the minister
be ordered by the board to do something and not carry out the order?


George Perry Graham: That is what will happen. We will say that it would not happen with you or with me but the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) might not be so strong at first if he became Minister of Railways. Suppose that the board gives an order for a certain thing to be done. Twenty strong men in the community do not want that order carried out. It may he an order that express No. 1 or No. 2 need not stop at a certain station. That is always a vexed question, you know. Suppose the board makes an order excusing an express from stopping and several prominent men in the community affected come to the minister and say: Notwithstanding what the board says, you must not carry out that order. The board is helpless to compel the railway to carry out its order. The minister may say: We will not do it. There is nothing to compel him to do it. That brings the decision of the Railway Board right hack to the minister again. Would it not be possible to ppt the findings of the Board of Railway Commissioners in the same category as the small claims, under the Small Claims Act, under which penalties may be imposed on the railway itself up to a certain amount for not carrying out the orders of the board? It seems anomalous but if something of that kind be not done you cannot carry out the orders of the board.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Where would the money go that you would collect?


George Perry Graham: The money would go to the same place that it would go if collected from the railway company.


John Howard Sinclair: It would go into the treasury?


George Perry Graham: I presume so.


John Howard Sinclair: Out of which it came?


George Perry Graham: It does not make any difference. I say that doing it at all is an anomaly. But by this Bill you give the board power to make orders and then you say it shall have no power to enforce those orders. It may be impossible to do it in any other way with a government railway but it only adds to the peculiarity of the situation created by the fact that the Government is really divesting itself of control and handing it over to a number of men appointed by itself to report to itself. It makes the situation anomalous. Unless there be some provision by which the

management itself can be compelled to carry out the orders of the board, notwithstanding this Act, the management will revert back to the minister and he will have to decide, just as he does at the present time, all questions* with reference to the operation of the road.	*


Charles Marcil: Let me put a question to the hon. the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham). Does the hon. gentleman prefer that [DOT] the Intercolonial should be run for the purpose, prima facie, of making money, or that- it should be run for the purpose of serving the community in which it operates? Should the Intercolonial rates be so high that the road would be enabled to secure a large surplus or should the road be run as cheaply as possible but with sufficient revenue to meet the expenses, and serve the communities which are not' otherwise served? Would my hon. friend prefer to increase the rates, make money andi have a big surplus, or would he rather give the people reasonable rates?


George Perry Graham: I think if the Intercolonial railway charged a sufficient rate to pay all its expenses and carrying charges, everybody would be satisfied.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was one of those on the subcommittee of the Railway Committee who strongly recommended the minister to bring in this legislation. I am sorry it does not go further and put the Dominion railways entirely under the board with reference to expropriation and claims as well as rates, etc., because I see no reason why the government railway should not pay for muds which it expropriates just as any private corporation would.


Francis Cochrane: We usually pay more.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I appreciate that, but at the same time I do not see why the road should not be in exactly the 'same position. We had some experience of that in Ontario at one time and had some trouble in going through legal processes and getting fiats to make the Government pay as a private company would have to pay. There was no reason why they should not be in exactly the saime position, so far as I could see, or can see now. I believe that section 4 is put in for the purpose of not bringing the railway under the board so far as expropriation and damages are concerned, but that should be made plain.
The illustration given by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) with reference to sidings is one of the very forcible reasons which caused me to favour

this legislation, because no one can dispute that if .a private individual applied for a siding and through political influence oould get that siding for nothing, that would be at the expense of the whole community and it is something that should not be tolerated.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is not done now. When the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) was Minister of Railways, he put into effect an arrangement under which no siding would be granted without the deposit of the cost of the rails.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am glad he did that. It stands to his credit, as I am sure many other things do. That is r.nly an illustration showing the difference between a private corporation and a government railway corporation. There should be no favouritism as to rates when this railway comes under the Railway Board. The Railway Board now in fixing rates do not consider whether there is competition, but they make a rate proportionate to the distance, just as if there were one thousand competitors. That is one of the objects of the Railway Board.


Charles Marcil: The Government of Canada operates telegraph lines' in districts in Canada where the lines do not pay. The Intercolonial was built, not as a moneymaking concern, but to serve a great political purpose, and it runs through a country where there is no competition. To fix the rates there on the same basis as in North Oxford would be ridiculous.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why ridiculous?


Charles Marcil: Because there is no competition.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I venture to say we give a good deal more traffic in proportion.


Charles Marcil: You have more railway competition too.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: And it is according to the proportion of traffic given that the rates should be fixed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend forgets that central Canada gets all its freight carried on the canals absolutely free.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am not going into that political question at all. I do not care if they do make charge for the canals. No charge is made for our canals because they are in competition with the American canals and with the American railways.


Charles Marcil: Ontario gets the benefit.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We do- not get any special benefit. If you ship anything to the West by water you get the same benefit as we do. There is no use talking about that sort of sectional questions. There is no reason why, in putting the railway under the Railway Board, the rates should be materially interfered with. If the rates are irregular and unjust in some sections of the country, no doubt the board will rectify such discrepancies and introduce uniformity. That is all we ask.


Charles Marcil: What remedy have the people?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They can pay the proper rates the same as the rest of the people in the country. That is the remedy they have.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is the amendment which the minister has prepared along the line of allowing the public to bring actions against the Government in any court of competent jurisdiction?


Francis Cochrane: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I wish he would consider that carefully. I feel so strongly on it that I would be prepared to dTaft an amendment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Some of us who have lived along the Intercolonial all our lives think that we know a little more atoout conditions on the Intercolonial than our friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), or our friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell). I say that with all deference to them.
4 p.m. My hon. friend from Carleton has in his district a hybrid railway called the St. John Valley railway, which is distinguished for the amount of money .that has been stolen in connection with it by Conservative politicians in New Brunswick, rather than for the amount of traffic carried on it. He has such an aversion to that road that I have no doubt he is biased against government operation of railways.
Some people who talk about the Intercolonial have forgotten that the Maritime Provinces are 'separated from the rest of Canada by a very narrow strip of territory, not more than 100 miles wide, stretching from the St. Lawrence to the state of Maine, and that the conditions under which Confederation was brought about 50 years ago were such that every student knows that it would not have been possible tout for the construction of the Intercolonial railway and for the assurance that the people of these provinces always had and which has
been maintained from that time uninterruptedly until the present time that on account of our isolation we were entitled to certain concessions and rights and privileges which do not obtain here in central Canada.
The Grand Trunk railway and various canals were established in central Canada long before there was a line of railway in the Maritime Provinces. Then came the Canadian Pacific railway, with its marvellous developments; and subsequently the network of railways that to-day runs through Quebec and Ontario. The only means of getting in and out of our province is through the thin line that runs along the south shore of the St. Lawrence from Levis east, along the north shore of New Brunswick to Moncton andi thence into Nova Scotia. Notwithstanding the conditions with regard to the size and population of that country, the Government propose to put the Intercolonial railway, in Tegard to freights and matters of that kind, upon the same plane as lines running through largely populated portions of Canada. My hor. friend is discriminating against that part of Canada, and disregarding the terms of Confederation. The member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) asked if the local Tates on the Intercolonial were lower than the rate9 in other parts of Canada. The minister said that they were. Does the minister want a board that he can use when he wants to put additional imposts upon the people of the Maritime provinces and whose rulings he need not obey if he does not want to? That is what he is doing here. If he wants to create company ownership of this road so that extensions may he made by companies interested in the development of our province, let him make a proposal to that effect. Notwithstanding what hon. gentlemen of this committee may say about the minister, -he is Tunning the Intercolonial under a system of patronage, consulting his political friends in every county; and he is going to do it when he gets this legislation through just as he did before. The minister dare not rise in his place and deny that assertion.


Francis Cochrane: I certainly do rise and say that it is not true.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
iMr. MACDONALD: Loud applause from gentlemen who do not know what they are talking about. The minister has not made an appointment in the county of Picto-u since he became Minister of Rail-

ways without first obtaining through his officials the certificate of the gentleman who has the patronage in that county. My hon. friend will not deny that.


Francis Cochrane: I say that it is not
true.
Mr. MAiODONlALD: Will the minister Bay that any appointments to such positions as brakeman, cleaner or fireman have been made without his officials first consulting the gentleman who was nominated against me in my county? If he says otherwise, he will be regarded in my constituency as a gentleman whose word is not altogether consistent with the facts.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is no use beating about the bush; the minister knows that it is so.


Francis Cochrane: It is not true. That is what I am accused of down there, but I will not play politics with it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Loud choruses from people in Ontario who do not know anything about the matter. My hon. friend's refreshling assertions will be of illuminating interest to everybody down there. If my hon. friend has not taken the advice of the gentlemen who have the patronage in the matter of appointments in that county, who else in the Conservative party did he consult?


Francis Cochrane: I did not consult any one.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The superintendents of the divisions, when they want to employ men in any capacity, go to the gentlemen who have the patronage. It is true that the minister himself does not consult them, but his understrappers and officials have full instructions to do so. When a brake-man or trackman is to be employed the minister in Ottawa may not take the steps to which I refer, but the superintendents take the recommendation of the men who have the patronage. My hon. friend himself may be all right; but he knows that orders have gone forth in this regard, and that they are obeyed in respect of appointments that are made. If the minister wants to deal with this matter fairly, let him wipe out entirely the sysTem of patronage. If he is going to raise the rate of freight to the people of the Maritime Provinces, let him deal with the whole matter; let us not have the railway run by one

political party, in the interest of that party, without regard to the terms of Confederation, to the proper considerations involved in the question of rates, and to the isolation of our part of the country. I do not speak in a sectional way about this matter. Elon. gentlemen from Central Canada and the West forget that this thin line of territory of one hundred miles is the only territory binding the Maritime Provinces to the rest of the Dominion, through the medium of this one railway. No matter how we may develop our resources doyn there, if we look for a home market-as we all naturally do look-when we sell our products we can ship them to other parts of Canada only over this one line of railway. At the same time, we purchase manufactured goods from that part of Canada where such goods are manufactured, and we have to pay the impost which is made upon	us in respect of	the longhaul	necessary to reach	our	faraway part of the country. There can be only one purpose in the bringing up of this matter: that of increasing the rates. That might as well be definitely understood. My hon. friend is going to give to the commission power to do certain things-to increase the rates, forsooth-but if the railway causes the destruction by fire of 'the property of a man who lives along the railway line, the minister will say to him: It is true that the operation of the railway is now under the Railway Commission, but when it comes to our destroying your property, we are not going to give to you the same remedies that are obtainable by persons living in other parts of Canada. You cannot sue us without coming to the Exchequer Court and getting a fiat. And this notwithstanding the fact that a man who lives along the line of the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific railway can immediately proceed in any court in event oi damage occurring or an accident taking place. My hon. friend is not fair in that. He should accede to the request of the member for Carleton and, if the object of this proposal is to increase the rates, give to the people the same remedies that the people in other parts of the country have when they are dealing with a company railway. Under the legislation introduced by the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) when he was Minister of Railways, in the case of the killing of animals, the causing of fires or the occurrence of accidents, in respect of which the damages do not exceed $500, the matter can be adjudicated-


Francis Cochrane: It was only $200 when I came in.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When the man who suffers damage to the extent of $500 is able to obtain remedy in his local courts, why should the man whose damage exceeds $3,000 be obliged to proceed in the Exchequer Court? If that man lived in any other part of Canada he could get remedy in a local court. My hon. friend must admit that that is not a fair position for him to take. Some remedy for that ought to be found in this Bill. For myself, I would like to see patronage, no matter what party might be in power, absolutely done away with in all the public services of the Dominion. Party patronage is a disease that is sapping at the vitals of this country in regard to every dollar that is being expended for war or other purposes, and it ought to be wiped out. If the result of this measure would be in any way to bring about that end, it would have my fullest accord, even if it did involve extra expenditure to the province from which I come. But if we are simply to have the extra expense and at the same time the burden together with inconveniences which people in other parts of the country do not have-


Francis Cochrane: People in any part of the country in which the Government expropriates property have, if matters cannot be amicably adjusted, to come to Ottawa to have their claims disposed of.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am not dealing with the question of expropriation of property: I am dealing with the question of a railway inflicting damage upon a man's property. If a railway in central Canada damages a man's property, that man can have his remedy in the local court. That is not the case with us, and it is a hardship for the people living in remote parts of the Dominion to have to bring their cases into the Exchequer Court.
We hear the cry:	Why should not the
people along the Intercolonial railway pay the same rates as other people do? I am not speaking in any sectional way, but before larger questions occupied the arena of this country, it was one of the [DOT] favourite occupations of certain of the press of Ontario to discuss seriously making the people who live along the Intercolonial railway pay higher rates. They forgot altogether that exactly the same sum of money as was spent on the Intercolonial Tailway was spent by the Dominion in the construction of the canal system, which was their means of transportation, and for the use
of which not a dollar is asked from the businessman who transports his goods along those canals.


Francis Cochrane: The use of those canals in 'bringing goods from the Northwest down to the lower provinces lowers the freight to you.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We are dealing with a population in my province of 500,000 and with ,a population of about two millions in Quebec. The 'minister apparently thinks everything that is transported along the canals goes down into our province.


Francis Cochrane: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The transportation of goods on the canals does not involve in any considerable degree the carrying of goods to the Maritime Provinces, because of the extra cost of the second handling. No goods come to our country by sea; the goods that come to our country aTe carried by rail.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does the hon. member not realize that the mere fact that the existence of the canals reduces the freight rates on the railways, inures to the benefit of the people in the Maritime Provinces?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is very solicitous for the people of the Maritime Provinces.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am not a bit solicitous; it is my hon. friend who is solicitous.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The freight rates on the railways of central Canada are fixed by the Board of Railway Commissioners, and according to the minister the rates fixed by that board are higher than the rates charged on the 'Intercolonial. I am not complaining aJbout the fact that the canals are carrying this freight. I am glad to see that those great waterways provide means for the transportation of the products of the country. What I complain of is the talk of those gentlemen who occasionally feel it their b'ounden duty to tell us in the Maritime Provinces: You must pay more.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We do not say so.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That has been said in this House, and it has been stated in the press of the country for the last fifteen years. If the minister is going to deal with this proposition, of what use is it submitting a Bill to Parliament which says: We are going to refer certain matters set out in the schedule to the Board of Railway Commissioners, tout if we do not like to

obey that board <we need not do so. That is what my hon. friend says, because that is the meaning of this section 4:
4. Notwithstanding anything contained herein or in the Railway Act, His Majesty shall not nor shall the Minister of Railways and Canals 'he liable to any fine or penalty, nor. shall the Board have power to impose any fine or penalty on His Majesty or on the Minister of Railways and Canals, and no order or judgment of the Board under or in consequence of which His Majesty would have to pay or expend any money shall have any force or effect until it has been approved by the Governor in Council.
The result is that you are under the hoard and you are not under the board. If the Government are not satisfied with an order made by the board, the Government need not -pay any attention to it. If the Government want to resort to the board as a cover to enable them to get something done, they can say to the people: Oh, the board ordered us to do that.


Francis Cochrane: We would hear from the hon. member in this House if we did not obey the decisions of the board.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister will
not find that I will attack him if he will obey "the decision of the board.
Mr. COCHRAiNE: They will certainly be obeyed so long as I am Minister of Railways.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then why does the minister insert the section which expressly provides 'that the .board need' not be obeyed? All I plead for in connection with this matter-and I do not put it on sectional lines-iis this:	That our friends in other
parts of Canada should remember the conditions under which our Maritime Provinces are. We Ibuv our goods in central Canada and there is this long haul. Our maritime position would enable us to go to the United States seaboard for the purchase of goods, but the Intercolonial railway was created for the purpose of developing interprovincial trade and it has done so. For years the complaint was made that there was no return, traffic from the East to the West and that our industries and conditions in the Maritime Provinces did not give to the Intercolonial that return which would enable it to earn a profit. As we have gone along developing all our industries, our products have reached a stage which enables us to furnish to the Intercolonial a very large and increasing traffic. The minister now says that the rates aTe lower in the Maritime Provinces. I say: They have a right to he lower on account

of the isolation. That is all I plead for. I do not complain about anything concerning other parts of Canada, or about the people in any other part getting fair consideration. Numerically, we are small, and we are isolated on account of this narrow strip of territory through which we must go to get East or West. But do not let us in this Parliament approach the consideration of this question from this standpoint: Oh, the Intercolonial railway has been getting along with less freight than obtains in any other part of the country and the people should be compelled to pay higher rates.
The primary need of this railway is to give a service to the people living along the line, and by reason of the fact that this railway was constructed under the terms of Confederation, there was, by the express representation made by the public men of that day, guaranteed to the people of the Maritime provinces special considerations in regard to freight rates which should not be taken away. I do not give my hon. friend credit for being actuated by the sentiments I have mentioned as existing in certain parts, but do not let us approach this measure from the standpoint that the Tates should be raised.


Francis Cochrane: I did not say that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let there be no discrimination against the people of the Maritime Provinces by compelling them .to go to the Exchequer Court to have their claims .settled, whereas men in central Canada can have their claims settled in the provincial courts.	That is all I say
in regard to this matter, and a Bill of this kind, which does not deal with the whole question is quite inadequate. As I said iu my opening remarks the people of the Maritime Provinces ought to have been consulted on this question and their views taken into consideration before the minister introduced this legislation.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: As a member of the Railway Committee, I am surprised at the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) taking the position he has taken in regard to this measure. The matter was fully discussed at a special meeting of the committee, and the unanimous desire of the members present was that the Government railways should be brought under control of the Railway Commission. There should be no question about the importance of bringing them under the Railway Commission, and I am sure the people of Canada will heartily approve the

action taken by the minister in that regard. The hon. gentleman from Pictou calls attention to the fact that the people in the Maritime Provinces have not had sufficient notice of this matter. It is some four months since the Minister of Railways stated that the Intercolonial would be [DOT]brought under the Railway Commission. The question has been pretty thoroughly discussed in the papers, in the House, and in the provinces, and general approval has been given to this measure. In addition to that, I am sure, if the hon. member from Pictou will inquire of the workmen along the Intercolonial, or along any of the Government railways, he will find the different organizations heartily approve of this measure, and I am sure the more he investigates this matter, the more satisfied he will become that the workmen and employees on the Government railways are heartily in favour of the roads being brought under the Railway Commission. The hon. gentleman must also know that the clauses in the Railway Act which deal with the questions affecting the employees on government railways will come under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission.


Charles Marcil: The hon. gentleman's
whole argument falls to the ground, because the Department of Railways is not obliged to submit to the rulings of the boaTd. Will the hon. gentleman read clause 4?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am aware of the wording of clause 4, but the provinces in the East, through which the Intercolonial and the government railways run, have made no objection whatever to this legislation. Not one of the industries along the right of way has entered any objection whatever. In Tegard to the matter of sidings, which the hon. gentleman from Car-ieton was good enough to treat in a very fair manner, he will readily understand that the Railway Commission will have absolute power in connection with these, and will be able to deal with them just as fairly as they will deal with any other matter in connection with the road. I hope hon. members will see the necessity of passing this legislation, because it certainly is in the public interest. It was impossible, when the members of the House were before the committee, to have this provision placed in the Consolidated Railway Act, for reasons which are very apparent when you come to read the Consolidated Railway Act. I refer to such sections as the following:	Incorporation
of railway companies, offices, capital,
shares, calls, meetings of shareholders, president and directors, contracts respecting rolling stock, purchase of railway securities, disposing of lands obtained as subsidy, purchase of railway, agreements for sale, lease and amalgamation, insolvent companies, sale of subsidized railways not kept in repair, limitation of time for construction, general powers, branch lines, naval and military lands, indian lands, lands and other companies, crown lands, leave to take additional lands, purchase and conveyance of lands, expropriation proceedings, arbitrators re lands, compensation for lands, paying money into court, respecting navigable waters.


George Perry Graham: They could not deal
with the government railway, unless the Government consented.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: These are a
few of the many clauses in the Railway Act which rendered it impossible for us to insert this provision in the Consolidated Railway Act.


Charles Marcil: Are all these matters
to be removed from the control of the Department of Railways and Canals, so far as the road is concerned?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It would
be impossible to have them connected up in any way with the Government Railways Act. This is the Government Railways Act.


Charles Marcil: I believe the Minister of
Railways is sincere in this matter, but I am afraid he is getting support for this measure from a section of the country where the people are not as familiar with the conditions as they should be. From Quebec down to Halifax we have 600 miles of country with a single line of railway, without any competition whatever, with the hardest climate in Canada a winter that lasts for-six months in the year. Do hon. members imagine that in that section of the country through the Matapedia valley, along the south shore of the St. Lawrence where the farmer has to put up with the hardest climate where his cattle have to be kept for six months of the year, that the rates should be the same there as in East Lambton, South Oxford, or South Essex, where the cattle are out for nine months in the year?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the hon. gentleman believe the Railway Commission will take that matter into consideration?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do they not have to sell in competition with the United States?


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: But the duty was put on flour.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What about our coal duty?


James Joseph Hughes: The duty was put on to give the manufacturers of- flour in the province of Ontario that advantage. What I have said in regard to flour also applies to every other manufactured commodity.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why is our coal duty kept on?


James Joseph Hughes: One thing at a time. Hon. members from Ontario state continually that the rates on the government railways should he increased. Are they dissatisfied with the interprovincial trade which has been established? Do they want it decreased? Do they want difficulties placed in its way? Is not this trade a benefit to the whole country? The time is coming, I believe, when those high customs duties will toe reduced, and the manufacturing interests of Ontario may then be very glad to have a competing line of railway to the Maritime Provinces, which will give them lower and reasonable freight rates. This is one of the services the Government railway performs. There would be no sense in a government railway under the circumstances under which the Intercolonial has been built charging a rate of freight that would produce a surplus revenue to the railway. It would toe simply taking the money from the people as an additional tax and putting it in the exchequer. Would it not be better to follow the system which has been in operation for some years, and have as low a rate of freight as possible, in order to encourage interprovincial trade? 'Who would benefit from this interprovincial trade? Would it not be the people of Ontario? It has been stated here to-day, and everybody knows it to be the fact, that for the sake of interprovincial transportation and for the advantages of interprovincial trade the canals are free. No one from the Maritime Provinces or from Ontario objects to that, because it i-s to the advantage otf the whole country. The hon. member from Pictou reminded the minister that the question of patronage had not been eliminated from the Government railway system. I wish to corroborate that statement. I do not know why the minister thinks the patronage system has disappeared.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Is it not about time that somebody making those charges should [DOT]specify something? Surely they could bring .forward a little evidence?


James Joseph Hughes: They have been specified time and again.


John Hampden Burnham: Will the hon. member mention some of them?


James Joseph Hughes: The patronage system is just the same as it always was. It existed under the late Government, and it is just the same under this Government. It is useless for hon. gentlemen to deny it. That only adds deception to the patronage evil. Why, a porter is not appointed on the Prince Edward Island railway unless he has the approval of the patronage committee, or Conservative candidate.


John Hampden Burnham: Considering that this is really a covert attack upon public ownership, does not the hon. gentleman think that in all fairness it is high time to specify at least one instance of what he alleges? We are sick and tired of those general charges-throwing mud and dust like a lot of children.	*


James Joseph Hughes: I will refer the hon. member for Peterborough to the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield), the exWhip of the Conservative party, and if my hon. friend will go to the member for Colchester-


John Hampden Burnham: I am going to the hon. member who is making the charge, and to the man who has not pluck enough to make his charge definite.


James Joseph Hughes: I have pluck enough and I am making the chaTge. I make it of my own personal knowledge. Of course, I don't suppose anything I may say would enlighten the hon. member for Peterborough.


John Hampden Burnham: That is the usual back-out.


James Joseph Hughes: I want to refer to another matter in connection with the province from which I come. As the minister knows, in that province we are under a very great disadvantage because we have a narrow gauge system. We are under additional expense inasmuch as every carload of freight going from that province to the mainland has to be transferred from the car to the boat, and freights coming from the mainland to the province has to go through the same process. Even when the car ferry is established, which I hope will be shortly, the same disadvantages will continue.


Francis Cochrane: Conditions are better
than they were.


James Joseph Hughes: No, they are worse than they were.


Francis Cochrane: Then I wish to the
Lord I had not done it.
'Mr. J. J. HUGHES: And I wish to the Loid you had not done it, unless you complete it. Unless it is finished you leave the trade facilities worse than you found them.


Francis Cochrane: I certainly will not.


James Joseph Hughes: I hope not, but
they are worse now than they were.


Francis Cochrane: They certainly are not.


James Joseph Hughes: Once the minister makes up his mind, no matter what the facts may be, he will stick to his opinion. No man can convince him he is wrong. That is one of the minister's peculiarities.


Francis Cochrane: You say I am wrong because I do not agree with you.


James Joseph Hughes: As some hon. gentlemen on this side has said, the member for Colchester is the only man in Parliament who can convince the Minister of Railways that he is wrong.
These conditions, these great disadvantages exist and, that being so, I ask the minister and every member of this House whether it is proper to put Prince Edward Island under this Board. The minister, or some other minister knowing the circumstances, would take into consideration the disadvantages and difficulties under which that province labours and make some concession; a board would not be inclined to make concessions not knowing the circumstances. Freight moved from Prince Edward Island is subject to an extra charge on account of so many handlings. Should not that be taken into consideration?


Francis Cochrane: The hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about. We have absorbed not only the handling but the ferry too, and he does not know it.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, I know it, and I know you charge extra for the handling.


Francis Cochrane: That is all the thanks I get.


James Joseph Hughes: I know that the
rate obtaining on the Prince Edward Island railway is not the same rate as that obtaining on the Intercolonial for similar distances.
~Mr. COCHRANE: Yes, sir.


James Joseph Hughes: There is no use in saying that, because I do business and I

know the facts. We have not daily communication, we have only communication on three days in the week. Under these eii;-cumstances Prince Edward Island should be exempt from the operation of this Bill.


Francis Cochrane: Perhaps the board will give you all you want.


James Joseph Hughes: The minister will not give us all we want because he wants to establish a " wicked partner " in this business. If there is something he does not want to do, something that is unpopular, he will blame the Board. If there is something he wants to do himself, he will do it and take credit to. himself for it. That is the kind of legislation this is and that is the kind of a system that the minister appears to wish, to establish. The minister promised five years ago that he would standardize the gauge of the Prince Edward Island railway. We were promised that the car ferry would be in operation in two years from the commencement of the work.


Francis Cochrane: That is not true.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, five years have passed and it is not in operation. The hon. gentleman promised to standardize the road.


Francis Cochrane: Yes, but there is time enough for that.


James Joseph Hughes: There is not time enough.


Francis Cochrane: You evidently do not know that there is a war on.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, I have heard of it.


Francis Cochrane: Have you? I am surprised.


James Joseph Hughes: The minister has not heard about a great many things that are taking place in the world. He does not appear to know the conditions which exist on the railway he is operating. I am pointing these things out and again I appeal to the minister's business sense and knowledge. While these things exist, would it not be fair and reasonable for the Government to retain control over the Prince Edward Island portion of the government system at least until conditions were made rftore equal? Surely, until we have the privilege that the people along the Intercolonial enjoy, we should not be subjected to an increase in freight rates. When we come to the seventh section of this Bill I


want to move an amendment to that effect, and I think it ought to appeal to the good sense of the members of the committee.
I regret to find that when matters of this kind are discussed, the members from Ontario seem to- think that the Intercolonial is operated altogether in the interest of the Maritime Provinces. They appear to tfiink that if there is no surplus from the road the Maritime Provinces get the benefit of it and that it is to the disadvantage of the rest of Canada and particularly of Ontario. That is the worst kind of a misapprehension. The Intercolonial is operated just as much for the advantage of the people of Ontario as of the Maritime Provinces. It is a link that binds Ontario and the Maritime Provinces together. The advantage is on the side of Ontario. We do not ship anything like the quantity of goods to Ontario that we get from that province. In the last few years the trade has been increasing and I am .very pleased. It is to the advantage of the whole country that the rates on the Intercolonial should be kept at the lowest possible point. This should be encouraged by members from every province and particularly from Ontario. The people of Ontario may not always have the high customs tariff which they enjoy to-day. There is growing up in this country a very strong sentiment that the manufacturers of Ontario have too many advantages now. The West will be heard from and the Maritime Provinces feel that they have paid tribute to the manufacturers of Ontario for a long time. The manufacturers of Ontario should be careful lest this spirit be developed and their privileges be reduced. One way to prevent this reduction is to continue the rates on the Intercolonial at the very lowest possible point.


John Hampden Burnham: It grieves me as an ordinary elector and a thorough Canadian to hear continually, year after year, the fair fame of this country aspersed by those who get up on the other side of the House and discuss the Intercolonial railway question, they, of course, coming from the Maritime Provinces. They say annually, especially against the present minister, that he is guilty of all sorts of political chicanery in the administration of the Intercolonial and just as regularly they fail to substantiate their charges. We hear, during election times in Ontario, the statement continually made that Government ownership is a failure-just look at the Intercolonial railway! All they know about the Intercolonial in that respect at least is what the defamers
of the Intercolonial in the Canadian Parliament say without offering one tittle of evidence. I would go so far as to say that, of course, if they would substantiate-they have had plenty of time to do it-their accusations, whatever is wrong, if anything is wrong, should be rectified. But the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) is here now. I heard the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. J. J. Hughes) and who is just going out of the Chamber, but I do not expect him to substantiate what he says because he gets all mixed up. He makes one charge that the manufacturers of Ontario are a wicked lot because they do the bulk of the freight business on the Intercolonial railway and the people of the Maritime Provinces do not send an equal quantity of goods to Ontario, and yet, according to the hon. gentleman, the manufacturers of Ontario are so stupid that they wish the rates on the Intercolonial to be increased. That kind of an argument is simply nonsense. But that is not what I am dealing with. I am speaking as a patriotic Canadian citizen and asking that this annual stuff be stopped-either backed up or stopped. From one end of this country to the other we hear continually: Look at the Intercolonial. I consult Hansard in vain and I listen to these men from the Maritime Provinces in vain for one single, solitary attempt to back up what they say. They say that a porter, or a cleaner, or a charwoman cannot be appointed without the interference or connivance of the minister. That is all. They never mentioned his name or her name.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I proved to the hilt this afternoon, and the minister dare not deny it, that the superintendents of the various divisions of his railway do not appoint any trackmen or men to work in locomotive shops without recommendations from the men who have the patronage.


Francis Cochrane: I did deny it most emphatically. It does not do any good to deny it to you.	.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What kind of proof does my hon. friend want to satisfy himself that that kind of work is going on?


Francis Cochrane: You make the charge.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I make the charge here and now, that in my county no man has been employed in either of these departments for the last two years except he had the recommendation of the man who had the patronage, and I defy my hon. friend to investigate it.


John Hampden Burnham: My Ron. friend (Mr. Macdonald) is a skillful lawyer, and he knows that that kind of evidence would not get him into court at all; he would not even get a non-suit on such evidence.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would not get a non-suit; I would get a verdict.


John Hampden Burnham: The hon. member could not go into a division court, not even into a police court, with such evidence; he has got to specify. If he knows so much, surely, out of the wealth of his knowledge and information, he can at least specify something, and surely he can drag up from his numerous acquaintances somebody who will make an affidavit, even if he will not back it up. When the hon. member is challenged he says he makes the charge here, and now and the minister denies it, but the hon. member will not come forward-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I say to my hon. friend, who is, of course, irresponsible-


John Hampden Burnham: Oh, of course.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: - that if the minister gives me a committee I will prove it.


John Hampden Burnham: That is -what we want. The charge falls to the ground until such time ae it is substantiated. Having got as far as that, at least wrn have three or four years' dirty work cleared up; we have had these charges made, this mud thrown, long enough, and it is now admitted by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that he ought not to touch it until such time as he attempts to substantiate it, so it will go on Hansard. I hope it will be seen by the newspapers of this country who have done .so much good, conscientious work for the benefit of the country, and that they at least will see what has been meant and said by such members as the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) who, from time to time has made charges which he admits now he ought to at least attempt to substantiate.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: All I have to say is that this gentleman who gyrates around here occasionally, to the amusement of the House, and not to the edification of anybody, is talking through his hat, to use a vulgaT phrase.


John Hampden Burnham: I have not a hat on.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I repeat that I make this charge: If the minister does not know that this condition is going on he ought to know it and if he will give me a committee I will prove it.


John Hampden Burnham: My hon. friend knows perfectly-and I say I use the words in a Pickwickian sense in order that I may be in order-that he is a moral coward when he makes such a charge as that and does not attempt to substantiate it. If the minister will give him a committee! Is it necessary to have a committee in order to have that evidence? He can at least bring forward a prima facie case, but he has not attempted to do so. He simply flings mud, not only at the minister but at the fair name of Canada. The hon. member should *be ashamed to do such a thing without bringing forward one particle of evidence.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to make a charge against the minister that I will substantiate now. I think I shall satisfy the hon.
member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) that all the Maritime members are not alike.


John Hampden Burnham: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Hold on, you had better hear what I have to say. I am going to charge the .minister with having offered us a gold Ibriok in this Bill, and I am very sorry to have to say it too, because I have been working here with my eyes on the book and one of my ears listening to the hon. member for Peterborough while trying to find out what this Bill really means. I am surprised how little it means. The minister said this afternoon, and I think conscientiously, that the Railway Act applied, except .as to the expropriation of land and the right of bringing actions. I think that is the substance of the minister's statement. Why, there is nothing in the Bill at all. Practically all it does is to give the Railway Commission control of freight rates. I understand that the sections refer to the new Railway Act. I have here the new Act as it passed this House. I am amazed at what has been left out of this Bill. I understand that many 5 p.m. things should be left out, for instance, the constitution of the Board and the application of certain principles that could not be applied to Government railways, and I understand also that the minister admitted that the expropriation of lands is left out. Everything from section 367 to 382 of the new general Railway Act is excluded from the operation of this Bill. I do not believe the minister knew this; I think some over-zealous official has prepared this Bill for him and did not tell him what it meant. I will give you what is left out. In the first place, all control of the Railway Board over telegraphs

and telephones on the railway for railway purposes.


Francis Cochrane: We have no telegraphs. Mr. CARVELL: You ought to have.


Francis Cochrane: We ought to have, but, unfortunately, before I came an they had all been leased out.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But you are putting it heie so that you will have no control if you get them.


Francis Cochrane: I think the hon. gentleman is wrong, and I do not think he intends to be. All the telegraph system on the Intercolonial is owned by other people and comes under the Dominion Railway Board to-day.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That may be the fact to-day, but may not be to-morrow.


Francis Cochrane: Why not? This is not giving us control.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Because my hon. friend is leasing a line from the Western Union to-day it does not mean he will lease it all next year.


Francis Cochrane: But we do not own it, the Government does not own telegraph lines. That is why I am finding fault. They are owned by other people and come under the Railway Board as it is.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You may own a telephone or telegraph line next year, and if you do you will not come under the control of the Railway Board in reference to it.


Francis Cochrane: I cannot put anything under them that I do not own.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why purposely exclude from the powers of the Railway Board that which you may own and operate? Next, I find that you do not give to the Railway Board any power of putting wires across railways, or other wires, surely that is an important thing. You do not give the board power to permit the erection of lines and wires across or along highways.


Francis Cochrane: What section is that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Section 373. If a telephone company want to cross the Intercolonial Railway tracks, surely they ought to have the right to go to the Railway Board and get authority to take the necessary steps. But you do not give them that right.


Francis Cochrane: We will put it in;
there is no objection to it.
276i


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think my hon. friend intended to not do these things, but I am pointing out to him what the facts are.


Francis Cochrane: I did not draw the
Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not think my hon. friend did. It was done by some overzealous official who wanted to protect the Intercolonial railway and prevent its coming under the jurisdiction of the board. He has offered my hon. friend a gold brick, and my hon. friend has offered it to the House.


Francis Cochrane: Oh, no.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It looks that way. I
do not believe that the minister is purposely trying to deceive the committee, but I am afraid that is the practical result of the legislation he has offered. The next thing to which I wish to call attention is that under this Bill the minister does not have to get the consent of a municipality for lines upon highways, etc. Surely that .is an important provision for a public utility corporation. Why should the Government railway have the right to d.o things with respect to a municipality that an ordinary railway company could not do without first getting the consent of the board? My hon. friend is not giving to the Railway Board the power to exercise its jurisdiction over his transactions with municipalities. That is in section 374.


Francis Cochrane: I agree that that
should be in.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does not section 15 of the Government Railways Act cover that objection?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Section 15 of the Government Railways Act is repealed by section 6 of this Bill.


Francis Cochrane: I am willing to have this go in; I am sorry that it is not already in.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: After this discussion is over, the minister should ask the committee to report progress, and have the Bill redrafted. There have been a great number of omissions. The next omission is that of the provision respecting the price and supply of certain power. That is not so important; still, I see no reason why it should not be in. The next is the provision governing telegraphs and telephones. That is very important. I have some small interest in a telephone company in New

Brunswick, of which I am one of the directors. We have to do business with the Intercolonial railway; why should not the Railway Board of Canada be the arbiter between our company and the minister's company, just the same as it is between our company and the Canadian Pacific Railway company? But under the Bill as now drafted the Railway Board has nothing to say about the matter. I am not finding very much fault our company gets along nicely with the Intercolonial.


Francis Cochrane: I have admitted that these should go in.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am pointing out what the omissions are. The next is the provision relating to1 marine electric telegraphs or cables. Then there is the provision with regard to Government use and construction of telegraphs and telephones. Then there is the matter , of statistics. Why should not the Intercolonial railway make returns of statistics to the board just the same as any other company does? That is section 380.
I now come to another phase of the matter. Section '4 of this Bill provides:
Notwithstanding anything contained herein or in the Railway Act, His Majesty shall not nor shall the Minister of Railways and Canals he liable to any fine or penalty, nor shall the Board have power to impose any fine or penalty on His Majesty or on the Minister of Railways and Canals, and no .order or judgment of the Board under or in consequence of which His Majesty would have to pay or expend any money shall have any force or effect until it has been approved by the Governor in Council.
I agree that the Minister of Railways should not be liable to fine or penalty; nobody would assume that the ministR would maliciously do anything for which he should be fined. But the latter part of this section absolutely takes away from the board the power of enforcing a decision by fine, penalty or imprisonment unless that decision is accepted by the Governor in Council. Whatever the board may do, therefore, is only a polite invitation to the Intercolonial Railway authorities that, in their judgment, certain things should be done. If the minister says no, then you cannot fine him; you cannot fine the Government; you cannot fine His Majesty. According to this Bill you cannot make the Intercolonial pay any money unless the Governor in Council says that it shall be paid.


Francis Cochrane: Does it not stand to reason that nothing is accomplished by putting money from one pocket into another?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No manager of the Intercolonial Railway Company wants to have his revenues reduced. If you make him pay the fine out of the railway moneys, he will try to run things so that he will not be obliged to pay. If his company is not subject to fines and penalties the manager will be just as independent as he has been during the last forty-five years. I admit that so far as the balance sheet of Canada is concerned, that would not make much difference; but it would make a wonderful difference in the work of the officers who are carrying on the affairs of the Intercolonial railway. Section 381 of the amended Railway Act is as follows:
Any company, or any director or officer thereof, or any receiver, trustee, lessee, agent, or person, acting for or employed by such [DOT] company, that does, causes or permits to be done, any matter, act or thing contrary to the provisions of this or the Special Act, or to the orders, regulations or directions of the Governor in Council, or of the minister, or of the Board, made under this Act, or omits to do any matter, act or thing, thereby required to be done on the part of any such company, or person, shall, in addition to being liable to any penalty elsewhere provided, be liable to any person injured by any such act or omission for the full amount of damages sustained thereby, and such damages shall not be subject to any special limitation except as expressly provided for by this or any other Act.
That provision is left out of the Bill now under consideration; therefore there is no such recourse against officers of the company as there is against the directors of a company railway. If my hon. friend wants to make this a railway company in the ordinary sense of the term, then the officials ought to be subject to the ordinary laws of the land.
The next clause that is left out is 387, which provides as follows:
All actions or suits for indemnity for any damages or injury sustained by reason of the construction or operation of the railway shall, and, notwithstanding anything in any special Act, may be commenced within two years next after the time when such supposed damage is sustained, etc.
That is the section which provides for bringing actions against a railway company. Of course, if the minister maintains that you cannot bring actions against the Intercolonial railway except in the Exchequer Court, perhaps this provision would not be so important. Still, I think the same principle should apply in the case of the Intercolonial as in the case of any other company in the matter of the right to bring actions, regardless of what court you bring that action in.


Francis Cochrane: That was left out intentionally.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think that it should be left out. The right to bring the action should be the same no matter in what court you bring it. My hon. friend has purposely, as he says, left out the court in which you are going to bring action. I wish the minister and I had the money that has been expended in the last forty years in Canada in lawsuits to define the real meaning of certain sections of the Railway Act. Let me put the matter in this way: An action is taken to the Privy Council, and you get a decision. That is the law, and that law should govern malfeasance or negligence on the part of the Intercolonial railway just the same as it would the Canadian Pacific or the Grand Trunk. That is, the right to bring action should be exactly the same against the Intercolonial as against any other railway company. The minister says that you ought not to be allowed to bring action in the same court as you can bring action against company railways. We disagree on that, but we ought to agree on the fact that the law should be the same, and this legislation should make it without doubt that the law is the same; that the same principles of law apply against the Government Tailway as apply against any other railway. We come next to section 397, which provides for a penalty in case any structure such as a bridge, or tunnel, or any overhead structure does not comply with the requirements of the board. The board has no power, under this Bill as it is now drafted, to order the Intercolonial railway to construct a bridge of a certain pattern or to carry out certain specifications.


Francis Cochrane: I think that is provided for. '


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it is left out. I have not had an opportunity to compare this specifically with the Government Railways Act, but section 397 of the General Railway Act is purposely omitted from this Bill. That means that the provisions of section 397 do not apply to the Intercolonial. The same is true of section 398, which says:
Every company which shall erect, operate o* maintain any bridge, approach, tunnel, viaduct, trestle, or any building, erection or structure, in violation of this Act, or of any order or regulation of the Board, shall for each offence incur a penalty of fifty dollars.
That means that the officers of the Intercolonial Railway can go on at their sweet pleasure and do all they have a mind to do. The Board has no jurisdiction over .them, and no penalties are provided if they do
what any other railway company could not do without the consent of the board. The next section covers the improper use of the highway. Under the general Railway Act, no railway can improperly use the highway of any municipality, and if they do. they are .subject to a penalty. Why should not the Intercolonial railway be subject to the same penalty? In this Bill there is even omitted such a small penalty as for failing to. erect sign boards-I refer to section 400 of the general Railway Act.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) means that the sections mentioned at the end of section 6 have been taken out of the Government Railways Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am referring to the
schedule. I have gone hurriedly over the schedule which includes the sections of the general Railway Act brought under the purview of this Bill, and section 400 is not one of those sections. The next section omitted is section 401. The next of any importance is section 403 which is very important so far as the farmers of Canada are concerned, and which provides that a railway company must remove all thistles and noxious weeds growing on the right of way.


Francis Cochrane: This Bill provides for that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it is purposely omitted.


Francis Cochrane: If we take the matter up section by section, we can settle it right on the spot.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Very well, if the minister does not want me to go on, but I am pointing out to him the enormous omissions there are. There is in the Bill practically nothing but the control of rates.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Most of the
sections dealing with highways, bridges, fences, injuries to cattle, walking on the track, are still in the Government Railways Act. *


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not so sure aJbout that, beca/use I have not had time to go over them all. But why leave the sections in the Government Railways Act, instead of adopting the sections in the general Railway Act applying to the same matters? Every section of the general Railway Act which provides for a penalty of any kind seems to have been omitted. That is the general principle upon which the drafting of this Bill has proceeded. Take the section regarding noxious weeds and this-

ties. There may be something in the Government Railway Act which provides that noxious weeds and thistles shall be removed from the right of way, but there is in the Government Railways Act nothing which provides a penalty against the Government if they do not remove the weeds or thistles. In the General Railway Act, there is a penalty applied to the railway company which fails to carry out the provisions of it, and it is the penalty that has been removed from this Bill. Section 403 says:
(1) Every railway company which fails or neglects to cause the thistles and all noxious weeds growing on the right of way, and upon land of the company adjoining the railway, to be cut down, or to be rooted Out and destroyed, each year, before such thistles or weeds have sufficiently matured to seed, or which fails or neglects to do anything which it is required by law to dq for the purpose of cutting down, or rooting out and destroying such thistles and weeds before they have sufficiently matured to seed, shall incur a penalty of two dollars for every day during which such failure or neglect continues.
The second section says that the mayor, reeve or chief officer may remove the noxious weeds and thistles, and the company may be compelled to pay the expenses. That is in the General Railway Act, but that is omitted in the Bill as drafted, and, therefore, we have no protection against the Government railways if they fail to remove those noxious weeds and thistles. The next section omitted is section 406, which provides:
(1) If any company refuses or neglects to comply with any order of the Board, made upon the report of the inspecting engineer, under the authority of this Act,-
(a)	directing any repairs, renewals, reconstruction, alteration or new work, material or equipment to be made, done or furnished by the company upon, in addition to, or in substitution for any portion of the railway; or,
(b)	directing that, until such repairs, renewals, reconstruction, alteration and work, materials or equipment are made, done and furnished to the satisfaction of the Board, no portion of the railway in respect of which, such order is made shall be used, or used otherwise than subject to certain restrictions, conditions and terms by such order imposed.
Then it provides the penalty that if they refuse to carry out this they shall pay a penalty of not less than $2,000. All that is omitted in this Bill. The next is section 407 regarding non-compliance with notice of engineer forbidding the running of trains. If an ordinary railway company violates this section they are subject to a penalty of $2,000. The Minister of Railways can do this, and he goes scot-free. Section 408. which is very important, provides:

Every railway company which wilfully or negligently omits to give immediate notice as by this Act required, with full particulars, to the Board of the occurrence, upon the railway belonging to such company, of any accident attended with serious personal injury to any person using the railway, or to any employee of the company, or whereby any bridge, culvert, viaduct or tunnel on or of the railway has been broken, or so damaged as to be impassable or unfit for immediate use, shall forfeit to His Majesty the sum of two hundred dollars for every day during which the omission to give such notice continues.
That is omitted from this Bill, and therefore the minister can kill people if he chooses to do so. I do not mean the minister personally; I mean that the government railways can operate in as negligent a manner as they please.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Judging by the experience of last winter, the Government would have to have a large staff to report all the accidents.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Probably, if they are
brought under the General Railway Act, there would not Ibe so many accidents to report, ,and if I have one cause of complaint against the management of the Intercolonial more than all others, it is the fact that they have laid down the law that they will not pay damages for negligence. I do not blame the minister for this. I do not know who is to blame. I have had, in the past few years, a dozen cases, small matters, a man who has had -a few sheep or a cow killed, something like that-


Francis Cochrane: We pay in every case where we are liable.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You never pay anything.


Francis Cochrane: Excuse me.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There has never been one claim paid on the Valley road since it has been operated for two and a half years. They send a man up there; I do not want to mention his name here, hut he was .a political heeler in the county of York, and, instead of paying the claim, he will say: " I will show you that Carvell cannot make this company pay; we will show whether Carvell can make the Intercolonial pay damages or not."


Francis Cochrane: I am sure the hon. gentleman will make them pay, if they are guilty.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I usually follow them up. The hon. member from Peterborough wants to know some of the Teasons why we are finding fault with the Intercolonial.


Francis Cochrane: The argument of hon. gentlemen opposite is that I have not done things, and, if that be so, then I hand the matter over to the Railway Board, who, perhaps, may do better.


John Hampden Burnham: 'The hon. gentleman from Garleton has demonstrated that the charge of political chicanery made by him, especially in this one instance he is speaking of, falls to the ground, because the hon. gentleman says that the minister has sent a political heeler up there. To do what? To buy up the people? No, just the very opposite.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have digressed from the real purview of the Act. But I say the Intercolonial is not compelled, under the law as now drafted, to send a notification of accidents. One of the most important sections of the whole Railway Act is that which gives the board power to compel the company to properly	equip the
trains with	all	modem	appliances.
The companies are liable to a penalty of $200 a day for every day they fail to comply with the order of the board in this respect. That is provided by section 110, but that is omitted from the Bill. The next point is that they must keep a blackboard on the wall-a small thing like that-showing the time of the arrival and departure of trains, and whether they are on time or not, and if they fail to do this, they are liable to a penalty. Even that is omitted from the operation of the Act. Section. 413, which provides for a penalty if they fail to stop at a swing bridge, is omitted. Then there is a penalty under section 415, as to sounding the whistle at a crossing, and that is omitted, and that is very important. Then section 41 reads:
The company shall incur a penalty of $100 a day if any train or engine of the company passes over any crossing where two main lines of railway, or the main tracks of any branch lines, cross each other at rail level, whether they are owned by different companies or by the same company, before a proper signal has been received by the conductor or engineer in charge of such train or engine, from a competent person or watchman in charge of such crossing, that the way is clear.
If there is anything in the world that ought to be important, it is the regulations of the board, or the law of the land, providing for the operation of the trains where one railway crosses another, and yet even that provision is removed.


Francis Cochrane: We are losing time
over this.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I am putting it in a connected form the things which the minister has not done.


Francis Cochrane: We could take it up clause by clause.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the minister objects, I will not go any further. I am only half way through, but I will take it up later. I think I must have given him enough to convince him that there are a great many things included in the Railway Act which are not in this Bill, other than expropriation and rights of action. The minister stated that this Bill brought the road under the Railway Act, except as to expropriations and rights of action and that is not so.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A great deal has
been said about the Intercolonial railway being in politics, and that this is an effort to extricate it from that position. There is no doubt that, in the management of the Intercolonial, there is more or less politics, and that will occur, no matter what Government is administering that public utility. I do not say this as a special criticism directed against the present minister, because I am bound to say that I would anticipate approximately the same condition, no matter what Government was in power. I do not think, either, that the Intercolonial railway is open to the great criticisms which we frequently hear. The hon. gentleman from Carleton has made a vow that he will never travel on the Intercolonial if he can possibly avoid it. It may be true that the through train services of that road are not as efficient as on some other roads-	.


Francis Cochrane: With equal distances
I think they are.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Intercolonial performs a service in many respects very much better than that given by the Canadian Pacific, or the Grand Trunk, in many other sections of Canada. However, will this Bill take the road out of politics? After all, that is the question. I do not think it possibly can have that effect. What was the purpose of establishing the Railway Board? It was created by Parliament to interpose between railway corporations and the public, to determine what was fair, as between the railway performing the service and the public receiving the service. It was quite natural and logical, therefore, that such a body should be established to regulate and control private railway companies, but does that principle apply to government-owned railways? These gov-

eminent railways are owned by the people, administered by the people, and the service is performed for the people. Therefore, this board is not intervening between any different interests. They are exercising control over a public utility which is owned by the people and carried on by the people. I do not think the placing of the Intercolonial under the jurisdiction of the Railway Board will assist in removing political influences from the administration of the road. I quite agree with hon. gentlemen this afternoon who object to political interference in connection with the administration of the government railway. We should endeavour to get away from it. We are likely to acquire the Canadian Northern Railway. Later on we probably will be obliged to take over the Grand Trunk Pacific, and it would appear to be desirable and necessary that some scheme be worked out for the administration of these two railways, and the Intercolonial railway, freed from political interference and political influence.
I was going to suggest to the minister that it would be as well to allow this matter to stand until we have disposed of the major railway problem of this country. The acquisition of the Canadian Northern is now before us. Next year we will probably have to deal with the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and then will arise the question of the administration of these two Toads and the Intercolonial, and I trust some method may be evolved whereby they will be operated jointly free from partisan influence. It seems to me the only purpose to be served by this Bill will be the fixing and controlling of rates by the Railway Board. According to the statement of the hon. member (Mr. Carvell), a great many matters which are ordinarily within the jurisdiction of the Railway Board will be wanting in this case, and the powers which are sought to be placed in the Railway Board by this Bill practically refer only to the control of rates. The administration of the Intercolonial railway is somewhat different from the administration of other railways in Canada. Other railway systems extend from ocean to ocean. The Intercolonial is, relatively, a short road. Many problems confront the administration of the Intercolonial which are not found in other railways. This legislation seems anomalous, because you seek to introduce into the administration of the government railway another body created by the people, who own and operate the railway. Inasmuch as the Bill does not put the Intercolonial en-
tirely within the jurisdiction of the Railway Board, I would suggest that consideration of this matter might be postponed. I quite appreciate the desire of the minister to remove partisanship from the administration of the Intercolonial, and I sympathize with him in his efforts in that direction. At the same time I think we might well let the whole matter stand until we can deal thoroughly and effectively with our other railway problems.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: Within a few days we .are likely to take over 9,000 miles of the Canadian Northern Railway system. If that system is under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission at the present time we should keep it under that jurisdiction. -This Act will attain that object, and will protect the public rights better than if the system is changed over now, taken away from the Railway Commission, and put alongside the Intercolonial without being controlled by anybody. If that were done we will simply complicate the situation, whereas if we keep this Act as it is now, and if it applies to the Canadian Northern, there will be no disturbance, and we are simply putting the Intercolonial on the same basis e.s any other road.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Except that if the Act is in the condition in which my hon. friend from Carleton says it is, it is incomplete. If we put the road within the power of the board at all it should be entirely within the power of the board.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) allow me to ask him a question? At the present time the Railway Act applies to the Canadian Northern in respect of all those things to which the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) has referred. The moment it is acquired by the Government, if, * unfortunately, it should be acquired under the Bill now before the House, and if it is placed under government control, so that it becomes a government railway, there would be a number of clauses in the Railway Act which would not apply to it.


William Findlay Maclean: But there would be uniformity under this Bill.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend does not know what the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) said.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, I do.


William Pugsley: The member for Carleton pointed out that there .are a great many
- AUGUST 10, 1917
important sections in the Railway Act which apply to private railways like the Canadian Northern, but which are absolutely eliminated from this Bill. Clauses which are essential for the protection of the public are, for some reason which I am not able to understand, eliminated from this Bill.


Francis Cochrane: In answer to my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean)
I may say that what it is desired should be under the jurisdiction of the board is not so much ,a question of the rates as of the improvements. My hon. friend knows as veil as I do that members, and every one else, wish to have improvements on the railway which are, perhaps, not justified, and they think I am a little arbitrary in not granting these improvements. They will now have the right to appeal to the board, and force me to do things I should do.


William Pugsley: But, the minister has left that out.


Francis Cochrane: No, I am not leaving it out. The Bill is not through yet and I do not propose to leave those things out.


William Pugsley: Of course, if the Bill is to be amended, it is a different thing.


Francis Cochrane: It certainly is. I told my hon. friend from Carleton it would be amended.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend speaks about bringing in those portions of the railway law that would make the railway workable. Take, for instance, "industrial spurs," section 185-that is all left out.


Francis Cochrane: I don't think it is. If * my hon. friend would only consent to take the Bill clause by clause, we will reach something definite. As it is, we are only wasting time. If the strict rules of the committee were followed, we would discuss the Bill clause by clause, and not as a whole.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No one wishes to obstruct the Bill, but we all want to understand it. I think the explanation made by my hon. friend from Carleton, in which he shows that certain sections have been left out of the Bill which should be included, is simply assisting the passage of the Bill on a proper form. We have a right to know why the sections were left out.


Mr. COPP:: Inasmuch as this Bill, if adopted, brings about such a radical change in the operation of the Intercolonial railway, it is natural that members from the Maritime Provinces, through whose constituencies the Intercolonial operates, should consider it carefully and find out why this radical change is being brought about at the present time. So far as I have been able to gather from the discussion this afternoon, there has not been one solitary reason advanced to show what advantage the Government, the country, or the Intercolonial railway will derive from the change the minister seeks to make. The only argument my hon. friend from Carleton advanced in favour of the Bill was that he had made a vow he would never travel on the Intercolonial again. So far as I can see, that is the only cogent argument offered in favour of the Bill.
I might say to my hon. friend from Carleton, without making a criticism of the argument he used, that I never would travel by the Canadian Pacific railway. This would not be an argument against the condition of that road. If my hon. friend wanted to make an argument in favour of the Canadian Pacific railway in comparison with the Intercolonial, I might make the same answer, but it is no argument why we should have this very radical change imposed upon us that the Intercolonial does not happen to be the line on which he travels. If the Intercolonial traversed the country through which my hon. friend travels, as the Canadian Pacific railway does, I venture to say that he would gladly accept the privilege of travelling over the Intercolonial. Many arguments against and criticisms of the Intercolonial are made, but I wish to say, on the other hand, that the Intercolonial has served a splendid purpose. It has served the people of the Maritime Provinces well, and it is a good railway. While it is true that, in the past, some political interfer- . enc-e may have taken place, while it may be true of the future and while it may be that the life of the Minister of Railways for the time being may not be the most pleasant in the world, still I am sure that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) will not soon forget many pleasant excursions he has made oveT the Intercolonial, barring the one or two unpleasant receptions he had at Moncton. But the minister in going over the Intercolonial will see evidence on every hand that the Intercolonial is serving a splendid purpose, that it is traversing a good country and giving the people of the Maritime Provinces a valuable service. If so, I would like to ask the minister what demand has been made upon him by the people of the

Maritime Provinces or elsewhere to place the Intercolonial under the Board of Railway 'Commissioners. My hon. friend from Carleton says that all you will have to do will be to drop a postal note or send a telegram to the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commisioners and your grievance, if you have such, will be redressed instanter. That has not been my experience with the board. I am prepared to grant that this board has proved' a useful purpose. But it takes time, just as it takes time to confer with the general manager or the officials of the Intercolonial, to get matters adjusted or arranged. I have taken up matters with the Board of Railway Commissioners, and I have had to wait their pleasure to consider them and to make their findings. What is true of the Board of Railway Commissioners is true of the railway officials at Moncton.
On the question of applications for sidings my hon. friend from Carleton adduces the argument that this change must be an advantage, because, forsooth, when you wanted a siding at any point on the Intercolonial you could not get any satisfactory attention by railway officials.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know of one that was done.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I know of one that was done and done very quickly but it was also removed very quickly. But that is not the rule. As far as I have been able to gather, under regulations of the Intercolonial, if a man wants a siding put in to his plant, or to an industrial concern, he makes application and puts up a deposit. Then, the railway engineers lay out the siding and put it in. The freight rates that are paid on produde or anything coming from that siding are credited to the amount of deposit put up by applicant until same is returned to him.


Francis Cochrane: So much a car.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have never been able to find that to get a siding in involved a great deal of trouble or expense. My hon. friend from Carleton points out that a great many sections of the General Railway Act have been left out. The minister claims they have been omitted unintentionally and they are going to be put in by amendment to the Bill. But it does seem to me that if there is one thing more than another that is going to bear on this question it is the control and increase of freight rates. The minister says: The Lord knows, we should have the freight rates increased on the Intercolonial.
[Mr. Copp.f


Francis Cochrane: No, I said they should not be reduced.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I disagree with my hon. friend in regard to that. I believe they should be reduced because they were increased very recently. A few years ago the freight rates on the Intercolonial were within reason. Annually, or at least very frequently, during the past ten years, the freight rates have been increased.


Francis Cochrane: So have wages and
coal.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I was coming to that very point. Freight rates are being increased because my hon. friend and his officials are costing the people fifty per cent more than they did some years ago. The Government are employing high salaried officials who are absolutely unnecessary. It is the payment oif higher salaries than are necessary that has caused my hon. friend and his officials to increase the local as well as through rates year after year and these rates are bearing heavily indeed upon the people of the Maritime Provinces. My hon. friend is making a mistake when he says that we should not reduce the freight rates. When you are paying officials $20,000, $15,000, $12,000, $10,000 and then down to $6,000, $7,000 and $8,000 a year, and when you are employing officials whose offices a few years ago were not in existence, you can see the necessity for increasing the freight rates. These positions have been made for these officials and these high salaries have been granted to them. Then you see these officials going about their work from station to station along the line of the Intercolonial in private cars using up the coal and the rolling stock of the country.


Francis Cochrane: Are there any more private cars now than before?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not know whether there are or not.


George Perry Graham: There are a lot more at Ottawa.


Francis Cochrane: There are no more
there.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Whether there are any more private cars now than there were ten years ago on the Intercolonial, I say it is wrong in the interest of the operation of the road. At this time of all times in the history of our country, it is unnecessary. If an official wants to go from Moncton to St. John on some little private business he goes in a

private ear at the expense of the Intercolonial railway which means at the expense of the people of Canada. I have no criticism to offer in regard to the use of private cars where it is necessary. The manager of the Intercolonial, if he is going on a tour of, inspection or coming to Ottawa, he may ride in his private car without meeting any objection from me because he is doing business along the road, but I do object to minor official's, if they want to go and inspect some work, say for instance on Prince Edward Island, taking a private car down to Painsec junction and to Point du Chene and having a private car meet them to bring them back. There is a great deal of that going on. That is a small matter, I admit, but these are things that are increasing the cost of the operation of the Intercolonial Tailway and with this increasing cost it has been found necessary to increase the freight rates until the people who have to pay for the carriage of freight on the Intercolonial, particularly local freight, feel the burden severely. The minister will be well advised ilf he will take this matter into consideration, and, instead of increasing the freight rates on the Intercolonial, try to do something to reduce the expense of operation. He will thus be enabled to decrease freight rates, and to give the people the same advantages they derived from the operation of the Intercolonial years ago, when freight rates were less and the cost of operation of the Intercolonial correspondingly small.
At six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed .at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Air. W. H. Bennett that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 32, to incorporate The Cascade Scenic Railway Company-Mr. Morphy- be concurred in:
George Perry Graham: Some important amendments have been made here. Perhaps it will be necessary to send the Bill back to the Private Bills Committee.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: The hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) is in charge of the Bill. I have in my hand a letter from him to this effect:
I have been advised by the promoters of this Bill that they accept the same as amended by the Senate. I would like to have the same forthwith concurred in when the Bill comes up in the House of Commons.
The promoters of the Bill, therefore, are agreeable to the changes made in the Senate.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If the Bill is materially changed the rule is to send it back to the committee.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have made a cursory examination of the amendments, and they appear to me, .as .far as I can judge, to be in the public interest.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	,

[Stage Direction]
Consideration resumed in committee of Bill No. 118, to amend the Government Railways Act.-Hon. Frank Cochrane-Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
On section 2-Definitions:
Francis Cochrane: I beg to move that paragraph (b), section 2, be amended by inserting immediately after the word " railways," in line 9, the words " or 1 Canadian Government railways '," and by inserting immediately after the word " Canada," in line 13, the words " and operated under the control and management of the Minister of Railways and Canals."	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the minister think that these words would be strong enough to cover the case of the Canadian Northern Railway system if the Bill which is now under consideration by the House in respect to that railway goes through? Personally, I think not. It would be a great mistake to bring the Canadian Northern Railway system under the control of this Act as it is now drafted.


Francis Cochrane: This amendment is merely to make statutory recognition of the designation used in labelling rolling stock.


John Howard Sinclair: It is not intended, then, that the Canadian Northern railway will come under this Act if the Bill dealing with that railway is adopted?


Francis Cochrane: I do not know. The Bill has not yet been adopted, and I cannot express an opinion.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is a very important point.


Francis Cochrane: Upon the passing of the Act a new board of directors would be appointed for the Canadian Northern Railway system, and it would he operated separately from the other government railways.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Subsection (b) of section 2 says:	.
"Government railways" means and includes all railways and all properties and works in connection therewith, owned, leased or in any way controlled by His Majesty in the right of his Government of the Dominion of Canada.
If the language were left as originally drafted, it might be contended that the Canadian Northern would come under the operations of the Bill. I apprehend that the minister by his amendment seeks to limit the operations of this Bill to such railways as His Majesty, through my hon. friend's department, regularly operates.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Application of certain sections of Railway Act to government railways :
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In view of what I pointed out this afternoon-and of what I did not point out, at the request of the minister- I think this section ought to stand.


Francis Cochrane: What objection do you take to this section?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This is the section that adopts the schedule; this section and the schedule should be considered together.


Francis Cochrane: There would be no objection to coming back to this section if the schedule were not carried as my hon. friend thought proper.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Logically, this section ought to stand until we see what is in the schedule. If we pass this in advance, we are passing the schedule, the contents of which we do not know.


Francis Cochrane: All right; let it stand.
Section stands.
On section 4-No fine or penalty to be imposed upon His Majesty or the minister!


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This section is certainly objectionable. If the railway-I do not care what you call it, the minister or His Majesty or whatever it may be-is not liable to any fine or penalty under the Railway Act, we might as well throw this Bill into the waste basket, because if that be the 
case, the only object of this Bill is to give the board the power to increase the rates on the Intercolonial and not to give it power over anything else. I do not think that was the intention of the minister, and I know it was not the intention of the subcommittee that had Bill No. 13 under consideration. We went over this matter, and i't was the unanimous opinion of the Railway Committee that the government railways should be brought undeT the Railway Act. I am not trying to obstruct the passage of this Bill; I am trying to assist the minister to make it as workable as possible. If you say that this railway is going to be under the General Railway Act of Canada, and then say that is not subject to any orders of the board which mean the expenditure of money, or the payment of penalties or submission to fines, unless the matter first has the' approval of the Governor in Council, then all that you are doing goes for naught, the Railway Board has practically no power at all. The Railway Board can pass an order saying that, in their judgment, certain things ought to be, but if the Intercolonial Railway authorities do not want to obey that order, they need not do so.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think any
minister could stand the pressure.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then, let us have the
Bill so that we shall not have to stand the pressure. That is what we want. The minister has. been up against pressure ever since he has been in office, and every Minister of Railways has been up against pressure.


George Perry Graham: Surely the ho>n. member does not refer to me?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When my hon. friend
from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) was Minister of Railways, he was subject to just as much pressure as the present minister is, and just as long as it is possible for a politician to get after the minister, he will do so. I would like to see this Bill dtafted in such a way that there would be no possibility of a politician getting after the minister in any of these matters. Let us put the railway under the board so that the board will have some jurisdiction over it. The minister must admit that under section 4, if the board make an order, let us say. that certain appliances must be provided, as they have a right under the Railway Act to do, and say: If you do not do this thing, we will fine you; the Intercolonial railway authorities may say: It is true the Board jf

Railway Commissioners wish us to provide these appliances, but they have no power to enforce their order, they cannot punish us if we do not provide them. And some influential politician down in Moncton may say: I think if we enforce this, we shall lose votes. Therefore, it will not be enforced. This measure is the nakedest skeleton I have ever seen in my life-there is absolutely nothing to it whatever. I realize there might perhaps be a little incongruity in saying that a creation of the Crown shall have the power to fine the Crown and subject it to penalties. The difficulty is that this affects not only the Crown but all its officials. Secion 428 refers to carrying dangerous goods, and every company which does that, except in conformity with the regulations made by the board, shall be subject to a penalty of $500. But under this Bill, the Government railways can do as they please and nobody has a word to say about the matter. Section 429 provides that if any railway company improperly refuses to check baggage, they are subject to a penalty. That section is cut out of this Bill. I referred before to sections relating to making returns concerning accidents, refusal to make returns required by the board, and making false returns. Section 441, which should be discussed under this section, provides:
For the purpose of enforcing any penalty under any of the provisions of this Act, or enforcing any regulation, order, or direction of the Governor in Council, the minister, the Board, or any inspecting engineer, made under this Act, the act, omission, or failure of any officer, agent, or other person acting for, or employed hy the company, shall, if within the scope of his employment, in every case be also deemed to be the act, omission or failure of such company.
That is a very important provision of the Railway Act, but it does not apply to this Bill. Subsection 2 provides that the company is liable to the same penalty as an individual offender, but that is all cut out of this Bill, and neither the individual offender nor the company would be liable. There is a section, which I am not able to find at the moment, which provides that a railway company is liable for all acts or omissions of its officers. That section is not included in this Bill, so that any officer of the Intercolonial may be as negligent as he chooses, and the company assumes no responsibility.


Francis Cochrane: If we take section by section, we shall get through the Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am doing so.


Francis Cochrane: No, the hon. member is not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am just pointing out to the minister-


Francis Cochrane: Yes, I am not objecting to that, but we are getting away from the subject.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am on the subject; I am pointing out to the minister that if he leaves section 4 as it is, then all those sections providing for penalties are absolutely nugatory-they are eliminated from this Bill. I look upon section 4 as the most objectionable section of them all, and the minister should consider very carefully whether he wishes to force this section through, or whether he will not allow this Bill to stand and change the section in some way so that the provisions of the Railway Act will apply to the Intercolonial.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. member has referred to the penalties imposed under this Bill on the company. That would mean His Majesty. Section 4 provides that no penalty shall be imposed on His Majesty. Therefore all such clauses are properly omitted. The imposition of penalties by summary proceedings would bring His Majesty into all the lower courts without a fiat.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If His Majesty is going to be a railway company, then His Majesty should be a railway company, and he should be subject to the laws of the land. That is what I am arguing. I do not know who has furnished that memorandum for my hon. friend, but it sounds to me as if it were furnished by the man who drafted the Bill. Why should not His Majesty, if he is to be a railway company, be subject to a penalty? If he is going to carry goods and run trains, and if he assumes all the privileges of a public utility corporation, why should he not assume all the responsibilities of it as well? I should like to see the government railways under the Railway Act, and I should like to see every section possible of the Railway Act made applicable to the operation of the Intercolonial.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps I appreciate as much as any person the difficulties of the situation. It took me a full year to get the Justice Department to consent to allowing men having claims for damages on the line to sue up to the amount of $200. There seems to be a sort of aristocracy in the Justice Department which sticks to the old saying, so far as railways are concerned, that the King can do no wrong. The King, if he is running a railway, can kill a cow just the same as if he were not a King, and

he ought to be subject to the same laws so far as possible as Lord Shaughnessy is when he is running a railway. We ought to get away from that bit of mythology about the non-liability of the King when he goes into private enterprises.
I understand the legal difficulties the department has in drawing up a Bill to put this railway under the jurisdiction of the Bailway Board, so long as the department insists that the King can do no wrong, even if he is running a railway. That is the proposition the Bailway Department finds itself up against. Would there be a violation of the constitution, or of the divine right of kings-when they are running railways-if we put a clause in the Act reading:	"For the purposes of this Act the
management of the Canadian Government railways shall stand in the same position as if it were a private company." The hon. gentleman from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) said: But the money would be paid 'by the King and would go back to His Majesty. Still there would be this difference, that there would be a penalty that the management of the railway would fear-it would increase the cost of running the railway to that extent. I think, if something of that kind were placed in the Act, it would remove the difficulty and would, in the eyes of the public at least, place this railway in the same position as if it were a company railway. Would the Minister of Justice tell us. what harm would be done it an amendment such as the one I suggested were placed in the Act, in legal-phrase?


Mr. DOHEBTY:: That is a large question. What harm would be done would be difficult to say, but I think that what is asked for would be the complete revolution of a principle established and recognized in our form of government I fancy ever since it commenced, and probably much more absolute in the old days than it is to-day. It seems to me it would be a very incongruous thing to have His Majesty, even if he be running a railway, subject to -be summoned before the sort of tribunal that would be imposing a penalty. I understand that this is a question of imposing penalties. I do not know why there should be any difference made with regard to the running of a railway more than with regard to any other matter, where a claim is made against Crown. I do not know that there is any greater reason for not enforcing a claim because it is connected with railway operation than there would be with regard to any

similar claim resulting from the wrongdoing or negligence of an agent or employee of the Crown. The hon. gentleman asked me what harm would be done. Perhaps I might ask him, what great harm results from, applying to the Crown the responsibility for what might happen in connection with anything else? The same argument that would apply to the case of the ordinary railway would apply to the responsibility of the Crown. With regard to claims arising out of the operation of this railway, 'precisely the same recoiirse would be open to a claimant which is open with regard to any other claim for which the Crown may be legally responsible; that is to say, a petition of right is open to everybody. The hon. member referred to a difficulty in obtaining consent from the Department of Justice-which is apparently held responsible for this principle of law-to have proceedings taken in ordinary form for damages up to $200. That is certainly a departure from the general practice. I think there is a great deal to be said in 'favour of the proposition that the Crown, at all events as regards civil liability, should be liable to be sued as other people are .sued, without the formality of a petition of right. But, after all, I think that in actual practice the issue of a petition of right is, to-day at all events practically a formality; the cases in which petition of right is refused are certainly very few and very far between. I do not think there has been an instance fox a long time past of the refusal to grant a petition of right where, upon the face of the contention, there was any colourable right that could be enforced. I occasionally hear my predecessor in my present office express a very liberal view-may I call it?-.as to the manner in which these petitions should be granted, and I think, notwithstanding the change in the occupancy of the office, we have acted, in that regard in no less liberal manner. There is not any serious difficulty interposed in the way of any person who has a legal claim by this requirement, which is in accordance with what has been the rule and the law under our constitution from time immemorial-that there should be leave of the Crown in order that the Crown might be sued. As regards the civil liability resulting from the operation of the railway, that is the only obstacle that stands in the way of the enforcement of such legal liability. I aim not absolutely familiar with the provisions of this Bill, and I have not had occasion to deal with

it personally. I understand these provisions relieve the Crown from the responsibility for penalties simply.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is it.


George Perry Graham: The minister has introduced a Bill to place the government railways under the Railway Commission. A private corporation running a railway must obey the orders of the board or be subject to penalty. This clause we are discussing will exempt the government railways from any fines or penalties; in other words, the Board of Railway Commissioners can order us to do something, but if we do not do it, there is no way of enforcing the order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the point.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Is there any reason to apprehend that the Government, at whose instance this railway is placed, under the direction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, will fail to comply with the orders that are made? With reference to any ordinary judgment that is rendered against the Crown, there does not seem to be any reason to apprehend that it will not be satisfied. I do not know it is contemplated that they should proceed to seize the public property in satisfaction of a judgment. I think the general assumption is that where there is that direction, that the Crown shall act under the direction of any particular body, it will be complied with; but I know of no cases where there is provision for penalties being imposed upon the Crown for disobedience to directions so made. After all, is this anything more than taking the direction of the government railway, in regard to certain matters out of the hands of the Government and placing it in the hands of the Railway Board? Instead of the minister, or the Department of Justice, or the Government itself, deciding what shall be done, it will be decided by the Railway Board. After we have that decision it is for the Government to carry it out, just as it would carry out the decision of the minister or of the Government itself. I do not think the idea is to make it compulsory on the Government to do these things which are right, but to have the decision of the question of what is right for the Government to do in the carrying on of the railway operations left to the same board that decides what it is right for the railway company to do.
You get the two bodies acting under the direction of the same body. The only difference is that the railway companies generally are subject to compulsion to act,
whereas with regard to the administration of a government railway, as I understand it, you have the provision in effect that operations are to be carried on under the direction of the Railway Board. It seems to me it can hardly be assumed that the law providing for the direction of the operations of this railway, which is a government railway, shall be in the hands of the Railway Board, and that you must look to means of compulsion to be exercised upon the Government to carry out the direction of that body in whose hands the direction is placed by the law itself.


Mr. DEVLIN:: May I ask the minister
a question? The Railway Board being subservient to the Government, can the Railway Board order the Government, which is superior to it and which is its creator, to do an act which the Government may be unwilling to perform; and the Government, acting as His Majesty and being unable to do any wrong, can its servant, or His Majesty's servant, order His Majesty to perform an act against His Majesty's will?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is precisely the
condition of affairs that my bon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) complains of. While there may be .something to be said for instituting a system where you submit His Majesty-that is the country to the same control and direction of courts or to a board of this kind as other people are subjected to, yet, until ith-e principles to which the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) has referred are departed from in our constitutional system, I do not think we can arrive at a situation where a body appointed by the Government shall be given power to exercise compulsion on the Government.
Mr. 'CARVELL: My hon. friend is facing the thing pretty well, I think, but he is forgetting the fact that Canada is branching out to-day on a very much extended application of the principle of public ownership and public operation of railroads. I would not say as much as I have said on this Bill were it not for the fact that another Bill is before Parliament by which the Government proposes to take over and operate one of the great transcontinental systems of Canada. I know there is a great idea in the country that the people can operate a public utility better than a corporation can. If you take that in the sense of .spending more money, multiplying officials, decreasing efficiency, and everything else that goes with government operation, I admit you may be cor-

rect. But if it means doing things on business principles, getting the best service you can out of your employees, and giving the cheapest and best service to the public, then everything that has taken place in the way of public ownership up to the present has been an absolute failure. I am trying to guard against that condition of affairs in the future, so far as the railway law is concerned. The minister says he is going to bring the Intercolonial under the control of the Railway Board. The road will then be in the same position as all other railway systems in Canada brought under government control and operation. My hon. friend says: " Can you give an instance of government-owned railways refusing to carry out the instructions or orders of the Railway Board? Of course we cannot, because they have never been under the Railway Board so far.


Francis Cochrane: Has any private road been fined?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I don't know.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I imagine if they have not it is because the law is there, and they know they will be fined. This club is held over their heads. My hon. friend asks: Can you conceive of a government refusing to obey the orders of the Railway Board? My answer is, I can conceive of it without any difficulty. I can conceive of an official failing to do what he should do, and some aggrieved patron of the road applying to the Railway Board and getting an order directing the railway to do a certain thing within a certain time. That is just where the politician will get in his work. You can quite understand that this may affect something political in the community, and the politician will go to the minister and say: Now, we are going to lose votes if this thing goes through; therefore it should not go through. It will be sent up to the council, and the council will be influenced by the same things as influenced the minister. Government officials are eternally shifting responsibility on to somebody else. I do not care who may be under the government control or in the government service, inside of six months he will be demanding more pay and less work. That is constitutional. I am not finding fault with any one official; it applies to the whole body of public officials-more pay and less work-that is the habit. You put a man in charge of a government railway, and

for some reason or other he gets it into his head that he must not meet the demands of the people, and he is always warding them off. He feels that the man who makes an innovation is interfering in some way with his dignity, and he shifts it off and says, No, you cannot do that. I never had but one constituent on the Intercolonial in my life. I was thankful when we went out of office. There was only one to - fire. They fired him, and I did not blame them. I could see a most wonderful change in that man inside of two years. When he went to the road he was a real active live wire; when he left it, he was a machine; his idea was-don't do anything-shift it up to the man next above-let it go on- get around your responsibility. If there was a penalty applicable to the railway, in the event of it failing to do its duty or carry out the instructions of the Board, these officials would become more like business men who run business corporations. Take the three great railways of Canada to-day, the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian Northern; in my estimation you will find the best class of men Canada has ever produced in these companies-real live business men, who meet situations as they arise, men who make decisions, and see that those decisions are carried into effect. This is simply because the railway companies hold them responsible. The railway companies themselves are responsible for the carrying out of the directions of the board, and know full well that if they do not give the service, meet the wishes of the people, the Board of Railway Commissioners has power to compel them to do it. My contention is, if the Intercolonial were placed in the same position as a corporation is, then the railway company, as I choose to style it, will say to its employees: You must do business, and do it on business principles; if you do not, you are under the instructions of the board and you will be fined, or punished. The railway employee would then realize that he is part of this machine, and not a mere cog in the political wheel; he would appreciate the fact that he was there to help the railway, to exercise his thinking powers, and be a man of action. The country has to get service, which it does not get at the present time. After all it is a pyschological question, and it is from that point of view that I am opposed to public ownership and public operation. You never can get anything out of men who are simply government officials. They are merely waiting for four o'clock to come.

I am not blaming them at all, it is constitutional with them and they cannot help it. But surely, when we are passing laws affecting these people, we should try to frame our laws so as to get the best cut of them.
When this country is about to launch into a great system of Government operation, I do hope that we will try to get what we can out of it. It will be a pretty poor service, and it will cost almost twice as much as it will under present conditions, but if we are going to have it let us see that it is efficient when we are starting. But there is a much greater principle at stake than the mere fact of taking some money jut of the Crown, and that principle is that the men we have in charge of the Intercolonial shall have some spur to operate it as a business proposition. Bor that reason I contend that this clause 4 should be entirely changed; in fact, I think it should (be eliminated altogether. I can see no reason for it.


George Perry Graham: What harm would it be to leave it out?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and let the road be a real railway. If the King is going to run a railway, let him run it like any other man, and if he does not do it right let him pay the penalty. Why should we not extend this liability to the officials of the road and make them pay the penalty as well as the King? Ilf you do you will get efficiency which you will not get unless there is some such drastic provision contained in this Bill.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I understood from the minister that he was going to amend section 4 and that he only wanted to exempt the Government railways from liability to fine and expropriation. But section 4 exempts them from everything. I should like to see the minister go very much farther than apparently this Bill intends to go With reference to bringing the railway under the Railway Board. I join with my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) in asking the minister to have this clause amended very materially.


John Howard Sinclair: I sympathize with the views of my hon. friend from Carleton, but I see great difficulties in the way of fining the King. My suggestion this afternoon as to that has not been satisfactorily answered. If you fine the King $500 it means that he pays the fine to himself and he is no worse off than before. It is probably a
little annoyance to be fined, but he is no worse off-^he has the money in the other pocket. I think there is something in the suggestion of the hon. member for Carleton about officials. Could we not fine the officials? This road is to toe run by officials. If the Railway Board makes an order that it is the duty of an officer before he malt^s a change in the tariff to file it with the board, and he neglects to comply with that ordeT, he should be made liable. If a railway company proposes to make a change in freight or passenger rates the new rates are to be filed so many days before they become effective and if the responsible official neglects to perform that duty and puts the rates in operation without filing the schedule he is fined. Why not deal with an official of the government railway in the same way? I think you would get somewhere if you decided to fine the officer of the railway if he refused to comply with the direction of the board. You would get farther than if you placed the fine on the King. No one suggests that we should put the King in jail if he refuses to pay, or that we should arrest the minister. I do not think there is anything to be gained by a step of that kind, but there is a great deal to be gained by fining the superintendent of that railway.
Mr, GRAHAM: The King will pay his fine.


John Howard Sinclair: No, he will not.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The section under
discussion is the fundamental section in regard to the whole Bill. While I personally do not agree with the principle of the Bill, I assume that we have passed that stage, and I would like to do what I can in the way of suggesting amendments to the minister so as to make this measure as workable as possible. Under section 4 the situation would be that practically any application made to the Board of Railway Commissioners would be nugatory if it were made by any other person than the Department of Railways and Canals itself. If the Railway Department choose to deal with a question, what will be the use following the provisions of the Act, of submitting it to the Board of Railway Commissioners without any certainty that the order made will go into effect? Suppose my hon. friend from Carleton, or myself, acting on behalf of a client who had some rights which he thought had been infringed by the Government-for instance, a right granted to him under any other clause of



REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
the Railway Act-went to the Railway Commission and asked them to decide upon the matter. Suppose that the board decides in favour of our application. But when they had decided, action, so far as the individual would be concerned, would be barred and we should simply be 'back to the point at which we started.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is simply the opinion of the boiard.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It :s simply the opinion of the board. It may be a very fair and interesting document, but in so far as getting any relief for the party interested is concerned, it has no value whatever. I am at ,a loss to know what the situation would be if this clause were adopted. I do not think it would be possible for a party who had made a complaint to the board to get any relief whatever. But the minister comes in with section 4 and absolutely bars the way. Although there are penalities prescribed by the Railway Act, penalties shall not be exacted of His Majesty, or the Minister of Railways and Canals. I do not think they could have been exacted any way, and therefore I think the section is pure surplusage. I do not think there is under the common law, such a thing as collecting from the Crown unless by express Act of Parliament. This section takes away a right that really does not exist in common law no matter what the judges may say. I apprehend that the minister wants the statute to be of some practical good. With reference to the difficulty that the minister speaks about in connection with proceeding against His Majesty. I remember the occasion when my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) then Minister of Railways and Canals, was /perfectly willing Ito accept enactment of the Small Claims Act, and I remember the greatest possible difficulties were suggested by Sir Allen Aylesworth, who was then Minister of Justice and who -with all the instincts of the great lawyer that he is-regarded with a sort of holy horror the idea of departing from the principle that when you are proceeding against the Crown you should proceed by petition of right. However, a system was inaugurated under which an ordinary party who desired to enforce a claim instead of being obliged under the law to go to the Exchequer Court, was permitted to proceed in the ordinary courts, not against His Majesty, but against the Government Railway Managing Board who are the parties who 
ought to be proceeded against. After all, ajs a matter of practical result, it is a pure fiction to speak of the Crown managing the Canadian Government railways. The persons who run the Canadian Government railways are the general manager and his officials, subject to the minister as a court of appeal. It is not to he assumed that the minister knows all the 'details of the operations which are carried on by the general manager. It is impossible to conceive that he would. The responsibility for the proper operation of the road in detail rests upon the man who has the confidence of the minister as general manager. The minister himself, in 1914, agreed that:
In any action, suit or other proceeding, His Majesty shall not he cited as defendant, but the process shall he issued against the General Manager of Government railways, and such process may be served on him or any other person duly authorized by him to accept such service of, or be served with, processes in such cases-
Why should not the minister insert in this Bill a provision that where any right to a penalty accrues by reason of failure to carry out the orders of the Board of Railway Commissioners, the party who would be liable, mutatis mutandis, as compared with the railway company, would be the General Manager of the Canadian Government railways, or of the particular railway against which the order was made? I suggest to the minister that the difficulty could be remedied by striking out this section and simply providing in a short section by apt words that the party who should be proceeded against with the idea of enforcing the orders of the board should be the general manager of the railway from time to time. My desire in suggesting that is that both ministers may agree that we are here faced by an anomalous situation. 1 apprehend that the present minister is anxious in placing the government railways under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners, to place the people operating the railway in the same position as those operating the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian Northern or any other railway, otherwise it is a work of supererogation. Why, therefore, if it is intended that the railway in its operation is to be on the same basis as a company railway, should not the provisions of the Small Claims Act be adopted so that the General Manager of the Canadian Government railways or the manager of the particular railway against whom the order is made would be responsible for the carrying out of the order?


Charles Joseph Doherty: So far as this section is concerned, it does not seem to prevent what the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) was contending ought to be done.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Every section by which the officer or agent could possibly be held responsible for anything has been eliminated from this Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman referred to the Small Claims provisions. In cases where parties take their recourse before the ordinary courts as against the Crown, I do not understand that the judgment does more than determine that the Crown ought to pay the money. I doubt if in any court there is provision under which, if the Government did not provide the money to pay a claim awarded by a court, any process would issue against His Majesty to execute that judgment. Then you are in the same position with regard to an order of the Railway Board as His Majesty is with regard to the judgment of a court.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Parliament could take any property of the Government or of His Majesty to satisfy a judgment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Parliament could if it chose to.


George Perry Graham: If a man sued His Majesty and got judgment for a small claim and His Majesty did not want to pay, how would you collect judgment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If you got your judgment under this Small Claims provision I do not think there is any means of enforcing payment; but you have a determination that you are entitled to the money, just as here you will have from the Railway Board a determination that a certain thing ought to be done.
The effect of this Act is to put into the hands of the Railway Board the determination of how tie Intercolonial railway shall be carried on and dealt with in respect of matters coming before that Board. The effect of it is not to enable the Railway Board to exercise compulsion upon His Majesty-at all events, any further than a court exercises compulsion upon His Majesty when it says that a certain sum is a proper amount for His Majesty to pay.


Mr. BOULAY (translation):: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to discuss from a legal viewpoint the several clauses of the Bill under discussion, I will restrict my remarks to certain statements made by hon.
gentlemen on the other side, in the course of the discussion, concerning the administration of the Intercolonial railway and the supposed political partisanship of the Minister of Railways.
It is not my privilege to (be on the railway committee and so, I did not have the opportunity to study the Bill and much less to take part in the discussion before the committee. That is the reason why I am under the necessity of offering now those few remarks.
Hon. gentlemen from Ontario never let a session pass without raising protracted debates and indulging in recriminations against the administration of the Intercolonial railway. Should any hon. gentleman be expected to abstain from dealing with questions relating to the Intercolonial railway they are the hon. members coming from the province of Ontario, since that railway runs exclusively through Quebec and the Maritime Provinces. Yet, as I said before, at every session these hon. gentlemen are raising objections and complaining of the heavy expenditures incurred in the administration of the line. My hon. friends ought to keep in mind that we of the province of Quebec, do not begrudge them the expenditure in relation to the management of the canals or to the construction of a railway for which ithe country will probably never have any use-the Hudson Bay railway.
Neither do we begrudge them the millions upon millions spent by .this country upon the construction of railways in the West, the advantages of which have accrued to Ontario, in a much larger measure than to the province of Quebec. As I said before, it seems to me that it would only be fair that these gentlemen should put an end to their continuous wrangles over the Intercolonial.
We are told that it stands to reason that ' the western interests are altogether different from the eastern interests. If, since 1867 until now, that is to isay, after being confederated for fifty years, we have not been able to come to an understanding, then, should it not be best to part amicably?
I heard the hon. member from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) say this .afternoon that the Intercolonial railway employees would be pleased to come under the railway commission. I do not know where he,got that information, but I think it is a wild statement, .because I know a numbeT of men upon that road-a great many personally -better than my hon. friend could know

them, and I am sure that such is not their opinion.
I ialso remember that my hon. friend said that we, the members from Quebec and the Maritime orovinces, ought not to fear any interference from the railway commission iso far as the rates are concerned, adding that we would toe well safeguarded against it. I shall take upon imyself to ask the hon. member from Lamtolton who are the representatives of Quebec and the Maritime provinces upon the railway commission. It is true we have the hon. Mr. Nantel, but after .ail he belongs to the western part of the province of Quebec, he is not at all familiar with the conditions prevailing in the eastern phrt of the province, and much less, in the Maritime provinces.
We are somewhat unfairly treated on that score. We should have .a representative upon the railway commission; it would only be fair. Among six representatives, we have but one who belongs Ito Quebec, but he comes from the western part of the province. Although there are three of them, the Maritime provinces are not represented upon the railway commission.
It seems that there is a discripiination in that respect. We cannot expect to get a fair treatment at the hands of people who are not familiar with our needs and who belong to another part of the Dominion of Canada.
The member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) this afternoon indulged in considerable criticism of the Intercolonial railway. He said that he preferred to travel by the Canadian Pacific. My hon. friend knows- because he has been in the House a good deal longer than I have-the conditions under which the Intercolonial is run. The Canadian Pacific runs a good deal further south, and across a country in uhich there is much less snow than in the country traversed by the Intercolonial. Consequently, it is not surprising that it sometimes makes better time in winter than the Intercolonial. The Intercolonial goes as far north as a railroad can go, and, having regard to the weather conditions in the country between Bathurst and Camp-bellton and Levis, it is sometimes difficult for the trains to run on time. But under favourable weather conditions, this road competes favourably with the Canadian Pacific. When we compare the time-tables of the two roads, we find that the advantage is with the Intercolonial. Of course, sometimes the trains are late because there being a good deal of traffic on the road and because of the fact that the Intercolonial 
tries to give the public as much accommodation as possible by stopping at places where, perhaps, the Canadian Pacific would not stop. I think that the Intercolonial runs about 35 miles an hour, while the Canadian Pacific runs about 32. Even though the trains are sometimes half an hour late in reaching Montreal, we should bear in mind the fact that the Intercolonial is our own road and that it should be encouraged in preference to the other. Some hon. gentlemen on the other side have said that political partisanship is practised in connection with the administration of the Intercolonial. Well, I know something about the administration of that road. During some years I have not been on the best of terms with the Minister of Railways; consequently my opinion should be accepted as that of a man well posted on matters connected with the administration of the railway. The difficulty between the Minister of Railways and myself occurred because he did not want to run the road from a partisan standpoint; he did not want to do what I wanted him to do.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is an honest confession.


Herménégilde Boulay: He did not want to follow exactly the methods followed by the Liberal party in 1896. I say that from an ifide-pendent point of view, and if I have become so independent since I have been in this House-because I was quite a Conservative when I became a member1-it is because the Minister of Railways has not been running his railway from a/partisan standpoint. Ilf there is any one who deserves praise for his . non-partisanship it is the Minister of Railways.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister is all right personally.


Herménégilde Boulay: Let me give my hon. friend .an example of the w.ay in which the Liberal party used to treat us. One day during the political campaign of 1904 I was in a station on the Intercolonial. One of the railway employees had left his station and come down on a handcar to the next 3tati'on, at which I was, a distance of about fifteen miles. He amused himself for about half an hour in insulting me on the station platform, although I had my ticket in my pocket and was waiting for the train and was quite within my rights in being there. I reported the matter at the time to the Minister of Railways, who, of course, was a Liberal, and gave him all the facts. Did I receive any justice? No, No investigation

was held. The superintendent wished to have an investigation because he thought it was only fair for a citizen to have one so that he could prove his charge. The Minister of Railways, however, acting differently from what a minister should do, forbade an investigation, and I did not have an opportunity of proving what I had stated. The result was that the man was retained in his position, and, of course, he w.as encouraged, and the other employees were encouraged, to insult poor fellows who happened to be Conservatives. That was the way in which we were used during the Liberal administration, hut such a shameful thing has never happened on the Intercolonial since 1911.
We axe satisfied with the administration of the Intercolonial. We do not expect it to do any better under the circumstances under which that road is run, and we do not wish any change. If I have said in this House anything against the administration it has not ibeen against the w,ay in which the road is administered, but it has always been in connection with the fact that the people of Quebec, on account of the lack of French employees, cannot get proper justice, .and in what I have stated I am perfectly right. I am sure, however, it is impossible for the administration to do any better so far as the operation of the road is concerned.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Car-veil) spoke this afternoon about sidings. I know something about the way in which sidings are obtained on the Intercolonial. The old method used to be satisfactory, but that has been changed during the last few years. Ido not object to the way in which the matter is conducted so far as the big companies are concerned. The big companies have the means to pay the expenses in connection with the building of a siding, which runs into from $500 to $1,000, but in the case of poor settlers, who very often want sidings along the Intercolonial, I think the old method should be reverted to; that is, those sidings should be built by the railway and at the expense of the railway, because a poor farmer asking for a siding is not able to pay $500 or $1,000 to a railway to build a siding. The Government would, therefore, do well to make a distinction between a siding built for a big company and one built for a private party, such as a poor settler or farmer in my province.
I would like to make a suggestion to the minister in connection with the running of the big engines that we call Santa Fe
and Mikado on that part of the line between Mont Joli and Campbellton. Those engines are too large to run over that part of the road. The men whom we engage as firemen cannot stand the work on those big engines; they have to shovel ten to twelve tons of coal every day, and that is too severe a strain for a man unless he is as strong as two ordinary men. I would prefer that smaller engines be used on that part of the road, because it is physically impossible for firemen to stand the work, the reason being that there are too many grades on that part of the road, and the grades are so heavy it takes a long time to run the 105 miles between Mont Joli and Campbellton. On other parts of the road east of Campbellton and west of Mont Joli, the runs are shorter, the road is more level, and the men. are better able to stand the strain and fulfil their duties. I have heard complaints from firemen who have been working on those engines, and they all say they cannot stand the work they have to perform on account of the size of those engines.
In reference to section 302 of Bill 13, I see in the schedule of this Bill that this section is included-
The CHAIRMAN Order. I wish to remind the hon. member that we are discussing section 4 of Bill No. 118, and the hon. gentleman's remarks must be relevant
to this section, and he is not in order in making a general speech.


Herménégilde Boulay: I have no objection, but I will come back to it.


Mr. McKENZIE:: The question of the Intercolonial and its management is so very, very important to myself and the people I represent, I am afraid I should be regarded as indifferent to their interests if I did not say anything about the very important question now before this committee. In dealing with the Intercolonial we are dealing with a teTm of Confederation as laid down in the constitution. I wish to refer to section 145 of the British North America Act:
Inasmuch as the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have joined in a declaration that the construction of the Intercolonial Railway is essential to the consolidation of the Union of British North America, and to the assent thereto of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and have consequently agreed that provision should be made for its immediate construction by the Government of Canada ; therefore in order to give effect to that agreement, it shall be the duty of the Government and Parliament of Canada to provide for the commencement within six months after

the union, of a railway connecting the River St. Lawrence with the city of Halifax in Nova Scotia, and for the construction thereof without intermission, and the completion thereof with all practicable speed.
The minister will observe that the Intercolonial is just as much a term of Confederation as the educational section in regard to the separate schools in the province of Quebec and the educational section relating to the province of Ontario. The building of it is one of the terms of Confederation.


Francis Cochrane: 1 thought it was the
running of it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is not much good in a railway, unless it is run, and the conception and the true meaning of this section is that the road shall be built, and that it shall always continue under the full and absolute control of the people as represented by the members in this House. It is not, and never was the intention of this term of Confederation that the road could be built and then passed over to some 'control over which this Parliament would have no supervision. I submit, therefore, *that if we introduce a new element into the management of this road which lessens the power of the representatives of the people over this road, we are tampering with a term of Confederation, as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia would not have come into (Confederation except for this bargain. That is laid down in the Act itself, and .so important was it that this section was put in the Act.
Mr. (COCHRANE:	Is it any different
from the terms on which British Columbia came into Confederation, when the Canadian Pacific was proposed to be buiilt?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am sure British Columbia insisted very strenuously on the terms of Confederation being carried out, and one of the great tasks which the late Sir John (Macdonald had to perform, with great energy, and under very great difficulty, was to insist upon keeping good faith with British Columbia, and helping to build the Canadian Pacific Railway long before the people of this country were really in a financial position to do it. But that provision was in the terms of Confederation with British Columbia, and Sir John Macdonald was determined that no fault could be found with him, or his Government, that they did not keep faith with British Columbia; and the promise to British Columbia was fulfilled and absolutely and

fully carried out, and we never heard any complaint.


Francis Cochrane: Were the same conditions not imposed as in the ease of the Maritime Provinces? There was nothing about the road, or rates, or anything else.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is nothing i.n the British North America Aet about British Columbia coming in or staying out. Confederation was an actuality, a complete thing, before British Columbia came in, and Confederation would have gone on as it was whether British Columbia came in or stayed out. The terms on which British Columbia and Prince Edward Island came in, and the province of Manitoba was created, were separate and distinct contracts. Bach of those provinces came in with the body of Confederation. (But the original Confederation and the basic principles of the compact of Confederation embodied in the British North America Act are the parent of the whole business, and are, therefore, different from any branches or extensions which came afterward. I submit, the contract of Confederation and the statute upon which the whole fabric is based is different from the contract which Confederation, as represented by the King, made with another province. There is that very fundamental difference between the terms of Confederation itself and any terms Confederation may have made with British Columbia, or Prince Edward Island, or any province coming into the union. I mention this to show that it is a very serious thing to interfere in any way with the rights which the people have under the terms of the union. I submit, further, that the Intercolonial railway, with its management, is a very old institution. Confederation is 50 years old, and I do not know how long after Confederation it was before we had the Intercolonial. They certainly commenced building the Intercolonial shortly after Confederation, and it has been running ever since. Taken all in all I think it has given fair satisfaction to the people, and if the purposes of this new legislation is to impose a greater tax upon the people of the Maritime Provinces, or those who have to deal with the road, I would have to protest against it. I have not the lack of faith in the management of the Intercolonial by the department that some people might have. No institution is perfect, every institution has its faults; but I think for the last 50 years this road has been running that fair satisfaction has been given to the people. It is a sort of home institution. The people can approach

the management through their representatives, and, although ministers are sometimes a little domineering and high-and-mighty, after all they have their lucid moments, and we can approach them and put our views before them. We .are afraid of them all the time, but sometimes they are afraid of us, and we get some things done. Fortunately they have to come down to the House with their estimates, and are called upon to give us some explanations, and the people in that way have an opportunity of getting close to the management of their own road.
I am afraid that so far as concerns the part of the country I come from, if another tyrant is introduced iin the shape of this Railway Board, the people will complain that it is a new institution about which they do not know anything, and it will take them a great many years to learn how to approach it. I am sure the minister will understand that the distance between the operation of his road away down in Cape Breton and a court which sits In Ottawa, is very far, and a great drawback particularly for the people from the extreme eastern part of Nova Scotia. A man will put up with a great deal of inconvenience before he will come here to appear before the board. If it is the 'intention to raise the rates on the Intercolonial higher than they are, it will materially interfere with large industrial undertakings in our part of the country. Under war conditions, we should try to get along the best we can, and take mutual obligations and mutual burdens in order to keeps the wheels of industry going as well as possible. It is well known that we are largely dependent on the Intercolonial now to get our coal away. If the fact that we could not sell our coal was the only trouble it would not be so bad, but we have thousands of men, women and children dependent on the coal mines, and if the coal cannot be sold, the mines cannot be operated. I protest as vigorously as I can against raising the rate 31.40 a ton on coal in war times, when the King has taken our ships and put them in other places-where they .are necessary of course, but they are taken away from the purposes for which our companies had them, that of carrying away our coal. This Government makes it practically impossible for us to sell coal to any advantage when they impose 31.40 per ton extra upon the carrying of the coal to the places where we have to sell it. I appeal to the minister through you, Sir, that this matter should be considered, and that the fuel inspector
or fuel agent of the Government who is looking after it, should be consulted .by the Government and the matter taken up seriously to see if there is not some way by which we can go back to the normal rates so that our people will be able to compete. I have it on the authority of our coal managers that with this extra rate of J1.40 a ton, competing with American coals at Montreal and other places is absolutely out of the question, and means the closing down of our mines, when we have no ships; and the closing down of our mines means that our men are out of work and cannot support their families.


Francis Cochrane: One of the mines in your section refused to sell us coal, because they have not any to spare.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Which mine is that?


Francis Cochrane: One of the mines owned by the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Perhaps you would not pay them enough.


Francis Cochrane: That was not the reason they gave; they said they could not spare it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would be very glad to know they are so busy at their mines and with their sales that they cannot sell coal to the road. I am well acquainted with their shipping facilities, and they say they have no vessels. The Intercolonial is the only railroad there, and if they will not sell coal to the Intercolonial, and cannot get it to the great centres such as Montreal and Toronto, I do not know what they are doing with it. I am instructed by some of the managers that they are really up against a difficulty ydiich they do not know how to overcome. I wish to put myself on record as saying that while there have been some complaints about the management of the road, it has been doing fairly well. It is the people's railway, and it must continue as the people's railway, and must be managed by the people. The Minister of Railways, and this committee, and this Government, may as well make up their minds once for all that while any property is the property of the people, the representatives of the people must have something to say about it, and that the management whether for good or ill, must be subject to this Parliament and subject to the voice of the people. If we aTe going to run railways, or have government ownership, we may as well make up our minds that we

cannot admit any tyranny, any power about which we have nothing to say, into the ownership of our property. I think there will be less politics in the matter as we go along, but to shift it onto the shoulders of some board which we appoint ourselves and in regard to which we have nothing to say, is impossible.
Dealing with section 4, I would say as a lawyer that any talk of imposing penalties upon His Majesty is absolutely out of the question. Of course, it is His Majesty only in theory, but that theory is exceedingly important. All power, as far as our courts are concerned, is centered in the King, and it is in the name of the King that we have the courts. The humblest magistrate cannot bring a man before him under a summons or a warrant except in the name of the King. The King is the central power, and it is altogether out of the question that he will summon himself into his own court. The Parliament is a King's court, and as far as Canada is concerned, the King's highest court. We are sitting here by authority of the King. It is entirely out of the question that we shall constitute a court under this Act by which the King will be subject to penalty. Whatever other way it may be done, we must keep the source of power around which the. whole machinery of justice Tevolves absolutely free from any entanglement of that kind, and if there is any punishment to ;be imposed under the operation of this Act it must be something separate, apart and distinct from the name of the King, so that any proceedings instituted can be instituted in the name of the King.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the minister not take into consideration the points brought forward by my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) and myself on this section?
Mr. M1IDDLEBRO:	I had intended to
move an amendment to section 4. Perhaps I might do i-t now. There is a good deal in the point raised by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) and others, that there appears to be no penalty or no sanction for not doing what the board orders. I think perhaps if there were some sanction or penalty on the minister for not carrying out the orders of the board, he would be put more in the nature of a private corporation, and I think the officials of the company would be more likely to carry out the directions of the board. I think they should be subject to such penalty as the board may see fit to impose upon them in case they do not carry out its
[Mr. McKenzie.J
orders. For instance, section 34, subsection 3, the general Railway Act, says:
The Board may by regulation or order provide penalties, when not already provided in this Act, to which every company or person who offends against any regulation or order made by the Board shall be liable.
Subsection 4 says:
The imposition of any such penalty shall not lessen or affect any other liability which any company or person may have incurred.
That imposes on the minister the duty of carrying out the order which the board makes and in addition to that I think there should be some penalty ffir not doing so. I would therefore, with the consent of the minister, move:
That clause 4 be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:
"Notwithstanding anything contained herein, or , in the Railway Act, His Majesty shall not, nor shall the Minister of Railways and Canals, be liable to any fine or penalty except such as may be imposed by the Board, and no orcert or judgment of the Board under or in consequence of which His Majesty would have to pay or expend any money shall have any force or effect until it has been approved by the Governor in Council.
The effect of that would be that if the board made an order against the Minister of Railways and Canals under this Act he would have to comply with that order and pay such fine as the board imposed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The amendment suggested by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) may be all right but he has not touched the real gravamen of the latter part of the clause. The latter part of the clause does not provide for fines but it provides for carrying out the order of the board regarding the expenditure of money. The board may order that the Intercolonial shall construct a siding, perhaps costing $100, $200; we feel that there should be some power to compel the Intercolonial to carry out the instructions of the board. As the clause is drafted the minister is not compelled to carry out the instructions of the board, and I do not think the amendment proposed by my hon. friend meets that.


Francis Cochrane: The Government is in a different position from an individual. We have to have money voted by Parliament or go to the Governor in Council to get permission. A minister cannot spend money if it is not voted.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You have large sums of money voted for general purposes with regard to which you could exercise some discretion.


Francis Cochrane: Very little. The hon. gentleman knows that in passing the railway estimates- we have to say what everything is for. We do not get a blanket vote.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend takes a large vote which is nothing more than a cross entry. He receives $15,000,000 from the railway in the year and when he comes to Parliament he takes a vote of practically what he anticipates will be the income of the railway for the year.


Francis Cochrane: No, we take a lump sum for operation. It is not at all available for improvements.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend makes a distinction between what he takes for capital and what he takes for operation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: At page 52 of the estimates my hon. friend takes $6,875,000 for Canadian Government railways chargeable to capital.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He takes more than that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then, at page 54 he
takes $23,000,000.


Francis Cochrane: That is for operation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend has taken a vote of $23,000,000 this year.


Francis Cochrane: That is for operation, not construction.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He takes a special vote on capital account.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: On page 52 there is for:
Construction and betterments, $6,500,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is for capital expenditure? '


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend takes that capital vote and he takes the ordinary vote which is nothing more than a cross entry. The board, save in most exceptional cases, would only require the fulfilment of an -order dependent on the money being voted by Parliament. Therefore, that difficulty does not arise. The amendment of my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Mid-dlebro) does not offer any solution. If the Act is to be workable the party upon whom the onus must be thrown for carrying out the orders of the board is the general manager of the government railways.


Francis Cochrane: He is not allowed to spend money without orders.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the orders of the board are to -be fulfilled he is the man who actually spends the money. My hon. friend does not thin-k that he is the general manager?


Francis Cochrane: I authorize it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman authorizes it. But, we are arguing in a circle and we get back to this, that you are going to have the board make orders and you are going to put parties to the expense of going before the board to get an order, when the whole thing will be nugatory. Why do you not put the onus on the general manager of carrying the order of the board into effect? Why should not the people who are operating the Intercolonial be in the same position as the people who are operating the Canadian Pacific, Grand Trunk or Canadian Northern? The amendment proposed by the hon. member for North Grey does not reach the situation at all.


Francis Cochrane: It certainly is admitting penalties.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is admitting penalties, but I doubt whether the language is sufficiently apt to expressly override the common law rule that there is no penalty. But it may be so.


Francis Cochrane: It takes out clause 4 and admits a penalty.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the objection to putting the onus on the general manager?


Francis Cochrane: Because he is not allowed to spend money without permission, nor is the minister. The minister may get an Order in Council passed, but if he does not do so the Auditor General will not permit the bills to be paid.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Auditor General would have sufficient authority under -an order of the board?


Francis Cochrane: I do not know whether he would or not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I must protest against the amendment proposed to section 4, absolutely. The section was bad enough before. It suggested that a penalty might be imposed upon the King. But here we have -a court created by the King, deriving its authority from the King, and -it is authorized to impose a penalty upon the King. It is absolutely absurd, and I appeal to you and the committee that at least it should

not be adopted until we have the opinion of the Justice Department about it. There is no such law anywhere in the Empire, nor has it ever been attempted to pass such a law. It is a glaring absurdity, and I would be ashamed to be a member of a legislature that would pass such an enactment in the twentieth century.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I understand the position taken by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), and I think it is right. It is absolutely illogical that you should start proceedings against the King, at the instigation of the King, in an ordinary court. The hon. member for Pic-tou (Mr. Macdonald) has given us a solution. We have been labouring under a great misapprehension about the uselessness and nonsense of taking money out of the treasury and putting it back into the other pocket. But that is not the case under the provisions of the Railway Act, because if a penalty is imposed upon a railway company it is treated as is any other fine. The 'Summary Convictions Act and the General Criminal Code provide for the disposition of the penalty. It does not go to the Dominion, but partly to the municipalities. Therefore there is no reason why the Intercolonial should not be fined.


Francis Cochrane: A fine imposed by the Railway Board does snot go to the municipalities.


Mr. ICAR YELL:: I am not speaking of
such a fine as that but of the fine imposed -upon a person who, for breach of an order of the board, comes under the general law of the land. While it is inconsistent to lay an information in the name of the King against the King, there will he no difficulty in laying information in the name of the King against the manager of the Canadian Government railways. If the manager is fined he pays the fine out of moneys in his hands belonging to the Government, and in that way justice is satisfied and it is hoped there will not be a repetition of the events. I quite agree with the hon. member fox North Cape Breton, that the present situation would be absolutely illogical if you attempt to fine the King, but you could fine the railway company in the name of the general manager.
'Mr. COCHRANE: Suppose we allow the clause to stand to-night.
Section stands.
On section 5-Rules for practice and procedure :

iMr. MACDONALD:	il move to amend
this section by adding at the end thereof the words " not inconsistent with the terms of the Railway Act ".
Amendment agreed to and section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Sections of the Government Railways Act repealed:


Francis Cochrane: I beg leave to move:
That clause 6 of the Bill he struck out and the following clause be substiuted in lieu thereof:
"6. (1) The following sections of the Government Railways Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, Chapter thirty-six, are hereby repealed:
"Sections 7 to 9 both inclusive, 15 to 45 both inclusive, 58, 61 and 64 to 79 both inclusive.
"(2) In case of any inconsistency between the provisions of the Government Railways Act and the sections of the Railway Act, as set out in the schedule to this Act, the provisions of the said sections shall prevail."


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think the minister should ask us to adopt that amendment without our first having an opportunity of considering it. I imagine the minister will also make some changes in the -schedule, and I would suggest that he give notice tonight of what changes he purposes to make. I have no doubt that they will be accepted, but we should have opportunity of examining them.


Francis Cochrane: The proposed new
clause is considered to be in better legal form. Sections 7 to 9 of the' Government Railways Act are repealed and are replaced by sections 245, 246 and 247 of the Railways Act, which appear in the schedule. They relate to bridges. Sections 46 to 49 are restored, as they constitute the authority of the Governor in Council to impose tolls. These will be subject to the approval of the board.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a rather large order for one to carry in one's head. I would suggest that the minister give notice of all the changes and then we shall have an opportunity of examining them.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I understand that that amendment covers practically all the objections which the hon. member for Carleton made this aftempon.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I must have referred to twenty or thirty clauses; this refers to only three or four.


Francis Cochrane: I have ,a list of the clauses that my hon. friend referred to.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not want to be unfair, but I really wish to make the Act as workable as possible-


Francis Cochrane: I will give notice of
the proposed changes. I propose to add the following as section 6 A:
6a. Nothing in this Act or in the sections of the Railway Act as set out in the schedule to this Act, shall be deemed to take away any right or power of His Majesty or of the minister given by the Expropriation Act or the Exchequer Court Act or any other general public Act, or to confer upon any court or other tribunal other than the Exchequer Court, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Board, any jurisdiction not vested in such court or tribunal at the time that this Act comes into force, and nothing in this Act or in the said sections of the Railway Act shall affect any pending litigation or be taken to impair or affect any agreement between His Majesty or the government railways and any person at the time of the coming into force of this Act; provided also that all bridges, fences, crossings, and other structures now existing on the government railways may lawfully be maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Government Railways Act heretofore in force until a duly approved order of the Board has been made directing that any such structure be changed or rebuilt in accordance with the requirements of the Railway Act as extended and applied to the government railways by this Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the minister not
propose to make any changes in the schedule?


Francis Cochrane: Yes. Before dinner my hon. friend mentioned sections 398, 399, 400, 403, 406 and 417 of the Railway Act. These have relation to the imposing of a penalty upon the company. Sections 371 to 373, both inclusive which my hon. friend referred to have reference to telegraphs and telephones. They might ibe inserted in the present Bill, hut they are not apt at present, as the government railways are not putting up wires. I purpose also to make amendments to sections 381 and 387.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I had only partly finished my remarks this afternoon when the minister asked me to wait until we reached thi9 section. I adopted his suggestion, but I could go on now and give him another list. One of the worst cases of all is that of section 394. I had not reached that [DOT]section.


Francis Cochrane: The clauses that my hon. friend did mention all had relation to penalties, except that with regard to the putting up of wires.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: The matter of penalties was covered by my amendment.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister, I think,
wants to meet us in this matter. I know we shall get together perfectly satisfactorily, but I want to point out that I have not finished the list of the sections which were not included in this Bill.


Francis Cochrane: I know that, but the formal amendments bring in some of the sections the hon. member wants.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would suggest, anyway, that the minister treat this as a notice. It will appear on Hansard, and he can go over it, and we will go over it to-morrow. I will agree that I will expedite as much as possible the passage of the Bill, and I hope we can put it through as quickly as possible. We shall in this way have an opportunity of comparing the amendments moved by the minister with the law, and we shall then know exactly where we stand.


Francis Cochrane: I beg to move:
That the Bill be amended by striking out the schedule and substituting in lieu thereof thq following:
*	Schedule.
"Sections of the Railway Act made applicable to government railways.
'ISections 31 to 71 both inclusive, 185 (excepting subsection 7 thereof), 186 to 188 both inclusive, 194 to 198 both inclusive, 245 to 268 both inclusive, 269 (excepting the provision thereof for determining compensation by arbitration), 271 to 289 both inclusive, 298 to 322 both inclusive, 323 and 324, the word "by-law" where it occurs in these sections shall mean and include a regulation of the Governor in Council, 325 to 3 66 both inclusive, 382 to 389 both inclusive, 3'94, 395, 402, 404, 405, 409, 412, 414, 416, 418 to 427 both inclusive, 430, 431, 437 to 440 both inclusive, and 443 to 451 both inclusive."


Herménégilde Boulay: I will now make a remark that I was going to make a few minutes ago. I see that this Bill is going to be in line with Bill No. 13, that is, that certain sections in Bill 13 are to be included in this Bill. Among them is section 302. The Minister of Railways is reported in Hansard of the 23rd of July last as having made these remarks:
Mr. Cochrane:	On the 18th July I accepted
an amendment prepared by my hon. friend from Rouville and proposed by the hon. gentleman from Rimouski, which read as follows:
"All railway employees on local passenger trains running in the province of Quebec, having to deal with the travelling public, shall be conversant with the English and French languages from and after January 1, 1919."
There has been strong objection to this amendment on the ground that it would cut men out of their seniority. For Instance, a man running on a freight train to Prescott or Brockville would be prevented from being promoted, say, to a passenger train running to

Montreal, because he was not able to speak French. I feel that the amendment suggested by the member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright) will meet the situation far better. I move that section 302 be amended by adding thereto the following as subsection 3 :
"After the 1st day of January, 1919, the Board may from time to time make such or-* ders and regulations as it may deem advisable to provide that all or any railway employee on local passenger trains running in the province of Quebec shall be conversant with the English and French languages."
I am sorry that the amendment thus moved has been changed. I see that I am the only member from Quebec now present. I wish we were all here, because I I know all the other hon. members from Quebec would approve what I am going to say on this subject, and of the amendment I am going to suggest to section 302 of Bill No. 118.


The CHAIRMAN:: I must remind the hon. member that we are not considering Bill No. 13; we are considering Bill No. 118.


Herménégilde Boulay: 1 wish to move an amendment to the schedule of Bill 118 as regards section 302 of the Railway Act concerning the Government railways. I wish to add to section 302 practically the same words that I proposed on the 18th of July, as follows:
All employees of government railways in the province of Quebec that have to deal with the travelling public shall be conversant with the English and French languages, and this provision to be in force from the first of January, 1919.
As this affects only the Government railway employees, there should not be any such objection as that referred to by the Minister of Railways on the 23rd of July as regards other railroads. This- would meet the approval of all the employees of the Government railways in Quebec, because I [DOT]have here a statement signed by four of the presidents of their societies from Montreal to Campbellton. They all approve this amendment saying that it would be largely in the interest of the travelling public. The statement is dated 28th July, 1917, and reads:
The hon. member for Rimouski has caused to be inserted in the Bill No. 13' entitled: An Act for the consolidation of the railway laws of Canada, on the 18 th instant, an amendment which reads as follows:
" All railway employees on local passenger trains running in the province of Quebec, having to deal with the travelling public, shall be conversant with the English and French languages from and after January 1, 1919."
Now, on Juy 23rd instant, this amendment, although it had been adopted by the House, was dropped and another one has been substituted to it which does not give any satisfaction. The

reason given for dropping this amendment was that the railroad companies were opposed to it.
Now we, railway employees on the division
of

and representing the International
Association of railroad employees, do declare hereby that we have seen with pleasure the amendment proposed by the member for Rimouski, and fully and sincerely approve of it; in fact, we state that it will not entail any hardships to any one of the employees, but on the contrary, that it would be a notable improvement, which has been demanded for many years by the travelling public in the province of Quebec.
Therefore, we ask that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rimouski, should be fully reinserted in the Bill.
In witness thereof, we have signed :*-
Phy. Tardif, C.G.R., conductor, president of Levis employees association.
Jos. Robin, president of the Montreal employees association.
J. B. DubS, conductor, president of the Mont-Joli employees association.
E. H. Dionne, conductor C.G.R., president of the Transcontinental employees association.


Francis Cochrane: This does not apply in this case. This provision is in Bill 13, the General Railway Consolidation, and will be enforced by the Dominion Railway Board, under the Dominion Railway Act. The insertion of it in this measure was only repeating the words in the General Act. Therefore, it will become the law, unless the Senate throws out. the Bill.


Herménégilde Boulay: As I understand, the Railway Act applies to all railways.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: The amendment moved by the hon. gentleman from Rimouski is not relevant. I find the following in Bourinot:
Amendments to Bills must strictly relate to the Bill which the House has by its order resolved upon considering.
So that I must rule that this amendment is not in order.


Charles Murphy: I assume that section 7 stands as it is.


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Charles Murphy: I suggest that the Bill be reprinted, with the amendments. It might facilitate the passage of the Bill.


Francis Cochrane: I do not think it will he in shape for reprinting, but when hon. members get Hansard in the morning they will see what amendments have been proposed.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Saturday, August 11, 1917.