[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston) presented the first report of the committee, as follows:
The Special Committee appointed to consider the question of consolidating the Votes and Proceedings and Journals of the House of Commons with a view to economy, beg leave to present -the following as their report:
Tour committee having carefully considered the matter recommend that the distribution of the bound copies of the Votes and Proceedings be dispensed with.
As the Journals in their present form show a great deal of unnecessary repetition and redundancy and the Votes and Proceedings as being at present compiled with the adoption of certain forms used in the Journals, -give a complete and accurate report of -the proceedings of the House, your committee are of the opinion that, a change would be advantageous both as -regards efficiency and economy and recommend that the record used at present as the Votes and Proceeding® be substituted for tha-t of the Journals, thus obviating the necessity of resetting the ty-pe for the Journals.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 126, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Redman.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What were the gross receipts, per month, in 1918, of each station of the Transcontinental Railway?
30G6

2.	How many cars were received and despatched; per month, at each of said stations, in 1918?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	It is not in the interest of the Canadian National Railways System that information * as to the business done at each station, either by way of receipts or cars despatched, should be given to competing systems.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


ALLEYN TASCHEREAU.
Mr. MORPHY:: 1.	Was Alleyn Taschereau an officer of the Justice Department at the city of Quebec in connection with the Military Service Act?
2.	Was his conduct as such called in question as respects his handling: of public moneys?
3.	Were instructions given for his prosecution?
4.	If so, why has. he not been prosecuted?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	A warrant was applied for by representatives of the Department of Justice. An inquiry was held by the magistrate at Quebec, who refused to issue a warrant. All information was sent to the Attorney-General of the province of Quebec, calling attention to the matter and asking him to take such steps as might be necessary in the interests of justice.


BOARD OP PENSION COMMISSIONERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MeGIBBON (Muskoka):
1.	How many members are there on the Board of Pension Commissioners of Canada?
2.	What are their names, and the dates of their respective appointments?
3.	Who is the Secretary of the Board?
4.	What is his overseas military record, if any?
0.	Is it a fact that there are medical, legal or other officials employed by the Board who have had no overseas military service?
6. If so, what are their names, and what remuneration are they receiving?
Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 
HIS HONOUR JUDGE CLEMENS.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Which Royal Commissioner held an investigation relating to His Honour Judge Clemens, of British Columbia, and when was the said investigation held?
2.	What amount has been paid by the Government to the said Royal Commissioner therefor?	*


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	The Government is not aware of the appointment of such a commissioner.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


NOVA SCOTIA CARRIAGES LTD.
*Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What amount of rental has been paid by the Government to the Nova Scotia Carriages, Limited, or the liquidators or bondholders thereof, for the use by the Militia Department of the carriage factory building at Amherst, Nova Scotia, and to whom were such payments made?
2.	What use is being made of the building at the present time?
3.	When does the contract for occupation terminate?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: Department of Public Works-
1. $3,500 to 25th March, 1919; (b) paid to Percy C. Black of Amherst, and John W. Regan of Halifax, N.S., as liquidators of Nova Scotia Carriages, Limited.
Department of Militia and Defence-
1.	5100 for rental of a floor in the factory building for one week only.
2.	Accommodation for returning troops which may have to be held over on their way from Halifax, and accommodation for dispersal station, Military District No. 6, at Amherst.
3.	25th March, 1920.


COL. P. W. MARLOW.
*Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Was Colonel P. W. Miarlow instructed to investigate the Canadian Army Medical Service in Canada?
2.	If so, did Colonel Marlow conduct such

an investigation and later submit a report giving the results of his inquiry?
3.	If so, when was such- report received?
4.	Will the said report be laid on the table of the House?
5.	If not, why not?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Under instructions issued by the Adjutant General, dated August 14,	1916,
Colonel Frederick William Marlow was detailed by the General Officer Commanding, Military District No. 2, lor the duty as Principal Medical Inspector to make a special report on the Medical Services in connection with the Overseas Services in Canada.
2.	Colonel Marlow completed isuch inspection on October 16, 1916.
3.	Completed and forwarded his report on October 20, 1916, to the General Officer
Commanding, Military District No. 2, who in turn, under date October 23, 1916, forwarded the same to the secretary, Militia Council, Ottawa. Practically all of the recommendations in the report have been put into effect.
4.	Yes, if asked for.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


LIEUTENANT R. BATEMAN ET AL.
Mr. DESAULNIERS:: 1.	What were the places of enlistment in Canada of Lieutenant R. Bateman, Lieutenant
J.	Sanders, Major W. J. Hamilton, Corporal Richard William Morsdale, No. 410667, and Corporal George Sweeney, No. 410632, who went overseas with the Canadian Expeditionary Forces?
2.	Where are these persons at present?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1 and 2.
Name.	Place of Enlistment.	Present Whereabouts.Lt. R. Bateman, 94th Batt	
Maj. W. J. Hamilton, 21st Reserve Battalion. 410067, Cpl. R. W. Worsdale, 38th Battalion 410032, Cpl. George Sweeney, 38th Battalion	Kenora, Ont	
Fort William, Ont	Still Overseas. Struck off strength in Winnipeg, Man., 9-8-18. Still on strength in Toronto, Ont. Still Overseas. Resigned commission June 14th, 1916.
Kemptville, Ont


PUGWASH SPUR.
[Stage Direction]
(Mr. COPP:
1.	What has been the cost of the railway spur from the main line of the Government Railway to the brick works at Pugwash, Nova Scotia, and when was the work completed?
2.	Are there any outstanding accounts in connection therewith?
3.	What have been the total receipts from said spur?
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	$92,452.67. Work was completed August 28, 1918.
2.	Yes-there are four portions of right of way not paid for:-From Vickery Estate 2,700 sq. ft. of land and boat landing shut off by embankment, estimated value, $44. Estate Daniel Rogers, right of way 2,700 sq. ft., estimated value, $82.50. In both these cases title not clear. From Estate Edgar Bent, area 2,098 sq. ft., value, $50. Mr. Bent 'has just returned from overseas and is willing to accept this amount. Estate John Tucker, right of way 12,632 sq. ft., estimated value, $19.14., also two borrow pits outside right of way, area 1.78 acres, value, $257 total amount. Tucker Estate, $286.14. This was refused by Colonel Tucker, but heirs now willing to accept.
3.	The same freight rates apply on traffic from and to the Nova Scotia (Clay Yorks
Spur as from Pugwash proper, except on shipments of oil on which there is a switching charge of one cent per 100 lbs. The total receipts from such switching charges to the end of March, 1919, amounted to $82.40. The total tonnage handled over gpur from same date, opened in August to end of March, 1919, was 2,479 tons and the total Canadian Government Railways' earnings from originating point to destination on such shipments were $5,167.63. In connection with this spur the Nova Scotia ,Clay Works Limited is to pay an annual rental of $1,700 for 15 years.


LAKE ST. JOSEPH HOTEL.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Is the Lake St. Joseph Hotel, Lake St. Joseph, Quebec, the pro-perty of the Canadian National Railway?
2: If so. does the Canadian National Railway intend leasing this property to the Canadian Pacific Railway?	,


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The Lake St. Joseph Hotel is owned by the Quebec and Lake St. John Railway Company, the stock of which is 88.5 per cent owned by the Canadian Northern Railway Company, which forms part of the Canadian National Railways.
2.	No.
!068

FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORIES. Mr. POWER:
1.	Has the Government received any complaints with regard to the Forest Products Laboratories of the Department of the Interior?
2.	Have certain of the leading officials of these laboratories left, and are others about to leave, owing to the fact that wholly inadequate salaries are being paid?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to increase the salaries of trained experts in this department in order that its value to the lumbermen and paper makers of Canada may be increased'?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: X. Representations Rave been made that a higher scale of salaries should be paid to the technical staff.
2.	Certain officials have resigned intimating that better opportunities were offered outside.
3.	T'he matter of salaries is being dealt with by the Civil Service Commission in connection with the re-classification of the Civil Service.


MAJOR ARGXJE.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Is Major Argue the officer commanding the Sanford Fleming Home, Ottawa?
2.	Has this officer been overseas?
3.	If so, how long?
4.	With what units?
5.	If not, what are his particular qualifications for the position he now holdfe-?
6.	What is his pay?
T. What are his allowances?
S.	How long has he been in charge of this hospital ?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	No. It is presumed that this inquiry refers to Lt.-Col. J. Fenton Argue, Ottawa
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
5.	Lt.-Col. Argue is President of the Standing Medical Board, Ottawa, and has shown throughout many years of service the highest degree of professional and military efficiency in the discharge of duty.
6.	Pay of his rank, $7 per day (as officer in charge of medical boards).
7.	$1.25 per day field allowance.
8.	Answered by No. 1.


J. H. LEWIS.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	What is the position held ihy J. H. Lewis, an official of the Post Office Department?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	Was he appointed by Order in Council? If so, on what date?
4.	Has he -been promoted from one sub-division to another?	^
[Mr. J. D. Reid.l
. 5- If so, under what clause of the Civil Service Act was this promotion made?
6.	What is his salary at present, and what are his duties?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Purchasing agent.
2.	2Gth September, 1886.
3.	Yes. Order in Council dated 16th October, 1886.
4.	Yes.
5.	-Section 24, Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908.
6.	$2,900. Full charge and control over the purchasing and contracting for all articles of mail equipment and supplies generally under the supervision of the War Purchasing Commission, and also in charge of the distribution of the said articles and supplies except those obtained through the Department of Public Printing and Stationery.


SOCIAL HYGIENE CONFERENCE.
Mr. BROUILLARE:: 1.	Was a Social Hygiene Conference held lately in Ottawa?
2.	Did the Government call the conference or assist in calling it? If so, at whose suggestion or request?
3.	Were the invitations to attend the conference sent out by the Government? If so, how, and -by whom, were the persons selected to whom such invitations were sent?
4.	Which member of the Government was charged with the duty of sending out the invitations and through what department were they sent ouit ?
5.	Has the Government paid or is it the intention of the Government to pay the whole or part of the expense of holding the convention? If so, what will be the total amount?
G. Out of what fund or vote will the money for the said payment -be taken?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. At the request of the health authorities of the Federal and Provincial Governments embodied in -a resolution passed at a conference of these authorities held in Ottawa on the 3rd day of February, 1919.
3.	Yes. The persons invited consisted of the health authorities of the Federal and Provincial Governments and representatives of the social organizations or agencies interested in the subject matter of the conference. A list of those to be invited was submitted to the Government by Mr. 0. V. Massey, who was secretary of the -Conference of the Federal and Provincial Health Authorities which requested the calling of the Social Hygiene Conference, and Captain Gordon Bates, who was secretary of the Social Hygiene Conference.

4.	The invitations were sent out by Sir Thomas White as Acting Prime Minister. The arrangements and detailed work in connection with sending out the invitations were in charge of Mr. C. V. Massey.
5.	The Government has not paid any expenses so far, and does not expect to pay any expenses of representatives of provincial health authorities attending the conference, but will pay the other expenses of the conference.
6.	Out of the item of contingencies for the Department of Health, which will appear in the Supplementary Estimates for the year 1919-1920.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	What amount of goods, free of duty, has been imported by the Dominion Steel Corporation, Limited, into Canada pursuant to contract based on Order in Council, P.C. 758?
2.	What was the nature of these goods?
3.	Were they raw' material or manufactured goods?


Air. MURPHY:: 1.	Referring to page 459 of the Report of the Ministry Overseas Military Forces of Canada, 1918, and to paragraph (c) Topical Films; what was the total amount paid for the films in question?
2.	Was such payment made by or through the Canadian War Records Office in London? If not, by whom was such payment made?
3.	To whom was such payment made?
4.	Were the said films, or moving pictures, exhibited1 in, Canada and elsewhere? If so, in what countries have they been exhibited?
5.	Was an admission fee charged at each of such exhibitions? If so, what was the total cash proceeds, and to whom was the money paid?
6.	Has the Canadian Government received the whole, or any part of the said cash proceeds? If not, what action, if any, has been taken to recover the money?
7.	Were the said films given, sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of to a private company? If so, on what terms and what are the names of the members of such company?
8.	Is it true, as alleged in certain English papers, that the cost of the Canadian War Paintings which were exhibited in England, was defrayed out of the proceeds of the exhibition of the said films, or moving pictures? If so, who had the custody of the funds if they were not turned over to the Government?
9.	Had the Famous Players Film Company any connection with any of the matters herer inbefore inquired about? If so, what and on what terms?


Air. SINCLAIR (Antigonish .and Guys-borough) :: 1.	What was the initial cost of the thirty-six drifters known as the " C.D's" referred to by the Honourable Minister of Naval Affairs on page 2'916 of Unrevised Hansard?
2.	How much was expended in repairing these vessels from date of purchase to November 11, 1918?
3.	Who, on behalf of the Government, looked after the building of these vessels?
4.	Who accepted these vessels from the builders?
5.	Is he still in the service?



UNOPPOSED AIOTION FOR PAPERS.

Mr. GAUVREAU:: 

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: May 11 be permitted to put to the Prime Minister a question which he can answer at his leisure? If there be any truth in the newspaper rumour that the questions raised by the Franchise Bill are to be postponed until a later period of the year, will he consider the advisability of taking up with the Cabinet the question of having a Speaker's Conference during the recess to look into the .matter of proportional representation? I *am quite sure that such an inquiry would meet a very large amount of really earnest *public sentiment. .
. Sir ROBERT BORDEN: I can say at once *to my hon. friend that, with my colleagues, I shall give very attentive consideration to the suggestion he has put forward.



INDUSTRIAL UNREST IN CANADA.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: May I ask the Prime Minister if he has any further information to give to the House with regard to the settlement of the strikes *in Western Canada?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I do not think there is anything of importance beyond what has already appeared in the public press. *The Minister of Labour (Hon. G. D. Robertson) returned from Winnipeg yesterday and gave us an account of the events which have taken place there. There is nothing I can usefully, add to the very lucid statement which was given in the House the other *evening by the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Arthur Meighen), who was with the Minister of Labour in Winnipeg. We receive a good many communications on this subject from day to day; I have not thought

it worth while to burden the House by reading them. If any communication of an exceptionally important character is received, I should, of course, feel it my duty to communicate it to the House.


Mr. McKENZIE:: We see in the papers
from day to day references to some railway committee or body of railway men who are acting as intermediaries in the Winnipeg strike. Is that really going on?


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is quite true that the six great international railway organizations have offered their services as mediators and that they are now engaged in the task of endeavouring to bring the parties together and to reach a common agreement.



AIDS TO NAVIGATION ON VANCOUVER -SKAGWAY ROUTE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON (Yukon):: May I ask the Minister of Marine whether negotiations are preceding with the United States Government regarding further aids to navigation on the route between Vancouver and Skagway, Alaska? I have in mind the wreck of the Princess Sophia off the Lynn canal last October.


Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE:: No negotiations are going on at the present time between the Canadian Government and the Government of the United States with regard to that part of the coast on which the United .States have to provide the necessary aids to navigation. The unfortunate accident to the Princess Sophia on the Vanderbilt Ledge occurred on a part of the coast which is under the control of the United States Government; Canada has no jurisdiction over it. The Canadian coast, line extends northward to the entrance to Portland canal, near Port Simpson; follows the Portland canal to the head, and thence proceeds in a northwesterly direction inland. South of the International boundary the inland waterway is well marked; indeed there are very few representations in that regard from shipping interests that remain unsatisfied. Every reasonable endeavour is made to meet requirements as they arise. Northward of Port Simpson the inland waterway lies in United States territory, the point where the Princess Sophia was lost being about 350 miles up the coast north of the International boundary.



DOMINION FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 125, to amend the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks' Act, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Long Lake Forest Reserve:
Mr. CAHILL:: Will the minister explain this?


Arthur Meighen: The clauses of the Bill are all in principle alike. All the Bill does is to take certain areas out of forest reserves as at present established by Statute. The purpose of taking these portions out is to make them available for soldier settlement. All the portions have been examined and in every case where possible representatives of the Forestry Department have been engaged in the examination.


Frank S. Cahill: Are these changes to be made only in specific cases, or are you taking power to make similar changes in respect of all forest reserves?


Arthur Meighen: The Bill specifies in each case the exact area to be taken out. of these reserves. We are asking no. powers for the Governor in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Larch Hills forest reserve:
Air. ROSS:: What is the total acreage made available for settlement in all these forest reserves?


Arthur Meighen: I have not made up the-total. In the last line of each paragraph the exact acreage that is being taken up in. each case is given.
On section 6-Riding Mountain forest, reserve:
Mr. CAA1PBELL: Are any copies of this-Bill available for distribution?


The CHAIRMAN:: The Bill has already-been distributed and should be on the files-of hon. members; they can be obtained at the Distribution Office.


Arthur Meighen: I assume that the hon.. gentleman is interested in the -application of the Bill to the Porcupine and Riding Mountain reserves. This Bill takes a very considerable area out of No. 2 Porcupine-reserve-that is, that portion of the Porcupine reserve that is in Saskatchewan. The-area taken out is defined in the Bill, and.

I have the maps here showing the area.
I naturally cannot make the map available to all at once, and except by laying the map on the table, which I am ready to do, I cannot give any explanation other than what is in the Bill.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I understand that it is the intention of the minister to take out of the reserve a certain number of townships now and later on a further area. Is that correct?


Arthur Meighen: I should not like to
make a statement as to the taking out of any further area. The area taken out now is quite a substantial one.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Porcupine Forest Reserve No. 1:
John Archibald Campbell: Just what area is being taken out of this Reserve?


Arthur Meighen: The Porcupine Reserve in the province of Manitoba covers an area of 777-5 square miles, and we are taking out of that 2-5 square miles. Out of the Porcupine Reserve in Saskatchewan we are taking 376-5 square miles which will reduce the present area of the reserve in Saskatchewan from 3,246-75 to 2,870-25.


Frank S. Cahill: How far from a railway will settlement be permitted in these reserves?


Arthur Meighen: We have not adopted any rigid rule in that regard. While the reserve remains as such, there is necessarily no railway penetration, there being no need for railway service; but when these areas are taken out and settled, there will be need of railway service. Portions of the area we are taking out will doubtless be a considerable distance from a railway. The river-I forget its name-has to be traversed, and doubtless bridges will have to be built. The soldiers are very anxious to settle on this area and take their chances of a railway going in. I think the hon. member for Dauphin or the hon. member for Nelson could give the distance from the railway better than I could.


John Archibald Campbell: As I understand it, in the area that is being taken out, the shortest distance to the railway will 6 or 7 miles, running from 15 to 20 miles, and perhaps more, in other portions.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: Are the lots being taken out in a solid block or being, selected because of their suitability for agricultural purposes? My reason for asking is that where areas are selected through
a forest reserve, and settlement is created within the reserve, there is very great danger of the reserve being entirely wiped out by fire.


Arthur Meighen: Areas are not being taken out in any regular blocks. The first principle followed is this: The land must be reasonably fit for agricultural purposes or mixed farming. It must be found to be so, and we have tried to be very careful in that regard, because this reserve was first created on the assumption that it was more fit for forestry than anything else. We have had to exercise considerable caution not to be over-influenced by those anxious to settle on forest reserves, because very frequently they hastily come to the conclusion that it is agricultural land when really it is not. However, after the most careful survey we could make of this Porcupine reserve, which is the principal one we are dealing with in this Bill, we came to the conclusion that we could not justify retaining this area. What we are taking out is in two pieces. I cannot describe it better than by showing it to the hon. member on the map. The portion to the west is oblong in shape and about two townships wide, varying somewhat on the northern limit. I he other portion is almost square in shape, situated more to the east, and is about twenty miles from the eastern boundary of the province of Saskatchewan.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: I chance to be familiar with that part of the country. The area which is being taken out in Saskatchewan is south of the lower Red Deer river and southeast of Etomami Junction. It at one time formed the famous reserve owned by one of our worthy senators. It was covered with magnificent spruce, but in 1886 the reserve was burnt, and a second fire cleaned the timber right off. There is now no timber on it, and nearly every foot of it is fit for farming.


Arthur Meighen: I can more fully answer my hon. friend from Pontiac now. The large portion taken out of the Porcupine reserve runs in an oblong shape east and west. The Canadian Northern railway runs east and west along the north part of it, distant about seven or eight miles from the northern extremity of the excepted area. The excepted area is, generally speaking, about twelve miles deep. Very little of the land that is being taken out of the reserve is more than nineteen miles distant from a railway, and the average would be about twelve or thirteen miles.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On section 9-Saskatchewan-Pines Forest Reserve:
Frank S. Cahill: What is the size of this reserve and of the area being taken out?


Arthur Meighen: The total withdrawn
from the Pines Forest reserve was only one and one-half quarter-sectiop. Speaking from memory, I do not think that is for soldiers' settlement but was land granted to individual squatters upon which they had rights prior to the organization of reserves.
On section 10-Porcupine Forest No. 2:.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the size of this reservation?


Arthur Meighen: The amount taken out of Porcupine Reserve No. 2 in Saskatchewan is 376-5 square miles. In No. 1, which is in Manitoba, only 2J square miles have been ta>ken out. The 2,305-5 at the end does not mean that so many miles have been taken out; it is merely descriptive.
On section II-Alberta: The Rocky Mountain Forest Reserve:


Arthur Meighen: The total area of that reserve is 20,805. It will be 20,804 after this, as only one square mile will be taken out for soldiers' settlement. It is at the extremity of the reserve and will not affect the consistency or shape of the reserve in any way.


Frank S. Cahill: Approximately, how far is it from the railway?


Arthur Meighen: It is some distance, but the land was located on before the reserve was established and therefore we are not concerned particularly with the distance. It is not for soldiers' settlement.
On section 12-British Columbia: Nicola Forest Reserve:


Arthur Meighen: This is three square
miles.
On section 13-Fly Hill Forest Reserve:


Arthur Meighen: About four square miles are taken out of this reserve for soldiers' settlement.


Mr. MOLLOY:: Is this land to be thrown open to soldiers for home settlement?


Arthur Meighen: The method we have
under consideration, and which I think will be carried out, will be to permit only soldier entry in the reserve. That is to say no one except a soldier can go in, and the soldier cannot get a homestead; all he can get

is soldier entry, or the soldier homestead. The right to his other homestead will still remain intact. What we contemplate is to enable the soldier to take soldier entry of 160 acres in that reserve, and reserve 80 acres that adjoins in each case, so that if he makes good in the quarter-section we will subsequently let him have the 80 acres, probably by sale. It will possibly not be at full value but on terms that will be afterwards made known. In the meantime it is intended to make some provision by which he will have the use of that 80 acres. That is what the Soldiers' Settlement Board now have in mind. The scheme may be modified if it is deemed wise but at present we contemplate giving him a soldier entry there and reserving 80 acres for his use. Subsequently the land can be owned by him if he shows success as a farmer.


Samuel Hughes: This will be quite a distance from the railway, and it would be only fair to have a branch of the Thunder Bay line serving this district. It is not reasonable to- put soldiers twenty or thirty miles from a railway.


Arthur Meighen: A railway is projected reaching from Priestville, Saskatchewan, and running northwesterly through this district and up to Hudson's Bay Junction. It is that road that is expected to serve the district.


Samuel Hughes: That will still leave a lot east and west.


Arthur Meighen: It might, unless the
line ran pretty well east and west.


Frank S. Cahill: What will be the basis oi priority as regards settlement?


Arthur Meighen: That is a difficult problem. In homesteading, so far the first man has always got entiy. There are the gravest possible objections to that system, particularly in its application to soldiers, because in its ultimate operation in regard to soldiers it means that a man physically incapacitated by service is at a serious disadvantage. That is its fatal objection as applicable to soldiers and the board is considering, and will have power in the matter if the Soldiers' Settlement Act which is now before the House is passed, the adopting of another method, that of granting entry by lot. I do not particularly like that method, but I really am not able to think of anything better. There is no way by which any priority can be given on the part of the board which would be considered fair or acceptable, and the board is of the opinion

that the matter will have to be worked out on the lot principle in some way.


John Archibald Campbell: While I recognize the difficulty that tlhe minister points out, I may say- that this matter was brought to the attention of the Government largely through the efforts of certain returned soldiers who were particularly familiar with that district. The returned soldiers who went from the Dauphin district, and who had been up there and gone through the district on several occasions, brought this matter to the attention of the board. The father of one of these soldiers had been a squatter for some years. The point I wish to bring to the attention of the minister is this: Considering the work done by these soldiers, and the efforts made by them resulting in the whole of the land being thrown open, it is a question whether some consideration should not be given to them. They have done work which should be recognized in some way, and if they are just given the same terms and conditions as others it would hardly seem fair or right. I recognize the difficulty there is, but I desire to make a plea for these particular people.


Arthur Meighen: I should be glad if the hon. member -would formulate his views in the shape of a letter or memorandum, so that I could take them up with the Soldiers' Settlement Board.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 19, to consolidate and amend the Railway Act-Mr. Boivin in the Chair. (Resumed from May 28).
On section 374-consent of municipality for transmission lines upon highways, etc.:
Mr. H. M. MOWAT (Parkdale):: I have an amendment to move to subsection 5 of section 374 by striking out that subsection and making a substitution which I will explain as I proceed. The Senate has seen flit to alter the Bill as it left this House in 1917 so as to favour a particular group of electrical companies. They favour one company but really they favour a group of interlocking companies. The result of the amendment which appears in the Bill now before the Committee is that the special legislative bargain made in 1902, when the private Act of the Toronto Niagara Power Company was passed by this House, is
annulled and has no effect. For these reasons I wish to take the opinion of the Committee as to restoring the course agreed upon by the House in 1917.
The matter has now been before members for some weeks; in fact, I might say for some years and in a case of this kind where definitely the rights of the public, as represented by the municipalities, come into collision with the private, corporate rights of those in a certain business, it must, and always does, follow that the case of the municipalities, being so widely distributed and the interests so general, does not receive the attention which is given to the other side of the case by large corporations who keep a close rwatch on legislation as a matter of business. The public has little or no machinery by which to use its persuasive powers on members of Parliament or otherwise, but fortunately there have always been in this House a number ot members quick to discern what is in the interest of the public as against -a special or private interest and to see that the public interest is protected. Members of Parliament have always been careful to study enactments proposed in order to see that public rights shall not be surrendered. Ordinary vigilance really is the price oi liberty where great monetary interests are concerned and here we have, as I shall show in a minute or two, a charter which is to be given by this special clause contained in the amendment of the Senate which will be worth many millions of dollars-one cannot help saying that-and which will allow one company, or group of companies, to extend their operations not only in Ontario where they at present are but throughout the whole Dominion. It will be a charter which will allow exploitation in every province of the Dominion. While the companies concerned are now only operating in one province, yet the advantage gained by -this amendment would be so obvious that they would have little difficulty in getting capital to proceed with operations in other provinces.
It might be thought that it is not necessary to go into the details of this matter because it has been so much discussed, but I find that in this-discussion it is wonderful how some members only get the point of view of one person with whom they discussed the case, while another member only gets some other point of view. These views are disjointed, and in the committee of which I was a member and which reported this Bill as it is, there were a number of members who said that they thought they



understood the question before the committee and that they never imagined that so many arguments could be advanced on the side which they had made up their minds did not have the best of it. However, I have come to a conclusion upon the rights and wrongs of the parties opposed to each other in connection with this Bill without regard to the advocacy of any interest, and I deem it my duty to give the committee the benefit of the reasons which assisted me in reaching that conclusion. Late last session, for the purpose of getting at the bottom of it, I looked into the matter very carefully, I have come to a certain conclusion as the result of that investigation and I think it only proper, for the benefit of those who have not studied the matter closely, to give the House a short history oi the matter and to point out the importance of the principle involved in this legislation.
The whole trouble arose really from a slip in the drafting of the statute. Our law clerk drew the statute in 1902 which formed the charter of the Toronto and Niagara Power company. So far so good, but our law clerk, when this statute came to be revised in 1903, forgot, or erred, in not looking after the rights of the public which were secured in the charter of the company. Lay members, of course, probably as well as lawyers, must know that from time to time the statutes of Canada, as of every other country, must, for public convenience, be revised and consolidated. Constant amendments are being made. It is very difficult, not only for the ordinary citizen, but for the practitioner, to go through all the statute-books and ascertain exactly what the law is.
So that at certain periods-it has been at intervals of twenty years in the Dominion, and at shorter intervals in the provinces-the public statutes have been revised and consolidated to make them more readable and more convenient for reference. So with the Railway Act which was known as the Railway Act of 1888 but which in 1903 was revised under the Railway Act of that year. The reason I say that our law clerk made a slip in legislation which, if we allow it to pass and to go uncorrected, will mean taking a great public right away from those to whom it was promised, is, that he neglected to carry into the Railway Act of 1903 the provisions of the special charter of the company taken from the Railway Act of 1899. So we come to this state of affairs: That Parliament passed in 1902 this charter which was satisfactory to both parties; then in 1903, the Railway Act being about to be consolidated, the draftsman,
[Mr. Mowat.l
as is usual in these cases, inserted a clause that all previous Railway Acts should be repealed. Well, that was all very well, that was good enough if there had been brought forward into the new Consolidated Railway Act all the rights given to persons by the Act which had been repealed. I have no doubt that the law clerk thought he did so, but it might have been well if, at the time he was drawing the Consolidated Act in 1903, which repealed all previous Acts, the parties concerned, at any rate the public, had been represented, and that when he drew the clause to repeal the Act of 1899, under which the public rights were granted, the public guardian had said: Stay your hand; remember that under the Act of 1899 the public were given great privileges; be careful that you do not so consolidate the new Act and repeal the old Act as to take those rights away. If that had been done this contest would never have occurred. But unfortunately it did not occur to the law clerk that by repealing the former Railway Act of 1899 any such effect was being brought about. Such is the situation, however, and it is now being declared that the Act of 1899 does not control the Toronto, and Niagara Power Company.
Before I continue this branch of the subject let me say that we are not asking in the amendment to do anything which is unprecedented, or to take away rights which have been granted; we are only asking that the will of Parliament, clearly expressed in 1902, seventeen years ago, should obtain and be declared so as to govern the parties to this controversy at the present time. It is said that other interests and rights have intervened since that time which changed the condition of affairs. Let me say that Parliament has never been guided by any such principle at all, but has seemed anxious in the passing of corporate legislation to do what was right as between the corporations and the public that they serve. An instance of that is to be found in the amendment to the Bell Telephone Act of 1906. The Bell Telephone Company, it will be remembered, enjoyed great rights at first. The telephone was a new thing, and the public were anxious to have it in their shops and homes, and they did not know exactly what would be the result of a telephone company suddenly descending upon a town and doing its own will on the streets of that community without regard to the convenience of the people, or the rights of the council, or of a city or town engineer, to control those streets. iSo sure were the

*Bell Telephone 'Company of their rights' in this respect that they started to do work in the city of Toronto, interfering with the general rights of the public over their streets. Litigation ensued, the
4 p.m. case went to the Privy Council, and that tribunal held that the Bell Telephone Company under its charter, had the right to do what it was doing without asking the consent of the municipal authorities. This made all the more acute the feeling on the part of the municipal authorities throughout Canada, and their champions in Parliament, and rendered it all the more imperative that everything must be done to" guard municipal rights in regard to these big utility corporations. The consequence was that when the Bell Telephone Company came to Parliament in 1906 for an amendment to its charter, and to ask that the capital should be increased -not a very great desideratum* one would think-Parliament immediately took the opportunity to make a condition that the very same provision that had been inserted in the Act of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company should be embodied in the Bell Telephone Act of 1906. Now it is undoubted that Parliament, by putting into the Bell Telephone Act the provision that the company must obtain the consent of the municipal authorities before they entered a town, to that extent interfered with the vested rights of that particular company. It cut down those rights in a very considerable degree, and at the same time declared the rights of other telephone companies who desired, or might desire hereafter, to deal with the municipalities. It must have had that effect, nevertheless the Bell Telephone Company apparently submitted. I notice by reading Hansard of 1906 that the Bell Telephone Company Bill was in charge of the hon. member for Three Rivers (iMr. Bureau) and it was evidently intended to wangle the Bill through without this particular clause; but in the end the cham- . pions of public rights in Parliament, one of .whom was Mr. Justice Lennox, then the representative for South Simcoe, and .another Mr. W. F. Maclean, member for .South York, sturdily opposed the passage ,of the Bill, until it was made perfectly clear that the Railway Act should apply to the Bell Telephone Company. The clause which was inserted at that time into the Bell Telephone Company Act is as follows:
Chapter 61, Acts of 1906:
This Act and the Bell Telephone Company of Canada shall be subject to the provisions of the Railway Act 3 903, and amendments thereto,
1954	'
Here we have this well studied and deliberately determined upon precedent, that the rights of the public are to be considered and that vested rights cannot prevail against them. That is the principle that I ask the Committee to-day to re-adopt.
Taking the particular case in which we are interested to-day, it is that of the To-ronto-Niagara Power Company which came to Parliament in 1902 and obtained corporate powers which were conceded by its advocates before the special committee on the Railway Bill, and which in fact, it is not disputed, are very generous and very ample. Those powers are very wide powers, largely no doubt owing to the fact that the people who obtained this Act were pioneers in the transmission of electric energy from Niagara Falls, and it was not then manifest what their attitude towards the public might be. The very fact that such full, generous, and ample powers were granted under this charter should make us, it seems to me, all the more careful that the rights of this company should be confined and restricted to the statute which was then passed, and which should not be departed from
If they got so much sweet out of the bargain, they must take what they consider is the sour part, for that is the only way in which justice can be done. I argue that the Act was the result of a distinct and special legislative bargain. Legislative bargains between Parliament and the promoters of a (Bill have always been noticed by the courts. /In fact, in this very Bell Telephone case that I have spoken of, reported in 1905 Appeal Cases, it will be seen that Lord Mac-nachten in discussing the Bill mentions the fact that the legislation was alleged to have been of the nature of a bargain; the Telephone Company asked for something, and conceded something, in order to get what is asked for; but he finds that there was not sufficient evidence of that to allow him to decide the point. Apparently he is quite of the opinion1-I only quote this as one of many cases-that if a legislative bargain was made plain to the court, the *court would not enforce any law which was abhorrent to that bargain.
I assert that this special Act was passed on the express understanding-more than that, on the express undertaking of the promoters-that the Railway Act of 1899- which gave very special privileges of control to municipalities-should be incorporated in it. Let me for a moment direct the attention of the Committee to section 21 of

the Company's Act, which provides that section 90 and sections 136 to 169, and so on, of the Railway Act are to apply to the company and its undertakings, "in so far as the said sections are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, and subject to the following: Wherever in the said Sections of the Railway Act the word 'company' occurs, it shall mean the power company hereby incorporated."
I emphasize that because of the reason that since this slip in the draftmanship which I mentioned, it has been held that the clauses which were referred to related only to railway companies, and not to a power company such as this, although it is quite clear here that Parliament said expressly that "power company" was what it meant when it provided that the clauses ol the 1899 Railway Act should apply and control and restrict this particular company.
What were the clauses of 'the Act of 1899 which were at the time incorporated in this clear language? They were very much as you find them in section 373 of this Bill which is before you as applicable to telephone companies, and rather than repeat them in section 374-the clause we are now considering-the draftsman in subsection 3 refers to section 373. And that was the reason for not setting out in the particular .Act of 1902 all the clauses of 'the Railway Act which were meant. to apply, it being more convenient to refer to 'the clauses.
When this company got its charter it got two things: a restriction in fevour of the municipalities as to control of their streets, and also another thing that vastly outweighed that in importance, namely, the power 'to expropriate property. That was a very important clause, and I wonder if, when it is contended here that the Railway Act of 1899, incorporated by this clause 21, is gone by reason of bad draftsmanship as regards the restrictive rights of the municipalities, it will be conceded that the expropriation rights of the company are also gone. I do not think so. You will find that a -company of this kind will fight to retain what is advantageous in its Aot, and it will fight to exclude everything that it thinks is disadvantageous.
One would imagine that the fairest way of dealing with the whole thing would be to cut out the expropriation clauses granted by this particular charter, -as it has been decided by the highest -court that bad draftsmanship has eliminated the restrictive clauses. If they are to be relieved of the restrictions they ought to give up the benefits. But, of course, we cannot, expect the

company to do so, and it would not bo business policy on their part.
Supposing clauses 136 to 169 inclusive had been -actually set out, that would have taken up several page-s of the statute book, and have made the charter very long. Therefore, it was generally felt at the time that it would be perfectly adequate for the purpose that the sections themselves should be simply referred to instead of being set out in extenso. I notice that in 1901-and I must give these things because 1 want ito be absolutely fair-the Ottawa and Hull Power Company was incorporated, and there the very same language was used, namely, that:
Section 90 of the Railway Act shall apply to the company, but no other provisions of the said Act shall apply thereto.
That is to say, they should have no expropriation rights such -as this Niagara Power Company got. In the same year the St. Lawrence Power -Company was incorporated, and the clause of the Railway Act was actually copied into the Special Act. If that had been done in this case we would not be here -at all discussing this matter. But simply because of the peculiar algebraic way in which the legislation was affected by reference to an Act which was afterwards repealed, it has been held that with the repeal of the Act-inadvertently, as I say-the whole restriction is gone.
I now come to the point as to whether there was a legislative bargain. In 1902 two members of the House of Commons, who were either specially deputed by the municipalities or were so of their own choice, were the champions of public rights. One of these was Edward F. Clarke, one of the members for Toronto, a man with whom I had the closest intimacy and business associations, because when he w.a.s mayor of Toronto-and a better mayor Toronto never had-I happened to be one of the city solicitors and it was my privilege to meet Mr Clarke many and many a time.
[DOT] 1 was impressed with the extraordinary Interest and zeal that- he showed in connection with one piece of legislation after another in favour of the rights of municipalities. He was the champion; he was the man who saw where some power cbuld come in and destroy the well-earned or well bought liberties of municipalities. Mr. Clarke was associated with Mr. E. B. Osier, now -Sir Edmund Osier, who was a little bit alarmed about section 90 when this Act went through; it was not his idea that section 90 should be mentioned as being included in

the Act. But Mr. Clarke said: Will it do any harm to set out in this charter exactly what the restrictive powers are in favour of the city engineer or the city or town council? But the very persons who insisted that this reference to the Railway Act was sufficient were the promoters of the Act; that is the important point to be kept in mind. It was not the clause of 'the municipalities; it was the clause of the promoters of this Act. Mr. Pringle, then the member for Stormont, who was in charge of the Bill and handled it with a great deal of ability, pointed out that the clause of the Railway Act was all-sufficient; that there was no necessity for spreading it out on the statute. Mr. Osier said, column 3629 of Hansard, 1902:
Would it do any harm to put in this simple clause stating that this charter shall he subject to all Acts that may be passed by this House referring to electrical companies of this kind?
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Sutherland) : There can be no doubt that it is.
Mr. Osier: ... If it is in the clause already, why not insert this and make it without any doubt?
Then Mr. M. K. Cowan, who was chairman of the special committee which considered this Bill, said:
When, this committee goes to erect poles or wires across the streets of Toronto it can only do so with the consent of the Municipal Council of that city, or of other municipalities in which it operates.
It is clear, therefore, that two members of 'the House, who were willing 'to take the word of lawyers in the committee-eminent counsel in charge of the Bill, and ministers of the Crown-thought that that was fair ground for letting 'the thing go through as it was. But in addition to that, Mr. Pringle after some discussion and some objections by Mr. Clarke, goes on to say, at column 3634:
Will the hon. gentleman allow me to put a question to him? The question I wish to put is: How this section 90 of the Railway Act, as amended in 1899, affects this question?
The amendment is as follows:
"When any company has power by any Act of Parliament to construct and maintain lines of telegraph or telephone or lines for the conveyance of light, heat, power or electricity, such company may with the consent of the municipal council or other authority having jurisdiction over any highway, square or other public place, enter thereon," etc.
I rather gather, from what the hon. gentleman says, that the section of the Act does not mean what it purports. Well, I understand that it means just what it expresses:	All
companies have to obtain consent of a municipality before passing through it. And I want
to ask, what is the effect on this question of section 90 of the Railway Act, as amended in 1899 ?
So that this section of the Act of 1899, which, we say, contained safeguards of the rights of the public, was put in there at the instance of the very company which is now seeking to destroy it by reason of a chance interpretation of the statute by the courts. But Parliament is above all courts. Parliament may express itself in a way to which the courts may seem inadequate, obscure, or in some other way objectionable, If so, all the courts have to do is direct attention to the matter. But to say that the Parlia-men of Canada should be subject to the opinions of the courts is, to my mind, absurd; we are the law-makers here, and all the courts have to do is to interpret the laws that we make. If, as a matter of law, the courts say that we have not said what we meant to say, or that we have left out something that should have been put in, we are willing to remedy the matter. But I utterly repudiate the suggestion that our action as law-makers is to be controlled by the courts. So that on the whole we have here a distinct legislative bargain. This Bill went through despite the objections of these two champions of the rights of the public, because they were assured that section 90 of the Railway Act applied. And everybody thought that it did apply-the promoters of the Act more than anybody else, because it was they who fathered the clause.
Inis company, under section 12 of its Act, have the right to distribute electricity, to become a merchant in that commodity to sell it to users of electricity, and they had also the right to shove their trunk lines through municipalities without distributing electricity to the people of those municipalities. They had these two rights and they never for a moment objected to the restrictive powers that were inserted in the statute of 1902.
Then comes along the revision of 1*03, repealing the Act of 1899. I may inform the laymen of the House, who may, perhaps, not he aware of it-I speak, of course, with reference to lawyers, because they knojv all about it-that the law is this: There is in every volume of revised or consolidated statutes a clause which says that the provisions of the repealed Act shall he carried on into the revised Act unless the contrary is expressed. Our last revision of the statutes was in 1906, and the way it is expressed in the interpretation clause of the revised statutes of Canada, 1906, section 1, is as follows:-

Whenever any Act is repealed or other provisions are substituted by way of consolidation, any reference in any unrepealed Act-
That is, this charter.
-to such repealed Act-
That is, the Railway Act of 1899.
*-as regards any subsequent transaction shalll be held and construed to a reference to the provisions of the substituted Act relating to the same subject matter as such repealed Act.
That is plain enough, is it not? One would have thought that when the Court of Appeal of Ontario-the Appellate Division, composed of five judges: Chief Justice Moss, Mr. Justice Garrow, Mr. Justice Magee, Mr. Justice Meredith, and Mr. Justice McLaren-held that it was plain enough that the revised statute did apply, the case would go no further; but it did. It went to the Privy Council, and it is because of the decision of the Privy Council, which wras the luckiest decision any litigant ever got in this world, that this aggregation of companies now comes here and puts their case in this way, as it seems to me: We got a statute in 1902 which said that we must get the consent of municipalities before we could put down our poles; we accepted that interpretation until 1911, and then we began litigation as the only thing to do; the little town of North Toronto, some four miles north of Toronto, objected to our running transmission lines along certain streets, and started to cut down our poles; we commenced litigation and we won twice; we got a decision in our favour, which now gives us vested rights.
I shall have to detain the Committee for a moment while we see what there is in that contention. When this aggregation of companies say that they have vested rights by the decision of the highest court in the realm, one would naturally suppose that that meant that both parties had come before the highest court of the realm and put the merits of their respective cases before that court. You would naturally suppose that that was the case; that by the decision of the highest court of the realm the case of one of the parties was declared to be predominant upon its merits and upon the law. But was that the case? Very far from it; in fact, it is just the contrary. What this aggregation of companies won in the Privy Council decision was nothing more than a judicial decision on statutes and words used by our law clerk; that is all. It was alleged that it was highly important that this company, which was a pioneer in the transmission of Niagara

power to the municipalities of Ontario, should not be impeded by having to ask the consent of municipalities through which they wanted to bring their lines, because some municipality, some miserable township it might be, might hold the company-up by refusing to give consent, and the enterprise would be ruined. That was put before the Privy Council. On the other hand, the case of the municipalities was put before the Privy Council, to the effect that it was more important in the interests of this Dominion that municipalities should have the right to make mistakes if they wanted to and refuse, if they desired, consent to this power company going through their territory. They might be very foolish and very backward in doing that, but they had the right to refuse consent, and the right to make that mistake, if mistake it was. What does the Privy Council say on these two contrary placings of the merits of the case before them. It says this (page 840):
Lord Haldane: If the powers conferred by this section (section 90) displaced the less restricted powers of entering- without any consent conferred toy the Act of Incorporation, the appellants (the power company) are in the wrong.
Your lordships have, therefore, to determine this question. They have to hear in mind that a court of justice is not entitled to speculate as to which" of two conflicting policies was intended to prevail, but must confine itself to the construction of the language of the relevant statutes read as a whole.
So that utterly precludes this aggregation of power companies from now saying that the decision of the Privy Council is in favour of their case on its merits. Because the Privy Council distinctly say: "We will not decide that; we will simply decide on the statutes." Any layman can see what an exceedingly narrow decision it was, and how it might just as well have been the other way. As it happened, the decision after running along the top of the fence, turned over to the corporate side. The decision was simply this. Their lordships said that while in this charter the Railway Act of 1899 is to apply, and where-ever the word "company" occurs in the Railway Act it shall mean the power company, yet that Act was repealed, so there was nothing for them to do but to look to the Act of 1903 which repealed it, and that Act of 1903, unfortunately, defined "company" not as a power company, but as a railway company. That is the whole basis of the decision of the Privy Council, and is the result of ineffective legislation of ours here in this House, and of our law clerk not being alert to save the rights given

Parliament. The precautions we took to say that "company" meant power company are wasted, because the Railway Act of 1903 the Consolidating Act, says that "company" means only railway company. Therefore, as this power company is not a railway company it is free of the restrictions we imposed in 1902.
So it seems to me obvious that we must go back and place ourselves in the position of our predecessors in 1902, who meant to do a certain thing, who were commissioned by the public to protect their rights, and who did protect their rights by certain legislation. We should have no hesitation whatever, no matter what vested rights have occurred, in going back and doing what was done in 1902, and doing what was done by this House in 1917. Personally, I very much doubt whether there are any very great vested interests which would be affected. How can any interests be affected by a change in. this section simply making effective the legislation of 1902? This corporation got its charter in 1902, and we never heard a word of this dispute until 1911. They agreed right up to that time that they had to get the consent of the municipality, and not only the consent, but a lot of other things set out in the statute of 1899. Older members of the House may . Temember how in the old days the Montreal Telegraph Company and the Dominion Telegraph Company, now consolidated, and the Bell Telephone Company, could put their poles through any town and do almost anything that they liked. There was absolutely no power to restrict them except that in one case they were obliged (to paint the poles. But that is a small thing. We all remember that particularly in one of the best streets in the city they erected poles with wires on them which were so low t-hat a man on top of a team load of hay could not pass under them. They would put up double lines of poles on one Street and would so construct the poles that the firemen could not get their ladders from the street to a burning building, and in many other ways they became a menace to the life of the public. From the time that the first power company was incorporated by this Parliament in 1895, twenty-four years ago, there constantly grew a feeling on the part of Parliament that the rights of municipalities were supreme. So that in all legislation following that, and in the Railway Act, it is provided that they must consult the municipalities, and traffic must not be obstructed. Wires must- be of a certain height
and poles must be perpendicular. In addition, there must be the right to cut down poles and wires in case of fire without any obligation to pay compensation, and trees must not be injured. My hon. friend from Gaspe told us in the Committee that one of the companies went into his place and cut down a beautiful tree and there was no recourse against them. I hope the hon. member will bear that in mind when he comes to vote on the amendment. It was also provided that the work on any street or square should be done under the city engineer, and that the workmen should wear badges and not go into private houses * without authority, and that temporary removal of wires and poles should be made if necessary. Twelve sub-clauses protecting'the rights of the municipalities are now absolutely swept away by this Senate amendment unless it is rejected by this House. I do not think that the cry of vested rights should swerve us from our duty in respect of this amendment. In 1902 the company got the power to go anywhere in Canada and issue bonds. They are now in Ontario, but the franchise is so valuable that if they win here we may expect them in the near future to be in every province where there is any waterpower at all. As I say, they got the power to go into any province and issue bonds to the extent of $1,500,000, and they did. In 1903, after they were incorporated by this charter, they sold out to another company, the Electrical Development Company, situate at Niagara Falls. That company took all their bonds of $1,500,000. So that so far as this company goes, its bonds are not affected because they are not in the stock markets. They -claim that that does not matter so long as they are linked up with some other company. However, the Electrical Company got their bonds -and was able to use the transmission company. They worked together, and afterwards there (was a company formed, another company which held no physical assets. They had no property, but held all the stock of the Electrical Company, the Toronto Niagara Power Company, and, I think, the Toronto Electric Light Company. This combination was called the Toronto Power Company. The Toronto Power Company in 1911 issued a mortgage on all the assets of all the companies of naminally $25,000,000, of which they issued $18,000,000. But before this question of the rights of municipalities and their intervention had come up at all, the aggregation of these power companies had issued bonds to the

extent of $7,800,000, or nearly half the whole amount of bonds issued. One would say that if they had issued, in round numbers, $8,000,000 of bonds on this charter, which everyone believed gave the municipalities their rights, they could not have got very much more after they got a decision of the Privy Council in 1912. They now say: We have certain rivals. There is a semi-public utility in Ontario called the Hydro-Electric Company, and they have become our rivals, and this question of consent means a great deal more than it did then, for the municipalities may link up with the Hydro and may not give consent. But that could not have occurred in 1911 when they issued these 'bonds. When a company wants to sell its bonds it employs a well-read, expert *counsel, a lawyer who is accustomed to commercial law. Without his opinion that under the statutes fhe basis of the bonds is good, they cannot possibly enter the stock market. But, suppose they asked Mr. Lash or any other good corporate lawyer for an opinion as to their bonds preparatory to going into the .stock market, what would Mr. Lasfh have found? He would have found, if it was previous to 1912, when they got this decision as to bad draftmanship, that the very charter under which they were acting incorporated the Railway het, which said that they had to get the consent of the municipalities. So that the public, who only look to the opinion of eminent counsel, would have only that information, and would have the right to say: "We gave you that charter only on condition that the municipalities had rights." But the answer is made: What does the public know about what occurred in Hansard and what Mr. 'Clark bargained for, or what Mr. Osier and Mr. Pringle said? They do not read Hansard and do not know anything about it. Well, the public may not read Hansard, but Mr. Lash knew all about the matter, 'because he and his friends had it put forward in Parliament, providing that the municipalities should have power to consent. Mr. Lash must therefore have known about it. Anyway, there it stares counsel in the face. He will argue: If I advise them to sell bonds on the assurance that they are good I am doing so knowing that they must get the consent of the municipalities. They say, that was very well up to 1912, 'but after 1912 conditions differed altogether. The Privy Council, the 'highest court in the land, decided in our favour. They do not tell the public that the decision of the Privy Council is 
based on mere words and not on merits. ,They say that alters the case. But does [DOT] any expert counsel in Ontario or Montreal to whom they went not know that you cannot find out a gross error in legislation like this as a result of getting a decision of the Privy Council and have it rest at that and the whole thing put to sleep? No. The municipalities at once become alert, and every practical man knows that the fight only begins with the Privy Council's decision. They must have known and it was not contradicted, that the very next year, after 1912, the city council of Toronto through Mr. Geary sent down a memorandum.calling for this very amendment, or one in practically the same terms. So the question has ,been before Parliament since the session .of 1913. Every corporation lawyer and .every bondholder must have known that this was a matter of most acute controversy and that it was not going to be allowed to pass simply because Parliament had been defeated of its will by reason of the inefficiency of a law clerk. Therefore, I do not think they are entitled to use that .word " vested rights " with the unction with which they attempt to use it. I admit that there is a strong argument that no one wants to interfere with vested rights, because, in the first place, we are a borrowing nation and if we announce that we are going to interfere with vested rights it' will interfere with our credit, a thing which we do not desire and we want to do the honest thing; we do not want to interfere with rights that have once been given. But vested rights mean rights that have been earned and interference with vested rights means legislation passed for an improper and dishonest purpose. If it is legislation passed only to right a wrong which has been inadvertently done, there is no interference with vested rights. In the Committee we-particularly the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Tweedie) -endeavoured to find out-what it ought to have been very easy to find out-where these bonds went. We had general statements made to the effect that they went ;c France, America, Britain and Canada. I venture to say that most of them were sold in Canada and that the persons who bought them were the same crowd that is in these amalgamated companies. I may be mistaken as to that but I have as anuoh right to suppose and to suggest that as they have to assert the other thing because they did not show where the bonds had gone which they could very easily have done as the records would disclose it.

We had the benefit of the views of ail eminent counsel from the city of New York.
It was a great pleasure to hear him because he is not only a charming speaker but lie is a very clever and highly intellectual man. That was Mr. James Beck and Mr. Beck said that he represented some bond company in the state of Wisconsin but he did not say the amount of bonds that they owned, nor did he say who they were. We were without definite information as to whether any body was fooled or misled in parting with his money by reason of this fortuitous end to the litigation in the Privy Council. I am inclined to think that that is not the real trouble but that is the best argument to use with the ordinary member of Parliament. Every one of us hesitates to vote for anything that interferes with vested rights and a great deal has been said in the las't year or two- about doing anything that will interfere with the credit of Canada. This eminent counsel from New York undertook vo give us a lesson ;n commercial and legislative honesty. While he could give us lectures on commercial ethics, he confined his remarks to the bondholders and utterly ignored a discussion of what would be thought in his country of * making a definite legislative bargain and then trying to repudiate it the moment they saw a little law in their favour. He confined his remarks absolutely to the poor, belated bondholders but if you are going to drag in the morality of the case then I say that it ill becomes any company or amalgamation . of interlocking companies, to charge interference with vested rights or legislative immorality when they themselves are actually undertaking to sell to the public a security which they know is not the one that they got from Parliament because the clause which was put in was put in to protect a certain interest and put in at its behest.
Now, we must answer the great question: "What is the most important thing for us legislators to do under the circumstances? Is this a case which will hurt vested interests and interfere with the credit of Canada? Is'it more important to say: " Walk slowly and safely; it is far better to let it go rather than to have it said in other countries that we had changed our legislation?" Is that to be our sole object, or is it more important to try to protect certain rights and interests? Twenty-five years ago a well-defined movement took place in this country and was brought to the attention of this Parliament. Public opinion demanded an assurance that groups of capitalists and exploiters would be prevented from using the streets of municipalities without the consent of those municipalities. Parliament gave that assurance. Are we now to say that we will break faith with the people in every little municipality in the country who have no time to come down to Parliament to present their case, because it is alleged by this corporation that they have a decision from the Privy Council in their favour, that this is the highest court in the land, and that therefore we must accept the situation? Does any member suppose that when he goes back to his little town, he is going to be able to make an argument of that kind to the people on the streets? His constituents would say to him: Are you going, by legislation, to do a thing of that kind; are you going to set up any such man of straw as that and to say that, because your law clerk misdrew your enactment you have not the power to re-enact it in order to carry out what we sent you to Parliament to do? That must be so. That is not- only the argument that will be heard in Ontario, where these industries are being carried on, but that is the argument in every province in this Dominion. We made a distinct bargain with our people. You have on the one side the public unprotected except by more or less insignificant associations on the one side, you have the monetary interests on the other side, which is disadvantageous to the public interest. It is for us to say what we are going to do. Is it more important to break the bargain which we are said to have made, or to try and amend the bargain which we really made with these corporate interests? To me the question has but one answer, and it is that we must act as the representatives of the public, not as the representatives of the corporate interests, re-enact what we did in 1902, and put this matter really in the same position that it was in when it left this House in 1917.
Now, I come to the amendment. Referring to the present clause as adopted by the Senate, subsection 5, it is apparent that the Senate has brought in a cleverly drawn provision. Subsection 5 says:
Any specific powers inconsistent with the provisions of this section-
With subsections 1, 2, 3, and 4 to which the muneipalibies agree:
-and conferred on any company-
That is the Toronto Niagara Power Company.
-by any special-
!082

That is their charter or authority as interpreted by the Privy Council.
[DOT]-by any special or other Act or authority of the Parliament of Canada or of any province shall not be affected by the provisions of this section,-
That is cut out as regards the Toronto Niagara Power Company. But here they have a sort of parenthesis and they pretend to give the municipalities some rights. They say:
-but if any municipality complain to the Board-
That is the Railway Board.
-that any company-
That is this company.
-whether incorporated by special or other Act or authority of the Parliament of Canada is exercising its powers oppressively or in bad faith the Board1 may hear such complaint, and if it sees fit supervise the exercise of such powers.
Now it is perfectly obvious that these words " oppressively, or in bad faith " seem to give some rights to the municipality. In reality they do not give one particle of right, because the mere fact of putting a pole on a street, or putting it on both sides of the street, or putting it at a certain height, is something that is not done oppressively, and is certainly not done in bad faith. It is done in pursuance of the rights conferred by the charter, and such a thing could not possibly be said to be done in bad faith or oppressively. Therefore, if a particular municipality claims that the poles are crooked, or that they are so low as to interfere with firemen getting to a fire, that the poles were not painted, that they were not put down on a proper foundation and might fall, or that they were put down without the previous consent of the municipality's engineer-if any of these things are said and the municipality goes to the Railway Board with the request " We want an appeal from this ?" the Railway Board would say, first of all, " You. have got to show that these things were done oppressively or in bad faith." The municipality could not do so, because there would be no oppression and there would be no bad faith, and so these words amount to nothing, and should be cut out. They seem to be in favour of the municipalities, and I dare say the hope was entertained that municipalities that were not alert might accept them; but municipalities that are alert will not accept something that means nothing. Therefore we want these words out.
I move:

To amend clause 374 by striking out subclause 5 thereof and replacing same by the following:
" (5) The provisions of the last preceding sub-section shall apply to and restrict the powers of any company heretofore incorporated by Special Act, or other authority of the Parliament of Canada, notwithstanding that such provisions may he inconsistent with the-provisions of such Special Act or other authority, and notwithstanding the provisions of Section three of this Act.
(6) If any company heretofore incorporated by Special Act or other authority of the Parliament of Canada has acquired, or shall acquire assets or any part thereof, or the right to the possession or use of the assets or any part thereof, of any company or person operating a system for the distribution of light, heat, power or electricity, in any town, city, village, or township, then in every such case the company so acquiring such assets shall carry out with the municipality all the obligations, in respect to the said assets whether arising under contract or in any other manner, of the company from which the said assets have been or shall be acquired."
The municipalities do not wish to give up any right they now have. That is natural, and the law since 1903 is that while a trunk line can be shoved through a municipality in the case of a transmission line, application must first of all be made for the municipality's consent, and if that consent is withheld the company can go to the Railway Board. But if this power company wants to sell electricity they cannot do it at all without the consent of the city or town, and there is no appeal to the Railway Board. We want to retain, and adhere to, the rights we have had since 1903. Let it be remembered, however, that the rights we had in 1902, under This charter, were that there was no appeal to the Railway Board at all either in case of power transmission or power selling by the company. In 1903 the Railway Act was passed, and now if the company wants the right to go into any municipality, and if the local authorities will not consent, there is the right of appeal to the Board; but so far as selling electricity in a municipality is concerned, we still want the right to say no. That is a right which we have enjoyed all these years. For the reasons which I have given-and I have taken too much time in my statement, not knowing we were going to have a temperature of ninety-four in the shade when I prepared my memoranda on the subject-
I leave the matter to the decision of the committee, hoping that they will rule in favour of the municipalities.


Mr. STEVENS:: I have listened to the lengthy statement of the hon. gentleman with a feeling of appreciation for the tre-

mendous amount of labour that he must have undergone in preparing his lengthy and technical argument on this subject. 1 feel somewhat modest in daring to raise my voice on the subject at all, in view of the oft-repeated references to "the simplicity of the average layman.'' Fortunately, or unfortunately, I do not happen to be a lawyer, and therefore I suppose, as a "layman" I am to be regarded as totally incapacitated from contributing anything to the discussion of this matter. However, as one who has followed the development of this question during the last two or three months with a great deal of interest and detailed attention, I wish briefly
5 p.m. to state my views in regard to it and my reasons for casting my vote in the way I intend to do when the time comes.
At the outset I desire to resent, and resent very strongly, the inference that any one who ventures to,differ from a gentleman who is advocating what he chooses to call public rights is thereby a special pleader for moneyed interests and corporations. We have heard altogether too much of that sort of argument. As far as I am concerned my record is very clear along those lines; but there is an element of fair dealing and of common sense in all questions, and I claim the right to express my opinions without being subjected to such an aspersion. What we are asked to do is to introduce into a general Act which might be termed the most important civil statute we have on the statute books of Canada, the Railway Act, applying to all railways and to all telephone and telegraph companies, a special provision to deal with an alleged improvident power given to a company some fifteen years ago, thus enabling us' by special language introduced into the general Act to remedy what is alleged to be a wrong.


Mr. FRIPP:: Will the hon. gentleman
kindly summarize for the benefit of those of us who were not able to be present at the sittings of the special committee just what the points in dispute are between the city of Toronto and the power company?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend has followed the argument-


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I could not follow the argument of the hon. member for Parkdale, and I have not yet learned what is the crucial point in dispute.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was my intention to keep away from private disputes and not to be led into a discussion of them. The
dispute in this case is between the city of Toronto and the Toronto, Niagara Power Company, and allied companies. The point I wish to make is that this Parliament is not concerned with a private dispute. It is now making a law which is applicable to all railway, power, telephone and telegraph companies, and therefore-


Mr. TWEEDIE:: I must be permitted to take exception to that statement right from the start. This is not a dispute between the city of Toronto-


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for Vancouver has the floor and cannot be interrupted except with his consent,


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was saying that I was not going to discuss the question of any private rights, or any private disputes. I was going on to state that we are now passing legislation dealing with all companies of the character mentioned. Now we are asked-I am sure the laboured arguments of my hon. friend from Parkdale will permit me at least to make this reference without interruption-to introduce a provision to remedy an alleged wrong perpetrated in the Act of the Toronto, Niagara Power Company. What are the facts, as far as the framing of the Act we are now dealing with is concerned? The facts are that the disputed case was carried through the courts, the proper place to deal with it. It was dealt with in the court of Chancellor Boyd, who gave a certain decision which I am not going to discuss. On appeal to the Ontario Appellate Court that decision was reversed. An appeal was then taken to the Privy Council, which sustained the ruling of the trial judge. As far as I am concerned I take this stand on the merits of the case: the judgment of the trial judge and the Privy Council is sufficient for me.
The next point I wish to make is that for the past two months at least a special committee of this House sat and heard hour after hour and day after day an exhaustive discussion by the most learned counsel in Canada on behalf of both sides in relation to this case. After hearing them at great length the Committee came to a given decision which decision is contained in the reported Bill at present upon the table of the House. Now, Mr. Chairman, the question is brought up in this Committee-and I admit, it is perfectly proper to do so,- and we are asked to go through that whole process again of arguing this particular point.

If it is the intention of this Parliament to review powers given years ago in a special Act, it ought to be done only after an expert investigation has been held. Then, with the report following such expert investigation in the hands of the members, we should deal with the Aict that it is alleged gave these improvident powers. I wish particularly to emphasize that point. I will repeat it in a slightly different form. If an improvident power was given to the Toronto and Niagara Power Company, and if by virtue of that power they are interfering with municipal rights wrongfully or oppressively or contrary to public interest, - then I claim, Sir, that the way to remedy the evil is by special Act of Parliament limiting or amending or changng or restricting such power. I think I am on sound and safe ground when I make that statement. I do not think it is wise to attempt to deal with the matter as is proposed by the amendment.
The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) used an illustration as an argument for sustaining his process. He argued at great length that the Bell Telephone case is analogous to this case. But I would suggest to him, Mr. Chairman, that the Act of the Bell Telephone Company was a private Act, it was an amendment to their original statute, and that is exactly what I am asking this Committee to consider at this moment. The hon. member for Parkdale has provided me with the strongest possible argument for the position I am assuming, namely, that it should be by an amendment to the powers contained in the original charter of the company itself, and not in the general Act. And if the procedure regarding the Bell Telephone Company is worthy of the consideration that my hon. friend suggests then we must inevitably come to the conclusion that it is the proper procedure to follow in this case.
I suggest, Sir, and hold that it is a bad precedent to establish to redress an alleged wrong in a special private Act by amending a general Act. My hon. friend suggests that we are granting enlarged powers to the company. We.&re not doing anything of the kind and that ought to be made perfectly clear to the minds of hon. gentlemen Who had not the privilege of sitting on the Special Committee. We are dealing with all companies in a general way in a general Act; which disposes of that argument at once.
Another point my hon. friend laid emphasis on was that the Senate had amended the Bill we had sent to them. I would re-

mind him that this is a new Bill entirely. True, a similar Bill was before the House in 1917; but that has no relation whatever to this particular Bill. This is the Bill we are dealing with, and we are dealing with it on its merits.
The amendment of my hon. hon. friend reads in this wTay:
The provisions of the last preceding subsection shall apply to and restrict the powers of any company heretofore incorporated by Special Act or other authority of the Parliament of Canada, notwithstanding that such provisions may he inconsistent with the provisions of such Special Act or other authority,
And further, and I wish the Committee to particularly mark this point-
-and notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of this Act.


Mr. NESBITT:: Bead section 4 in connection with it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Section 3 of this general Act-which we have already adopted, by the way-is in this form:
where the provision's of this Act and of any Special Act passed by the Parliament of Canada relate to the same subject-matter the provisions of the Special Act shall, in so far as is necessary to give effect to such Special Act, be taken to over-ride the provisions of this Act.
We are asked to introduce into the Bill another clause which says that notwithstanding that clause we shall disregard the powers given in the special Act. In other words, iii one clause we assert a certain principle, and in another clause we reverse that principle. I submit that that is a very unwise proceeding.
It should also be borne in mind that we do not know what other Acts will be affected. We say in this proffered amendment that it shall apply to all special Acts. During the past fifty years, or since Confederation, hundreds of bona fide Acts have been passed granting powers to telephone companies, electric power companies, telegraph companies, and such like, and yet this committee is asked-and I wish the committee to give this special consideration -to adopt a clause which will disregard all the powers given to private companies up to the present time. And we are asked to disregard them without knowing what powers we are disregarding. I submit that if we are to be consistent at all, if we are-going to amend powers given in private Acts, we ought to have at least some knowledge of the Acts we are amending and the-powers we are restricting.
I have not the statutes before me, but I will illustrate the point by referring to it

couple of companies that I am familiar with. We have in the city of Vancouver a harbour commission incorporated by a special Act of this Parliament. That Act gives to the commission power to bring electricity into the city of Vancouver for the service of power to the harbour, and in the near future the commission are expecting to exercise that power. Now we are asking that that commission shall not have the Tight to exercise that power, although it was given to them in perfect good faith six years ago. In other words, we are asked to take away or amend or restrict that power as given by the special Act. Then I refer to two large companies we have in British Columbia carrying on street railway and electric power enterprises. These two companies are incorporated by special Acts of Parliament. I do not know of any complaint that they have exercised their powers unwisely, unjustly or without due consideration of public rights. As far as I am aware, except for a few local disputes which must necessarily occur, the Western Canada Power Company and the British Columbia Electric Railway Company are both acting in a fairly harmonious manner with the municipalities which they serve, and yet we are asking this Parliament to restrict the powers given to those companies so that they will be subject absolutely to the municipalities.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: What powers will be restricted?


Henry Herbert Stevens: As I said a moment ago, I cannot cite the powers. I am merely giving the case of these two companies, of which I have personal knowledge; there must be seventy-five or a hundred other such companies in Canada. Without examining the charters of these companies, should we unreasonably and unduly restrict any powers they may have?


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Can my hon. friend name one single provision in the charter of the Western Canada Power Company, or of the British Columbia Electric Railway Company, which will be restricted by this proposed amendment?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In his question, my hon. friend provides the answer. The House is not cognizant at this time of what powers these many companies have; nor can they be without examining each charter-which I am sure I do not propose to do, and I am sure members of the committee do not propose to do.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Can my hon. friend name one single provision in the charters of these
companies which will be restricted or affected by this legislation?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot speak from memory in regard to any one. I did cite the case-had my hon. friend chosen to listen, he would have heard me mention it -of the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners, who are empowered to bring in and distribute power to their harbour works. As they have, for instance, reclaimed areas where they rent or lease lands for factory purposes, and so on, this right is a very important one. Under this amendment, the 'Vancouver Harbour Commissioners would be made absolutely subject to municipal control. I am not saying for a moment that the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners intend or desire to do anything against the interests of the municipalities. But my hon. friend is drawing me entirely away from the point which I wish to make. We are asked ignorantly to restrict-I will put it that way -the powers of private companies by this amendment. Such legislation I allege to be very wrong and very poor, and a danger-our precedent for us to set up in this House.
I wish very briefly to direct the attention of the Committee to that portion of the clause which we are asked to delete. The Committee must get this point into its mind: We are not, under the Bill as it stands, depriving Parliament of any power it may wish to exercise regarding the Toronto and Niagara Power Company. Any time we choose to do so, we can amend that charter; we can do anything we choose with it. We are asked to delete subsection f>
of section 374, the clause which protects the public in what I consider to be a very reasonable manner. It provides that if a company incorporated under the authority of Parliament exercises its powers oppressively or in bad faith, the Board of Railway Commissioners may hear any complaint in that regard and, if it sees fit, super vise the exercise of those powers. The member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) contended that in this clause we were using language which made it impossible to deal with the problem. He said that if a municipality went before the Railway Board, complained that this company was exercising its powers unreasonably and asked that its powers he restricted, the Board would insist upon some hair-splitting evidence or proof of oppressiveness. Now, the record of the Board of Railway Commissioners ever since its organization is before this country; it stands out as the one court in the land which ignores matters of hair-splitting evidence and the like. The

farmer, the worker, the private citizen may appear before the Boar.d and get a hearing as good as, if not preferable to, that which he could get before the highest council in the land. I have been before the Railway Board many times, and I know that they particularly care for the interests of municipalities. Municipalities which make representations to the Board receive the most courteous and sympathetic attention. That .is the record of the Board; that is what it is there for. It is not a court of law; it is a court of equity, a court created to protect the public interest, to administer this Act, and to see that its provisions are properly observed. What provision could be fairer than that if a company clothed with certain powers exercises them in any sense oppressively, the municipality-in fact, any person-may bring the matter before the Board of Railway Commissioners? The section provides that the Board may, if it sees fit, " supervise the exercise of such powers ". What does " supervise " mean? It means, direct exactly how a thing shall be done. Our legal friends who have such a profound contempt for the laymen of this House may advance technical arguments with regard to the meaning of words, but every experienced member of the House knows that the Railway Board acts fairly in these matters.
So that there are two points that I particularly wish to make:	First, it is bad
legislation to introduce into a general Act a remedy for an alleged wrong committed by a private company. If a case has been made and a remedy is required, that remedy should be provided by special Act and by amendment of the charter of the company. Second, I submit that the clause as it now stands affords adequate protection to municipalities, to private companies and to private citizens, by enabling this easy appeal to the Railway Board.
I resent the suggestion that any member who dares to raise his voice in opposition to a peculiar view held by our friends from Toronto on this question is derelict to his duty to the public. That is an imputation that should not be allowed to pass, because there are men in this House who are loyal and true to the interests of the public besides the hon. members who happen to sit for the great and holy city of Toronto.
For the reasons which I have stated, I propose to support the Bill as it comes from the special Committee appointed to consider this matter.

'Mr. W. D. EULER (Waterloo, North): Although I listened carefully to the address of the member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat), I could not entirely follow him; despite that fact, I am still in favour of the amendment. While the point taken by the member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) may have some value, it seems to me that in its nature it is more academic than practical. I cannot get past the fact that if this clause passes in its present form, the Toronto and Niagara Power Company will continue to have the power to invade the streets of any municipality in Canada-more particularly of any municipality in Ontario-without first obtaining thq consent of the people of that municipality.
I think the mere enunciation of that proposition condemns it. I think it is a monstrous thing that any private company, no matter how it obtained its privileges, should be allowed to erect its poles and string its wires and carry on its other activities on the streets of any municipality without the consent of that municipality having first been obtained. I do not concern myself particularly about the interpretation of the law under which this company is working. The contention is made that if this amendment is carried Parliament will be interfering with vested rights. Surely, if vested rights perpetuate an injustice, it is not to be suggested that Parliament should not legislate in order to remove that injustice. If a law has been passed in days gone by on any subject that does an injustice to any section of the people or to any person, surely it is within the right of this Parliament to enact legislation that will remedy that injustice. Even the interpretation of the law is debatable apparently. The Toronto and Niagara Power Company, as I understand it, received its original charter in 1902 and the debates of that session make it perfectly clear that it was the intention of Parliament that the company should not have the right to go on the streets of municipalities without the consent of those municipalities. The case came before Chancellor JSoyd and was decided in favour of the company. It was then carried to the Appeal Court of Ontario and was decided in favour of the municipalities. The Privy Council reversed that decision, and sustained the decision of Chancellor Boyd.
In passing, might I make this remark, which may not meet with the approval of the House? The President of the Privy Council has repeatedly stated in this House that Canada is now a nation. If that is the

case, I think the time has come when Canadian courts ought to give a final settlement of all disputes that arise in Canada, and cases should not have to be carried to the Privy Council overseas, no matter how fair their lordships may be. It seems to me that a Canadian court, being right on the spot, is in a better position to give a fair interpretation and a fair decision than any other court outside this country to which the case might be referred.
In this particular case, whatever the law may be, if the rights of the municipality are disregarded, this Parliament is the proper body to protect those rights. Toronto is merely a case in point, and 1 am very sorry to say that I believe there are members of this House who are prejudiced because they believe this is simply a case of the city of Toronto versus the Toronto and Niagara Power Company. I believe that unless this clause is amended the company will have the same rights with regard to the streets of any other municipality in the province of Ontario or in the Dominion that it now exercises in the city of Toronto. The company may have no intention of exercising those rights elsewhere, but it is not at all unlikely that it may do so. It may be that the company in the expansion of its business might see fit to go on the streets of Kitchener, Guelph, Stratford or any other municipality which now controls its own streets and has its own distributing system for Hydro-Electric power.


Mr. MOKPHY:: How do the municipalities of Ontario control their o-wn streets? I submit that they are controlled by the Hydro-Electric Commission.


Mr. EULER:: To some extent ihat is true. I am also of the opinion that the powers that are sometimes exercised by the HydroElectric Commission of Ontario are just a little greater than they ought to be, but that is by the way. Unless this clause is amended we shall be subtracting still further from the rights of the municipalities.
If as a result of this amendment being carried certain interests will be prejudiced and the bonds of innocent bondholders may depreciate, I do not think that is a sufficient reason why this Parliament should consent to perpetuate an injustice and a wrong, if the injustice and the wrong exist. While I believe it would be difficult to prove that any such depreciation would occur in the bonds that have been issued by this company, I would go so far as to say that if it can be shown that loss has
been sustained by reason of the fact that a previous Parliament did not properly protect the rights of the municipalities, it would become the duty of this Parliament to assess and. pay the damages incurred rather than perpetuate an injustice that will affect, so far as we know, all the municipalities of the whole Dominion for all timd to come.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT:: This question has improperly been regarded as one that concerns the municipality of Toronto alone. As I understand it, it is a question of vital importance to every municipality throughout the Dominion. While on some occasions I have been accused of standing inordinately for vested rights, I must say that on this occasion I have a perfectly clear conscience in standing for what I conceive to be the rights of the people with regard to municipal control of their streets as against any kind of company that can be chartered by- the Dominion Parliament. This is not a new question, and it is one that has been debated by business men as well as lawyers, but in very much shorter terms. It may be that I have not the understanding of the question that some of our legal friends have. I felt this afternoon as if I were being taken on a long route march, and nearly fell out by the way. I shall endeavour to say what I have to say within fifteen minutes. This company got very special rights which it was not the intention of Parliament, at the time it got them, it should receive. I may be wrong, but.I believe that it was not the intention of Parliament to allow the Toronto and Niagara Power Company to go wherever they liked in the city of Toronto or any other city in Ontario or the Dominion. Otherwise, a private company would have the right to travel all over this country regardless of the wishes of the people and trample upon property that this Bouse, and this Dominion-and I say this advisedly-does not own in the true sense of the term, because I look upon a municipal street as the absolute property of the municipality in which it exists. Municipal rights as against all comers are to be first considered.
Was that done in this case? Not at all. Ti ls company apparently was enabled to ride rough shod over the wishes of the city of Toronto or of any other municipality in which they chose to plant their wires and poles. Now, what we sometimes term vested rights are really, in the final analysis, vested wrongs, and I say that this is absolutely one of those. It is a vested

wrong; for it gave to a company, either wittingly or unwittingly, property which the giver did not own or control. That is my- point. I am trying to make it very clear that in my judgment the Dominion of Canada did not own those streets and had no right to trample upon the wishes of any municipality. The municipality laid out those streets and probably paid for them. It held the deeds of possession from some one giving it the authority to take those streets for .the uses of the municipality, and its uses alone. But it was not so much in this that the Parliament of Canada went astray, as it was to declare an Act to be for the general advantage of Canada while it was in reality an Act for the general disadvantage of the municipality concerned. That is what the Act did. It was an Act for the general disadvantage of the municipality and would have been better to characterize it in such terms than to say that it was for the general advantage of Canada. I know it will be asked in this House: How are you going to build railways if you do not allow them to expropriate the land through which they are going? Well, the railway when it expropriates land has to pay to the last farthing every one whom it ruins. I do not find that this power company did anything of the kind. They are on the streets and purpose to remain there absolutely forevermore against the wishes of the municipality. Not only are they on the streets at present occupied, but they propose to go on further streets and to expand indefinitely for all time to come. I cannot conceive of any Parliament ever contemplating giving such rights as this, to any private company. It has been said, it is true, that this objection has arisen simply because the HydroElectric Power Company is now in the field to distribute power. I do not think for a moment that that is the case. If I thought that that was the only thing at the back of it, I certainly would have nothing to do with it, though I am a hearty supporter of Hydro power. But I do not believe in giving supreme powers of this kind over streets or lanes or, for that matter, over highways in any municipality in the country. I think they should be obtained by proper authority, and in my conception of it, proper authority in this respect is not within the province of this House. Those who want _ to use the streets should go to the municipality that owns the deeds as against all comers, and where this House made the mistake was to declare that this Act was for the general advantage of Canada when, as I contend, it was dis-
tinctly to the general disadvantage of every municipality into which this or any otheT company might , go.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Would the hon. member modify his remarks in regard to transmission?


William Foster Cockshutt: Transmission of electric power? I would not be disposed to give to the Hydro-Electric Power Company of Ontario any rights against the wishes of the municipality that I would not give to another private company.


John Hampden Burnham: I understand the hon. member to say that he would make the municipality supreme How about transmission? Does he modify his remarks in regard to transmission?
Mr. COCKSHUTT. A transmission line, according to my judgment, would be allowed to go through by every reasonable municipality, but only on such streets as they felt they could afford to give for the purpose. Unfortunately for us in the city of Brantford, just as well as in Toronto, though we are a much smaller burg, we have a crying injustice with regard to telephone and telegraph transmission. We have a narrow public street like Siparks street in Ottawa, and the firemen complain that they cannot raise a ladder to fight any fires throughout the whole length of the street, because Parliament about fifty or sixty years ago, gave a private company powers which they should never have conveyed. A ladder cannot be raised now on Colborne street, Brantford, because the Great North Western Telegraph Company and the Bell Telephone Company, in spite of local remonstrances, continue to occupy the street with their poles and wires, to the detriment of the municipality. I say that when transmission is going through the city it should take only those streets that the municipality itself feels it can spare. And further, I would concede that only under limitations. A municipality to-day being a village of about 100 persons and consisting of a blacksmith shop, two or three general stores, a church or two, a hotel or some other institutions might be looking forward with hope to becoming a big city some time in the future. But suppose in the meantime they tell all comers that they are welcome. Suppose they say: Here is our street; take the best you can; help yourself to any part of the street you like. Well, in twenty-five or fifty years you might find that this little village had become a city of 25,000, 50,000 or 100,000 people. Will any one

contend that because a company got in there when there was a handful of people they should be given rights for all time upon what is really the property of the city? I cannot conceive of that. Whether this amendment of my hon. friend from Parkdale, which he had beclouded with considerable legal verbiage I do not comprehend, will accomplish all he wishes,
I do not know. But I am willing for once to place myself in the hands of a lawyer.
I do not like doing so and do it only under strong stress. But in this case I feel that having no better leadership than the hon. member for Parkdale, who has carefully drafted the amendment and assures me that he believes it will accomplish the purpose in view, I intend to vote for it. In my judgment, this House effected this purpose two years ago, and why should we take anything back? I cannot understand what inspired that special committee that they should have brought down what I conceive to be a stultification of the position we took in this House two years ago, that municipalities should be able to control their own streets, on which companies could go only by their leave, which will always be given in a reasonable way if it is to the advantage of the municipality that the company should be allowed to go there.


John Hampden Burnham: I was not on that
Committee, and I am merely anxious to get some information. The hon. member lays down the unqualified proposition that the municipalities are supreme, and then I understand him to modify his remarks in regard to transmission lines.


William Foster Cockshutt: I say that the municipality should have absolute control of its own streets, lanes and highways, and that only by their permission or under the regulations which they enact should companies be allowed to go ruthlessly through any city, town or village. In other words, they must confine themselves to what the municipality is pleased to give them, and not to be 'told by this House that it is to the general advantage of Canada that they should go where they like, consequently choosing the best street in the city, to the great detriment for all time, of every one who uses the street. I hope I make it clear to the hon. member that II do not believe the municipality would deny any reasonable requests. A few years ago I happened to be on the committee dealing with the question that arose when the Bell Telephone Company appealed to the Privy Council as to what rights the city of Tor-196
onto-I think it was Toronto-had to tell them anything about where they should plant their poles. What do you think was the decision on that occasion? It was almost as remarkable as the one we have under our hands to-day with regard to this matter. The city of Toronto was told by the Privy Council that while the Act said they had the right of supervision with regard to poles, it meant that they could supervise the digging of the holes but had no right to say where the holes should be dug. A beautiful situation certainly! 1 think that that is legal interpretation run wild-'absolutely wild. The intention of this House was to tell the Bell Telephone Company where they should put their poles, and where to dig the holes.
An. hon. MEMBER:	Why didn't they
say so?


William Foster Cockshutt: 

I was carried away with his eloquence hut he only touched the comer of the situation, and that was that when the 'Government of Canada declared that this was a work for the general advamtge of Canada there was taken away from all 'the municipalities throughout the Dominion the control of their streets, walks and highways. I cannot conceive of such a thing as that. I want to say to< our lay brothers who are as ignorant of the law a*s I am, that I believe they will take a practical view of this matter and say that no private company should he allowed to go on the streets, sidewalks, lands and highways of a municipality against the wishes of that municipality, because this undertaking has been declared by Parliament to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. I am reminded that the municipality has recourse to the Kailway Board. I think it is provided in the Abt that either the company or the municipality may have recourse to the Eailway Board. The clause says:
But if any municipality complains to the Board that any company whether incorporated by Special or other Act or authority of the Parliament of Canada is exercising its powers oppressively or in bad faith the Board may hear such complaint and if it sees fit supervise the exercise of such powers.
That, to my mind, is holding out & very small straw for the municipalities to grasp at. It says that the Eailway Board "may" hear complaints if it sees fit and it "may" exercise some power. But if the Eailway Board does not see it in that light there will be no recourse and there will be nothing to do further than that; it costs money to appeal to Ottawa. It costs money for municipalities to come down at their own cost with special lawyers and put up a fight before the Eailway Board. That provision is a very unsatisfactory one, and I trust this House, before it stultifies itself-as I think it will if it passes this Act in its present form-will take into full consideration the right of the municipalities to control their own streets, walks, lanes and highways. If this House does that in the spirit in which it was originally intended, I feel sure that this amendment, or an amendment directed towards the same purpose, should be incorporated in the Bill. I have much pleasure in supporting the hon. member (Mr. Mowat) in the position which he has taken in regard to this question.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have ^not had the privilege of being on the special committee that dealt With this question, but I have listened with a great deal of interest to the

hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), and I must do him the honour and credit of saying that I always thought he was a lawyer. I have, for the years that he has been in this House, followed the hon. member for Vancouver Centre in the discussions in which he has taken part, and although I had no proof of it, I was always led to the conclusion that the hon. member belonged to that learned profession. I must say for his consolation to-day, that he discussed a principle that is well known to and recognized by the courts of the country, and that principle is that there must be a direct, instead of a lateral, attack upon any point. He argued, and I think conclusively, that if there is anything the matter with the charter of this company there should be a direct and immediate limit to the provisions of the charter, and not a lateral attack upon the company. Our courts, up to the Privy Council, have for years recognized the principle that you cannot laterally-that is by some side issue- attack a right which a person may have, but that you must make an attack direct. If that direct attack is made upon the rights of this company to-day you can, if necessary, give the remedy to Toronto or to any other city that has complained of certain conditions. If Toronto, which is particularly before our minds at present, although this condition might apply elsewhere, is complaining that undue powers have 'been given to this Toronto, Niagara Power Company, then it has the right to come before this House and say that this power must be cut out, and it is open to the House to say that that shall be done. But the power having been granted to this company, they had a perfect right to its exercise. The Privy Council held that the company interpreted the Act properly. Chancellor Boyd, a very distinguished judge of Ontario, has said that the company understood the Act properly. Chancellor Boyd held that they understood their rights; the Privy Council also held that they are merely exercising the powers which the Parliament of Canada gave them. We may have made a mistake in granting these powers, but they were properly understood, they were properly exercised, and if they are to be taken away it is for us to see that nobody shall suffer by reason of any mistake having been made.
(Mr. COCKSHUTT: Will my hon. friend say what he thinks in regard to the opinion expressed by our High Court? He mentions Chancellor Boyd and the Privy Council, but

he omits to mention the third party to the judgment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That does not count; that was wiped out by the Privy Council, and so it is not necessary for me to say anything about it, as it is absolutely ineffective. The Privy Council said the judgment of the Appellate Court was wrong, and they restored the decision of Chancellor Boyd, and it is that decision which we have to -deal with so far as the construction of the law is concerned. I therefore submit that Chancellor Boyd having said those men had properly used their rights, the Privy Council having said so and confirmed Chancellor Boyd's decision, the Senate of Canada having said that the Bill as presented to us is all right and a committee of this House having done what it considered fair and right with this Bill after having given a proper hearing to everybody who wished to come before them, it is rather late for us-who have not heard the facts, and who have not heard counsel except through the very learned and helpful discussion that took place this afternoon-and rather dangerous for us to interfere with the Bill as presented to us after all the consideration which it has received. I would say to my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) and to those who support him, in the first place, that I think they have slept on their rights, although that should not weigh wTith Parliament. This Act was passed in 1902, giving this company the powers they have been exercising down to the present, and it is only within a recent period that anything has been brought before Parliament in regard to it. I submit, on the principle so well advanced by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), that the attacks should be made directly upon the spot where the mistake took place, and that it should not be sought to secure a remedy by a general Act of this kind, which may do far more harm than the remedy which it is hoped to produce, and which may strike a dozen companies that it is not intended to strike. If it is necessary to provide a proper remedy for the city of Toronto against this power company let the matter come straight before Parliament on its own merits, supported by the essential facts, and then Parliament should be able to deal with it. As far as I am concerned, I cannot see that I would be on safe ground in departing from the conclusions which have been reached by the courts which dealt with the matter, as also by the Senate, and by a special committee of this House.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
After Recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


James Hamilton Ross: It is not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to go into a detailed argument in regard to this matter; I prefer rather to pursue the course adopted by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler).
I wish to reply to some extent to the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens). As I understood the hon. gentleman, he said that he thought this House should to a great extent be bound by the finding of the Special Committee appointed to consider the Railway Act. If that had been the only finding, there might be some force in his contention. But I would remind him that at a previous session not only did the Railway Committee of this House, but this House itself, pass an amendment to the Railway Act which was much more radical than the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Parkdale.
I am not going to review the history of the legislation; it has been done so often that the subject is now threadbare. But it seems to me that there are only two or three points of importance in connection with the whole matter. In the first place, we must start out with the primary rights not only of the municipalities of the province of Ontario but of the municipalities of the whole Dominion. These rights were granted to the municipalities as a matter of course long before this special Act incorporating this company was ever thought of, and the municipalities should be given first consideration in any decision this House may come to.
I think no hon. gentleman will dispute the fact that the municipalities have always been accorded the privilege of controlling their own streets, their own highways, their own public squares, and their own lanes, and I do not think that any person will wish to gainsay them that right. It is a form of local self-government that is not only good liberalism, but is good government. It seems to me that this special Act passed in 1902 was a direct violation of those municipal rights. The opponents oi this amendment may argue that Parliament has by a special Act given this company the right to interfere with the streets and highways of the municipalities, and that that right should not be restricted. But I think, Sir, it has been abundantly proved

by hon. members who have preceded me that it was far from the intention of Parliament to grant the extraordinary privilege of going upon the streets and roads of the municipalities without their consent. Therefore on that .account alone we are in a position to review the action of Parliament in 1902, and to pass what at this time is practically a declaratory law- which has been done on many occasions by all parliaments within the British Empire -that it was not the intention of Parliament at that time to enact what the company now claims, and that the law is and should be as this amendment tends to make it.
All the arguments not only in the Special Committee but in this House seem to come down to one question-that of vested rights. No one seems to dispute as a general principle the right of the municipalities to control their own streets. The opponents of this amendment say that on account of the decision of the Privy Council in 1911- after this Act had been in force for some time-investors wefe induced to put their money into the bonds of this company, and those affiliated companies, and that on that account we should not now interfere with the rights given by Parliament in 1902. It seems to me that that contention cannot be sustained, and I think that the hon. member for West Calgary completely annihilated it before the Special Committee.
These people came to us with a charter and they say that they have certain rights -rights decided by the Privy Council to be so and so. But they do not tell us, Sir, that in that very charter, which they allege as the foundation of their rights, their bond issue is limited to $1,500,000. I understand that is the fact. It does not seem to me that, because of their having affiliated with the other companies which have larger bond issues, their claim should be allowed that their charter-Magna Charta, as it were, of their rights-shall not be controlled by the limitations embodied in the charter itself.
It seems to me that they cannot claim the piivileges and the rights which their charter appears to give them-although unintentionally-and not at the same time be willing to be bound by the limitations that that charter imposes upon them.
As I understand the matter this company has invested some eight or nine million dollars of its money and therefore it is more than able to take oare of all the bonds that have been issued by the officers against

its assets. Consequently I do not think it lies with the investors to come before this House and say that the vested interests of this company are going to be interfered with by the action of this Parliament if this amendment is passed.. As I see it, they have no further rights beyond the $1,500,000 which is the limit of the company's bonding powers under its charter.
An effort has been made to arouse prejudice. Some people in the lobbies and some hon. gentlemen-probably not intentionally-in the special committee and before this House have, as I see at, tried to induce hon. members to believe that this is a question between the city of Toronto and the Toronto and Niagara Transmission Company. For my own part, speaking on behalf of the many municipalities in the county of Middlesex, I wish to say that this is not a struggle between the city of Toronto, acting in conjunction with the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario and the said company; but that if this Bill is allowed to stand in its present form the privileges of every municipality, particularly in the western part of the province of Ontario, are in danger.
I am not an intimate or personal friend of *Sir Adam Beck, but I wish to say for him and for his commission that he has done good work in the province. I can speak from the experience of my home town of Strathroy, and I can candidly say that since the Hydro Electric Commission has taken charge of the distribution of electrical energy and electric light in that town the rates have greatly decreased, and I believe that is the experience of every other town in western Ontario.
Without going further into the argument, because I do not think it is necessary, as others better acquainted with the facts and the law will deal with the matter, I just want to say, that for the reasons I have given I am heartily in favour of the amendment


Mr. THOMAS FOSTER (York, East):: I have made up my mind to support the amendment of the member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat). I think it is a move in the right direction; and it is in the interests of the people of this country and against the interests of great promoting companies. The organization behind this company are the greatest promoters of franchises that can be found in Canada. Not only do they receive a large number of franchises; they are exploiters as well. Some twenty-eight years ago this company succeeded in get-

ting the franchise of the Toronto Street Railway. Every one is familiar with this company, the Mackenzie & Mann Company; there is no greater promoting or exploiting company in the Dominion. They paid some $2,500,000 to the city of Toronto for that street railway franchise, which is one of the best franchises ever given to a company in this country. Within a year oi two they issued securities to the extent oi about $6,500,000. They then secured the Toronto Electric Light Company. The city was to have the first opportunity oi securing the benefits of the franchise of the Incandescent Light Company, which was operating at that time, but apparently Toronto was asleep at the switch because this promoting company stepped in and acquired a majority of the stock. A short time after that these promoters undertook to secure what was called the Niagara Development Company. That company has a franchise from the provincial government and supplies power to the Toronto Railway Company and to North Toronto. The franchise of two of these companies expires within the next six months. It was Toronto's intention to secure these two or three companies by arbitration, so they gave a year's notice that they intended to take them over. But at a special meeting of the Toronto city council held a few months ago it was decided to cancel that arrangement and to forego the taking over of these franchises; they decided to allow them to continue for another twenty-one years. The city was quite justified in the attitude which it took. When they gave the notice they felt that they were free to purchase these companies at arbitrated value, but they discovered that the Niagara Power Company had a franchise which permitted them to transmit and retail electric power to consumers in Toronto. Why then, should the city undertake to buy, at a possihle cost of eight or nine millions, the companies at present established there, having regard to the fact that if they did they would be subject to such strong competition? I think they were wise in taking the course that they did, leaving themselves free to meet the competition of the Niagara Power Company if that company chose to enter upon a policy of dealing in power, as their franchise entitles them to do.
It was thought in 1902 by Mr. Osier, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Pringle that the municipalities were well protected. They put up a splendid fight, but they discovered, after some appeals had been made to the Privy Council, that instead of getting something
substantial in the interests of the people, they were handed a gold brick. The Toronto Street Railway Company was an excellent company, having regard to its earnings and the value of its stock. But this promoting company was not content to treat the people as they should be treated; they commenced to exploit the revenues and the earnings of the Toronto Railway Company, and there has been continuous litigation in an effort to get some rights for the people. We thought that the agreement which we had with the company in this case was an excellent one. We knew that we had to be extra careful in dealing with this franchise. We had a splendid mayor at the time, Mr. Clarke, who was always prepared to look after the interests of the people, and he assisted in the effort to get a good agreement from that company. We secured what we thought was the best legal talent in Toronto; some $50,000 was spent in the preparation of the agreement; we thought that it would stand any test in our courts or even before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But to our surprise, as soon as this company got the franchise, they watered the stock, started litigation, went to various courts, appealed to the Privy Council, tied up actions there for months-and invariably the city seemed to get the worst of it; there was some legal point that gave the company the advantage over the people. Instead of extending the street railway system into congested and newly developed parts of the city, they continued to operate on the old lines and refused to extend. The result was that the city was forced to spend millions to give accommodation to the people who needed it. There was nothing but a continuous jamming of people into the cars, in order that the promoters might get the largest possible earnings out of the system. Into a car ol a capacity of say one hundred people, two hundred or two hundred and fifty people would be jammed. The way the women and girls of Toronto were jammed into those cars was a shame and a disgrace. It shows what these promoting and exploiting companies will do to take all they can out ol the people and give nothing in return.
It is said that we are hard on these large corporations; that they have vested rights, and that we should be. more sympathetic. Of course they get vested rights, and whenever they get them they begin to exploit them. It is said that in this case $29,000,000 have been invested; that money has been brought here from England, France and United States, to say nothing of what has come from our own country. Well, the


Mr. McQUAERIE:: I am going to support the amendment at the request of the city council of New Westminster, who have wired me to support it as a municipal amendment. I understand that this amendment has received the approval of the Union of Canadian. Municipalities. Personally, I am not interested in any dispute between, the companies which have been referred to. As a matter of fact, I do not know their names. I am looking at the question from the viewpoint of the municipalities, and it seems to me the question involved in this amendment is whether or not the rights, of the people as represented by the municipalities shall he superseded by the rights or privileges of the big corporations. I think it is wrong in principle to allow a great corporation, electric or any other kind, to construct poles and wires on the streets of any municipality without the consent of the people of that municipality. It is admitted that such a privilege should not be granted in the future to any company seeking it.
I	take it from the wording of this section that all companies which have not, by their charters obtained special powers permitting them to go on the streets of municipalities without consent, are required to obtain that consent. I think it is quite clear to everyone that a great many of the special powers contained in Acts of Parliament are obtained without the knowledge of Parliament that they are being conferred. Later on to-night, if I have an opportunity to do so, I shall refer to a case which occurred in this particular session of Parliament in which a very important section of this Railway Act was put through the special committee practically without discussion, and put through this Committee as a noncontentious section. It seems to me that where a thing of that kind happens and where the fact is brought to the attention of the House, it is for Parliament to rectify the condition. It is pointed out that when a company has received these special powers and has obtained what are called vested rights, it is unfair to take these rights away and to require them to get consent, as in the case of the city of Toronto, and it is
suggested that the city of Toronto is trying to hold up this particular company. Now,
I think that if this House is shown on a future occasion that the city of Toronto or any other city or municipality is holding up a public corporation, it will very soon pass legislation to meet the situation.


Mr. FIELDING:: It has been said several times during this debate that this whole trouble which has disturbed and obstructed our legislation for three years, is due to the bungling of legal gentlemen who were entrusted with the drafting of these statutes some years ago. If that be true, then there is some excuse for those of us who are not lawyers but just ordinary laymen who are taking some part in the discussion. I have not been able to follow the whole matter as closely as some gentlemen, and therefore any opinions I have to offer should be expressed with hesitation and some reserve. I think, however, that I have heard enough of the discussion to grasp the real question that is at issue. I was much impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) as to the unfortunate position in which we are placed when we are asked to use the machinery of a very important general Act for the purpose of making an attack upon the chartered rights of a private company. I think that his argument, that if we wanted to attack the rights of that company we should do it directly and squarely, was an excellent one. However, we must deal with the question in the form in which it is now presented to us.
This is really a fight between vested rights and modern views concerning such rights. I am afraid there is a growing lack of that reverence which existed in olden times for vested rights, and on the other hand that there is a tendency to go a little 'too far in the other direction. There is much to be said in favour of the old-fashioned idea that a bargain is a bargain and a contract a contract, and that all who make it should be prepared to stand by it; and I have a great respect for those who still stand firmly on that view. But there is a strong modern contention that even vested rights must at times be challenged and set aside where they seem to be at variance with public interest. In this case the company has a charter the character of which has been discussed very much here to-day, and, I think, in a manner which perhaps is hardly appropriate. It will not profit us to discuss what was the intention of Parliament when that charter was passed. My legal friends know, better

than do we laymen, that the intention of an Act of Parliament must be gathered from the Act itself, and not from what any one says or thinks about it. In this case, the quality of the company's charter was attacked. They have been able to defend it before the Privy Council, and it stands before us now as a contract which the company say should be observed. But the Senate, sedate and conservative body as it is, and our Committee of this House which has confirmed the Senate's view, have come to the conclusion that even vested rights may in some degree be questioned, and so the Senate has endeavoured to propose something that looks like a compromise. The Senate has virtually said to the company:	True, you have these
vested rights and we do not want to take them away from you, for we respect vested rights, and so on, but we want to be assured that you will exercise them with discretion; and so we include in this Bill a clause which says that if the company in any case-take the case of Toronto, which is very much in evidence-if the company shall attempt to exercise these rights oppressively and in bad faith, then there shall be an appeal to the Railway Board.
Bet us dwell on that for a moment. It is a grea,t departure from the old-time doctrine. It means the raising of a question as to these vested rights, and is an admission that, in the modern view of things, even vested rights may be challenged. But if the Senate-I speak of the Senate because the motion was initiated by them, although it is now before us as a report of a Committee of this House- desired to	grant an	appeal tothe Railway	Commission	under	certain conditions, they might very well have made the appeal more effective. I think the form in which the appeal comes to us is better than what is presented to us by the hon. member for Parkdale, whose amendment does not commend itself to my judgment. I would rather have the appeal in the form in which we have it now than accept his amendment. But while I think that the intention of the Senate in that respect was good, I am of the opinion that if they wanted to give an appeal they should make it a more efiective appeal. They say that if the company go into Toronto, say, and dig up the streets and erect poles and create trouble generally, the Toronto City Council may claim that this is acting oppressively and not in good faith, and may raise an issue before the Railway

Commissioners. It seems to me that if that is a good policy, a better one would be to raise the issue before they dig up the streets or put up the poles, before they exercise any powers at all. My suggestion therefore would be, not to deny the rights of the company, but to provide that if they want to exercise those rights within Toronto or any other city they must first make application to the council of the municipality and see if they cannot come to an understanding with them. I have cast my thoughts into the form of a roughly-drafted amendment, which I shall read in order that the Committee may have clearly before it what I am contending. It will not be in order at this moment, but possibly after the motion of my friend from Parkdale is disipo&ed of I may find it convenient to move it. In the meantime I may read it to inform the Committee of what seems to me to be a fairly good solution of the difficulty:
But when any such company desires to exercise its powers on, in, over, or under any street in any city, town, village or township, it shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a)	The company, when intending to so exercise its powers or any of them, shall give notice in writing to the municipality of such intention and shall, with such notice, furnish plans and specifications of the work proposed to be done.
(b)	If within ten days of the giving of such notice the municipality fail to give notice in writing to the company of objections to the proposed operations the company may proceed to carry on the work in accordance with the plans and specifications.
(c)	If within such ten days the municipality propose to the company in writing changes in the said plans and specifications the adoption of which will remove the municipality's objections, the company shall carefully consider such proposed changes and. shall approve them if they are deemed fair and reasonable, and thereupon the company may proceed to carry on the work in accordance with the plans and specifications as thus modified.
(d)	If the company are unable to approve of the changes of plans and specifications proposed by the municipality, the company may appeal to the Board and the Board, after hearing both parties, may make such order as it may deem expedient, having due regard to the rights of the company and to the public interests affected.
The substance of it is that instead of waiting for Toronto to make a complaint, instead of waiting until the company dig up the streets, put up their poles and raise the devil generally, as the first step notice shall be given to the municipality that they intend to do this. It is hardly an application for permission-the company have a right to do it subject to certain conditions-but before they do it, they shall notify the municipality and give the muni-

cipality a chance 'to make representations. They may be able to agree. Failing in that they shall then go to the board. The difference between that and the provision in the Bill is that while in the Bill as it now stands you would first allow action to be taken, putting up the poles, digging up the street, etc., and then go before the Board of Railway Commissioners and ask them to determine whether this action was oppressive or taken in bad faith, you would have the company first go to the municipality and endeavour to come to an understanding. If they failed they would then proceed to bring the matter before the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Mr. CARVELL:: Mr. Chairman, the very logical remarks of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) emphasizes the importance of the statement made by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) at the beginning of this debate. That is that an Act referring to what is purely a local matter within one municipality or a number of municipalities ought not to be incorporated in the general Railway Bill of Canada. I think that if my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens had been on the sub-committee and had followed the debate, as I am quite sure he would have had he been there, he would have different views from those which he presented to-night. It only shows that when you try to provide for a specific case in a general Act you are sure to land in trouble. There is no set of lawyers in the world who can under such conditions draft a scheme which will not mean trouble in the end. I profess to know something about . this question because I was a member of the sub-committee in 1917 which had this matter under consideration, and we spent, I think, five or six weeks over the whole Railway Bill and some days over this particular clause. Also I was here when the matter was discussed in Committee of the Whole House, and while I was in the minority on that occasion still I had very pronounced views on the whole question, and I have the same views to-night. I was a member also Of the subcommittee appointed a few weeks ago to consider the Railway Bill and spent two or three days over this particular case. We had evidence brought by all the parties, and I believe the subcommittee which dealt with this matter had every particle of evidence which it was possible to obtain or necessary to an intelligent decision. Whether or not the majority gave an intelligent decision is a
question for each individual member's opinion. But it certainly is the fact that the vote was more than two to one in favour of the Bill as it came from the Senate. It is so much like an ordinary lawsuit, so much special evidence bearing upon this paint or upon that point, it is such a localized affair, that one would require to have gone through all the phases of the matter to appreciate the whole position.
My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens has put up to-day practically the proposition I put up two years ago in principle, but I did not get very far until I saw that there were difficulties ahead, that there were lions in the path.. My hon. friend talks about going to a municipality-mind you, I am talking about this particular case; on the general case 1 agree with him at once; I do not think that any corporation should receive the right to go upon the streets and public squares of any municipality without the consent of that municipality; in the light of our experience 1 doubt if there is a man in the House of Commons or the Senate who would advocate that we should give a charter to-day such as was given in 1902. But my hon. friend was discussing this matter from a general standpoint and from the general standpoint he is absolutely logical. He says that before anything is done the corporation should give notice to the municipality of their desires accompanied by plans and specifications of the works and ask if the municipality is prepared to consent; if they do not object in ten days, go on with the work, if they do object, go to the board. But my hon. friend fails to realize and-I say this in no offensive way-fails to understand that a municipality in the province of Ontario has nothing to say about it, absolutely nothing. I know my hon. friend will hardly believe that statement


William Stevens Fielding: I think I do.
. Mr. CARVELL: -but I want to read to him the law of Ontario to-day. A municipality has no control over its streets when it comes to the question of erecting poles for the transmission of electricity. By an Act passed in 1914 it is provided .that:
. Notwithstanding- anything in any Act contained a municipal corporation shall not hereafter enter into any agreement with any such company or pass any by-law in relation to any public utility which has been declared to be a work for .the general advantage of Canada, or which is not within the legislative control of Ontario, until the Lieutenant-Governor in (Council approved of such agreement or .by-law, and every agreement entered into and by-law

passed in violation of this section shall be utterly void and of no effeot.


Samuel Hughes: Is that Ontario law? Mr. CARVEiLL: That is Ontario law.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend will find in the suggestion I offered that there was nothing about making an agreement with the municipal council. What I suggested was that the municipal council should be afforded an opportunity of accepting or of stating their objections. I thought I succeeded in steering clear of the trouble to which my hon. friend refers.
Mr. 'CARVEILL: I do not want to steer clear of it; I want to face it; let us try to face it and see if we can get legislation passed which will be equitable and will meet the situation. There is nothing here about any notice to the municipality, and you have the right to erect poles on any one of their streets without the municipality having anything to say about it.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not propose that they shall ask for the right. I say, on the contrary, that the company have the right, but it is a question as to the manner in which they shall exercise it. I do not propose that they shall go to Toronto and ask them for the privilege, but that they shall go to Toronto and say: We have the privilege; we come to say that we wiH exercise that privilege in the way we think best, but we wiant to afford you an opportunity of filing objections.


Mr. BRISTOL:: Has not the municipality a perfect right to pass a by-law? But the opinion of the minister is that the Government of Ontario would never consent to its enforcement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will read that over again. First, I will answer my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's and then my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol). This subsection that I have read was framed by a man who evidently knew what he was doing, because they do not apply this to all corporations, but to corporations which have been declared works for the general advantage of Canada-which means the Toronto Niagara Power company and allied interests. It uses the word " agreement.'1 If the suggestion of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's were carried out, if an application were made to the municipality and if the company said: We want to erect these poles and build this line under certain conditions; and if no objections were made, that would be an agreement. I think it comes within the purview fMr. Carved]
of the amendment and therefore I would add here -to my former statement that the municipality is absolutely powerless. Now, to answer the hon. member for Centre Toronto, this law specially declares that:-
-and every agreement entered into and' bylaw passed in violation of this section shall he utterly void and of no effect.


Edmund James Bristol: That is the point I make: They can pass ithis by-law, but it is no good without the sanction of the provincial government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Exactly, it is only a scrap of paper, and the whole legislation was framed in order to prevent the Toronto and Niagara Power Company from doing business. I want now to discuss for a moment or two the general question involved.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the minister leaves that subject, there is a point that I do not quite follow. If the company created, or incorporated, by this House is given certain rights in any province of Canada, does the minister think those rights can be taken away by a provincial enactment?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, but I have no doubt that the province of Ontario is quite right in saying that a contract made by one of its municipalities with this corporation would be void. I think they are right in that and. that is what they have done. They have not said that the Toronto and Niagara Power Company cannot do certain things, but they have said that no municipality can pass a by-law agreeing that anything shall be done by this corporation without its being null and void.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is not that an indirect wiay of doing the same thng?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It may be, but I believe that under the British North America Act they have those rights; I believe their powers go that far.


William Stevens Fielding: Suppose the Toronto and Niagara Company notify the city council of Toronto that they intend to carry on certain work, under certain plans and specifications, and want to know if the council have any objection, and the council say they have no objection, does my hon. friend say that is a by-law?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think it is, and I will go as far as to say this: If I were representing the province of Ontario, or the Hydro-Electric Commission, I would not hesitate a moment to take the case to the

courts and should expect to get a decision, because they have used the -word "agreement," as well as "by-law." "Every agreement entered into, and by-law passed, in violation of this section shall be utterly void and of no effect." I think my hon. friend will find that the man who drew this section knew what he was doing. He /knew he was aiming especially at the Toronto and Niagara Power Company, and he was determined that that company should not be able to do any business in competition with their own company. Now I have no fault to find with the province of Ontario in its Hydro-Electric proposition.
I agree with my hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) that the Hydro-Electric Commission in Ontario has done a great work, and I believe is destined to do still greater work in the near future. I am somewhat of an admirer of the commission for the way in which they have carried the work on. I do not believe they are get>-ting as cheap power as they think they are, because they have to pay certain taxes; but there is no doubt in the world that the householder is getting cheap electricty. More than that he is getting a sufficient supply in ordinary times, which, after all. is more than the question of price. Therefore I have nothing but kind words for the Hydro-Electric Commission; and if it be 'the wish of the people of Ontario that that commission shall be the only corporation generating, transmitting, and distributing electricity in Ontario, that is their affair also; if they want to adopt that policy I do not think the Parliament of Canada should find any fault with it. But I do lay down this . doctrine: That they have no right to ruthlessly step in and destroy other men's labours and destroy the capital which other men have put into these schemes before the. Hydro-Electric was an entity at all. When we practically got through with the hearing of the evidence before the special committee I asked a series of questions of the gentlemen present. In a sense it was like a series of questions which a judge would propound to a jury in court, but the answers were given by both parties to the dispute. I am going to read to the committee the questions, and the answers, and therefore the committee can accept these as being the facts of the case as produced in the evidence before the special committee: 1 2 * *
1.	Q. When did the Toronto and Niagara, oi subsidiaries, first deliver electricity in Toronto? -A. 1907.
2.	Q. When did the Hydro-Electric Commission first deliver electricity in Toronto?-[DOT]



A. 1910.

[Stage Direction]
3.	Q. Has the city of Toronto the right to purchase the overhead system of the Toronto Electric Light Company?-A. Yes.
4.	Q. Have they decided not to exercise the
option?-A. Yes.	.
5	Q. Has the city the right to acquire the
Toronto Electric Railway Company? If so, when7-A. Yes, in 1921.	.	.
6	Q Hoes the Hydro-Electric maintain overhead wires for both transmission and distribution?-A. Yes.
I want the Committee to pay special attention to this question and answer.
Mr. McMASTER:: What company is that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the Hydro Electric Commission, or in other words, the province of Ontario.


Frank S. Cahill: Is not that the municipal company in Toronto?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it is the Hydro Electric Commission. I did not ask the details, but I presume a company-that is*, the city of Toronto-is working with the HydroElectric Commission in buying electricity and distributing it, but that means a. company in competition with the Toronto and Niagara.


Mr. SHEARD:: Toronto is a customer of the Hydro Electric Commission?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. I think foeiore I get through my hon. friend will see that I have some other ideas in the back of my head on the subject besides that.
Mr. MaMASTER: In a memorandum which was distributed among Jhe members in the House the statement is made that when this charter was granted to the Toronto. and Niagara Power Company it was thoroughly understood that the company obtained the right to go into Toronto subject to the approval of the municipality. * would like to hear the minister on that point, as it appears to me to be important.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was not a member of Parliament at that time, and therefore I have no personal knowledge of the matter. However, from reading Hansard of that day there is no doubt that the matter was discussed, and I think that very many people believed that they would not have the right to invade the streets of any city without the consent of the municipality.
But my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) in his usual logical fashion has, I think, answered that question. It is not a question of what he or I or some other member of Parliament- may have thought; Parliament acts as a whole,

and the combined wisdom of the whole Parliament finally incorporates certain ideas into law; and from that day forth it is- a question for the courts to decide what Parliament did intend to do. And t'he Privy Council has said that Parliament intended that the company should have the right to go on the streets of every municipality in the province of Ontario.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The House of Lords decided that all the property of the Presbyterian Church was to go to the "Wee Frees, and legislation 'had to be passed to correct such an absurdity.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My friend is a better authority on that then I am, and therefore I will not be drawn into that discussion,-theology is not my /strong point. When I was interrupted I was stating that it takes three things to make a successful hydro-electric scheme after the parent company was formed-and without the parent company the scheme was never possible because unless 'they had the right to transmit and distribute energy they never would have spent a dollar. Therefore, all the corporations that have been built up around this company were built up 'because of the rights and powers granted to the parent company by Parliament in 1902. They got these three things going and spent about $35,000,000. It is in evidence, and not denied, that there are $29,000,000 worth of bonds now outstanding against- the scheme, and $9,000,000 of those bonds have actually been absorbed by the purchasing public since the decision of the Privy Council i11 1912. I think .it is a fair assumption that the people who bought those bonds since 1912 bought them on the strength of the law as interpreted by the Privy Council-that this company had the right to distribute electricity through the municipali-ies of Ontario or anywhere else that they might he able to go to.
In pursuance of those rights the company built a transmission line from the Falls to the city of Toronto. Then they had a contract with the city of Toronto by. which they were given the right to erect certain poles in the city for the purpose of lighting the streets. The contract extended down to 1915 or 1916-1 have forgotten the actual date. The Privy Council decided that the company had no further right to maintain those poles on the streets of Toronto-that is the Toronto and Niagara syndicate now- because they got the right up to a certain date for the specific purpose of transmitting [DOT] electricity for street lighting, and when that

contract expired the right to maintain the poles expired with it; and that is where the matter stands to-day. It is also a fact that the Toronto Electric Light Company, which is a part of this scheme, has a very extensive underground system in the centre or congested portions of the city.


Mr. McCOIG:: Is not the question of having overhead wires entirely one for the municipalities? What right have we to interfere? And if the municipality is going to allow the Hydro-Electric to distribute their power in that way, why should we interfere?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not at all.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Then why make a point of it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am pointing out that the city of Toronto have no objection to overhead wires in their streets, 'because, they have allowed the Hydro-Electric to distribute everywhere they want to by an overhead system; but when it comes to a competing company the city say to them: " No, you must not distribute your electricity by overhead wires." As I said before, the Toronto Electric Light Company have a very extensive underground system in the centre of the city, and tlhat underground system is fed by overhead wires, and if this company is not allowed the Tight to use overhead wires in conjunction with their underground system, then that underground system is no good except as junk. Because, they mi^ht have the most elaborate distribution system in. the world, but if they cannot get current to it it is only junk. If this amendment were passed -let there be no misunderstanding about it-the Toronto and Niagara Company cannot maintain a single wire in the city of Toronto, they cannot get a watt of electricity through their underground system, and their underground system becomes absolute junk and is only worth junk value.


Frank S. Cahill: I understood the Toronto officials to say they would allow the company to transmit power on the overhead lines to the underground.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My friend is usually
more astute, and it is a confession that I did not expect him to make this evening, because that question was thrashed out in the special committee for hours, and he was there. I framed these questions based upon that very statement of facts:	I
asked:
Q. Does the Hydro-Electric maintain overhead wires for both transmission ant distribution?-A. Yes.
Q. Can the Toronto Electric Eight Company feed its underground system without using overhead lines in the city of Toronto?-A. No.
That was admitted by everybody.


Frank S. Cahill: Who answered that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Fleming was there
from one side, and Mr. Kilmer from the other.


Frank S. Cahill: Mr. Kilmer did not answer in that way.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No objection was taken
to it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I rather resent that
statement from my friend (Mr. Cahill) and I say so frankly. I am not coming before this Committee to state what are not the facts. As my friend from Perth (Mr. Morphy) tells me, they stated the underground system was scattered over different parts of the city, and it would be a physical impossibility to dig a tunnel from the outskirts of the city to connect with that scattered system. There was no question about the matter at all; everybody admitted the facts were that without the overhead distribution system you could never feed the underground. I would, not come here and misstate the facts. I have been at the bar too long to attempt such misrepresentation.
Let us see the result. My friend says, " Well, but they are going to allow them to distribute overhead." What does the amendment provide? Subsection 5 is as follows :
The provisions of the last preceding subsection shall apply to and restrict the powers of any company heretofore incorporated by special Act or other authority of the Parliament of Canada, notwithstanding that such provisions may be inconsistent with the provisions of such special Act or other authority, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of this Act.
Section 3 provides that if they are not satisfied with the arrangements for distribution, if the conditions imposed are too onerous or unfair, they can apply to the board, Notwithstanding everything, if this amendment passes, then the Toronto and Niagara Company are absolutely barred from getting electricity for their underground system in Toronto. There you have the facts of the case put as plainly and concisely as I am able to express them. It is also admitted that their principal consumers are two corporations in Toronto: first, the Toronto Electric Light Company,

which the city of Toronto have the right to purchase up to the month of November next, but the city has now notified the offl-' cials of the company that they do not intend to purchase the system. If the amendment passes, the Toronto and Niagara Company cannot feed their underground system, and therefore that system is only junk.
It is also admitted that in 1921 the city has the right to take their next greatest customer, that is, the Toronto Kailway Company. You take away from the Toronto and Niagara Power Company the Toronto Railway Company, and you put the Transmission Company where they cannot dispose of their power. What, then, are they going to do with their output? What is the value of their output in Toronto? What is the value of their transmission line? What is the value of their generating plant, if they are not allowed to transmit electricity to the United States? If this amendment passes I have no hesitation in saying that two years from now their bonds would not be worth 50, because the physical assets of the company that would be left to them would not realize more than fifty per cent on the value of the bonds. If the Parliament of Canada is absolutely to commandeer or destroy a corporation such as that, which has been built up on the basis of legislation passed by this Parliament in good faith, then it is for them to say so; but I want to see the members of this House vote to do that before I believe it is possible that the representatives of the people have reached the point where they will confiscate property which represents money invested in good faith at a time when the undertaking seemed very much of' an experiment. I believe I am safe in saying that when this company decided to transmit electricity from Niagara Falls to Toronto it was the longest transmission line in existence in the world-nearly one hundred miles. They were pioneers in what became one of the greatest assets of the civilized world. They got a charter which, I admit, looking backward on it now, is a very favourable one; but they got it in good faith and invested their money in good faith. And if this amendment is adopted, the earning capacity of 'this property is absolutely gone; it can only be sold as junk.


Samuel Hughes: Is the section as it now stands in the Bill just as it was passed in the committee?1


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Edmund James Bristol: Assuming that the right of the company to go on the streets of Montreal or any other city without the leave of the municipalities be taken away, on what does my hon. friend base the idea that these assets are worth only fifty cents on the dollar?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thought I made that plain.


Edmund James Bristol: They are developing
250,000	horse-power at Niagara Falls now.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We are dealing with a specific case, not with a general law. We have a case which ought not to be here at all, or which, if here at all, ought to be in the form of an amendment to the charter of the Toronto' and Niagara Power Company. But I will go over the ground again. The' Toronto and Niagara Power Company have only two principal consumers of their product, first, the Toronto Street railway, which the city of Toronto will take over two years from now and which will be entirely operated by hydro-electric current;-my hon. friend will agree to that?


Edmund James Bristol: Yes, but when they made that contract with the Toronto Railway Company they charged them $45 per horsepower and got the Toronto Railway Company to guarantee their bonds. It was that fact that caused Toronto and the whole of Ontario to look aghast on the whole situation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is introducing local politics into the matter; I do not propose to drag such considerations into it at all. I do not care what their contract was in Toronto; I am dealing with the facts of the case as revealed in the Committee.


Edmund James Bristol: But, pardon me; the franchise of the Toronto Street Railway Company expires in two years, anyway.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know that; I am not so dense as not to realize all these things. I know that in two years from now they are going to lose the right to sell 'electricity to the Toronto Railway-Company. Toronto has the right to abrogate that contract and take over the Toronto Electric Railway Company.


Andrew Ross McMaster: We should like to have the benefit of the whole of this discussion. We can hear the minister, but we cannot hear the member for Toronto Centre (Mr. Bristol).


Georges Henri Boivin: The Minister of Public Works has the floor.

Mr. 'CARVELL: I have no objections whatever to interruptions; I am glad to argue the matter from every possible standpoint. I am not at all afraid of my premises; therefore I welcome any questions the member for Toronto Centre wants to put to me. Now, I will finish my answer to him. In the next place the greatest consumer of current from this company is the Toronto Electric Light Company. The city of Toronto has the right to buy that company out also. That right expires in November of this year and the city have now notified the company that they will not buy them out. I have pointed out that if this amendment carries there is no earthly possibility of the Toronto Electric Light Company getting their current to their underground system, because they cannot maintain one pole in Toronto, and if the'Toronto and Niagara Power Company cannot get current to any part of that system, what earthly good is the Toronto Electric Light Company to them? It is absolutely useless; it is a dead horse to them, and they might as well sell it for ten per cent of what it cost them. I know something about this business; 1 have been in it for fifteen years, and I know what it means if you have a dead line and cannot get electricity to it. All you can do is to sell it as old copper; you can take the expensive switch-boards and sell them at twenty-five cents on the dollar. If the city of Toronto, or whoever the competing powers are, want to be fair, they will say: We will buy you out-and if they will buy them out, that is all right.
Now, I think I have answered my hon. friend. If you take from this company their two principal customers in Toronto you render the whole scheme absolutely useless, unless they are allowed to export electricity to the United States. But what is the position? We have the chairman of the HydroElectric demanding that we prohibit the export of electricity to the United States. Just as sure as this Bill went through, in the next week a demand would come up on behalf of certain people in Ontario that this Government prohibit the exportation to the United States of one watt of electricity generated by this company. If my premises are at all correct, I want the member for Toronto Centre, when he replies to me, as I assume he will, to show me where in the world this company is going to get the money to pay their bonds.
But the amendment goes further than that. The hon. member for Parkdale wants Parliament to say, in substance-it is very doubtful whether it could be said, under
our constitution-that if the Toronto Electric Light Company has sold any part of its plant or assets to the Toronto and Niagara Power Company, the arrangement shall be void. In all my experience in Parliament, extending over a long period here and in New Brunswick, I have never heard a proposal to confiscate moneys put up in good faith, on the faith of legislation granted by Parliament. It may be good morals in Ontario, but I can tell you that in the part of Canada from which I have the honour to come, it would be considered mighty bad morals.
Now, owing to the manner in which we have discussed this thing, I have taken more time than I intended to take, but 1 wanted to lay before the committee the facts of the case as I view them. I hope that the Parliament of Canada will not stultify itself by adopting the amendment proposed by the member for Parkdale. I use the word advisedly; I know it is a strong one, but I have no other word in my vocabulary which correctly interprets my views on this matter. Something else might be done. Something might be done to limit the powers. The company might be limited territorially; they might be allowed only to proceed in certain portions of Canada; I am not so much concerned about that. But to say that the company shall not have the right to continue doing business, shall not have the right to carry on the business which Parliament gave it the right to carry on, is a doctrine which I do not think this Parliament will accept.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not have the privilege of hearing this matter discussed before the committee. Provided the rights of the city of Toronto are safeguarded in respect to the use of their streets, is there any special objection to the presence of this company doing business in the city?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not want to draw conclusions; I certainly do not want to impute motives, but you must remember that this company has just one competitor, and that is the province of Ontario, and you must remember that this company cannot make a contract with any municipality except with the consent and approval of its competitor. Now if this amendment passes, this company cannot do any business in the city of Toronto because the city of Toronto is its competitor. That is the reason why the city of Toronto will not buy out the Toronto Electric Light Company. We have heard it stated very plainly-I do not know that I can bring a man
3J 04

here as a witness to swear to it-that the city of Toronto have refused to buy out the company because they say: "We can squeeze them out by refusing to feed their underground system, and if they cannot get their underground system fed we will take the company over as a junk proposition."


Frank S. Cahill: Does the minister believe that it was the intention of Parliament at that time to grant such wide powers? Does he believe that the company thought when they got this charter that they had a right to go 'on any street in any city in Canada and distribute power?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can only answer that from the evidence. I believe that Mr. Clarke and Mr. Osier were satisfied that the company did not have the powers which it turned out they had. I think that probably Mr. Pringle and Mr. Cowan were two members of Parliament who at that tinie did not believe the company had the powers which it turns out they had. As to what the rest of Parliament believed I do not know, because the other two hundred and twenty members were silent on the question, and I have no way of going back seventeen years and divining their thoughts. There was no secret about it, because the very year Mr. Urquhart, mayor of Toronto, brought the matter to the attention of the city council and pointed out that the company had acquired the exact powers which the Privy Council says they got. That was told in the city council in 1903, and yet the city allowed this company to occupy their streets and do practically what they had a mind to with them for years and years, and it was not until 1914 or 1916, I believe, that the city raised a protest. So, no matter what may have been the views of four or five members of Parliament, the people of Toronto knew what powers this company had, and allowed them to exercise them without protest for ten or twelve years.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The minister stated that the city of Toronto wanted to squeeze out this company. Is it not true that the city of Toronto offered to buy out the company at 135?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have been told that
that is true, and that the stock was then worth about 160 and the company refused to sell. This is only hearsay, and I have no way of proving it. It was not mentioned in the sub-committee. No evidence was

given to that effect; I am only giving hearsay.


Mr. NILCKLE:: 

In other words, the Lords of the Privy Council, said, in the interpretation of this Act, that they could not read nor consider anything that might have been done or said when the matter was before this House, but had to determine the Act purely within the four corners of the statute. The Minister of Public Works, if I am correctly advised',-at may be that I am not-is wrong in his contention that 'from 1902 to 1911 this company went on and exercised its rights ruthlessly and without regard for the municipalities. If I am correctly informed, this company bought its right of way for its transmission line from Niagara to Toronto and did not force itself through municipalities but worked itself along as a transmission line by purchase or with the consent of the municipalities through which it passed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the hon. member
pardon me. I do not think I said " ruthlessly," and certainly I did not intend to say so. I said they went on and developed under the powers given them by Parliament. I have never heard that they have done anything but carry on a straight business proposition, and I would be the last man to say that they ruthlessly invaded any rights. I did not say so.


William Folger Nickle: As I understand the minister now he says the company went on and exercised its statutory rights.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is right.


William Folger Nickle: Let us see how they exercised those rights. From 1902 to 1911 they did not presume to erect poles or wires either for transmission or distribution in any municipality without the consent of the municipality. But in 1911 there was a change of policy. In that year they entered the streets of a suburban district of Toronto known as North Toronto, and without obtaining the consent of that municipality, proceeded to erect poles and wires for the purpose at least of transmission, and, I think, also of distribution. An action was launched by the town of North Toronto and was first heard by Mr. Justice Boyd of the Supreme Court of Ontario who gave a decision to the effect that they had a right to erect those poles and wires provided they did not incommode the people of that municipality. But in so far as the reading of that ease leads one to a conclusion, the attention of the Chancellor was not directed to the fact that section 90 of the Railway Act was incorporated in the Act of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company. From

the decision of the Chancellor an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeal by the municipality of North Toronto, and the Court of Appeal unanimously was of the opinion that the Toronto and Niagara Power Company had not the right to erect poles and wires in that or any other municipality without obtaining the consent of the municipality. They were of the opinion that section 90, incorporated in the act of incorporation of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company by section 21 of that Act, was not inconsistent with the powers given by sections 12 and 13, but simply qualified those sections, and that the consent of the municipality had to be obtained before poles or wires either for transmission or distribution could be erected. An appeal was then taken by the Toronto and Niagara Power Company to the Privy Council, with the result that the Privy Council, relying on the principle of law which I enunciated a few moments ago, that they could not go outside the four corners of the statute, reached the conclusion and gave a decision that section 90 had no application to the charter of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company, and for the first time the residents of the province of Ontario, to say nothing of the people of Canada, woke up to the fact that the Toronto and Niagara Power Company had a right that enabled them 'to go on the streets of any municipality either for the purpose of transmission or for the purpose of distribution, and that there was no municipal power in Canada that could say them nay. Not only had they this right for a limited period of time, but they had a perpetual charter extending not only in the province of Ontario but from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Now, let us understand exactly what the rights of this company are as claimed to-day and what rights we, as members of this House, are asked to confer by passing the legislation as it comes to us from the Senate. Hon. gentlemen present in this House to-night are being asked to say that the Toronto and Niagara Power Company have the right to erect distribution poles and wires in any municipality in Canada without getting the consent of that municipality. Now, Sir, had it not been that representations were made to the Committee in 1902 and again to the House in the isame year to the effect that these rights should not be exercised except with the consent of the municipality, I am inclined to the opinion that I would find myself in the same quandary in which the Minister of Public Works is placed to-night. The difference between us lies in this: He does not view the matter in such a way as

to feel justified in going beyond the four corners of the Act; I view the matter in a broader way, or perhaps I should say, in a more extended way, I think that we as a high court of Parliament have the right to go beyond the Act and to study and give consideration to, and to have our decision influenced by, the conditions and representations under which that Act was obtained. I say that it is a sound principle of law that if A represents as a fact to B something upon which B relies as a fact and acts thereon, A is estopped from contending as to the truth of the representations made. Applying that principle of law to the charter that is before the Committee to-night for consideration indirectly, I say that in my opinion this House has the right to say that if the promoters of this legislation in 1902 represented to this Parliament that they -were only getting a limited franchise, when they either knew they were getting a more extended franchise or were ignorant of the fact that they were getting a more extended franchise, we as a House of Commons have the right to say: You are bound by the representations you made in 1902 and have no greater privileges and rights than you protested and led the House of Commons to believe you had. It is on that principle that the Minister of Public Works and I differ. He takes-if I may use the expression without being considered offensive-the narrow legalistic position that might be taken by a judge. On the other hand, I take what I consider to be the more extended position, that as a member of Parliament I have the right to review the conditions under which any legislation is obtained. It is a question on which men of different minds may reach different conclusions, and different conclusions may be honestly reached. But in my judgment there is no anomaly in this Parliament saying, by the legislation that is proposed by the hon. member for Toronto, we are going to bind this company to the same principles that they were prepared to accept in 1902.
The hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) this afternoon raised the contention that we were doing an unusual and ridiculous thing in -trying by a general Act to curtail the powers given the company by its special Act. But is not that what was attempted to be done in 1902 when section 90 of the General Railway Act was incorporated into a private Act? All that is being asked here to-night is that section 374, which is, if I may use the figure, the legitimate descendant of section 90, shall be s'o amended
197i
that it will carry out in letter, in spirit and in effect the very principles that the Parliament of 1902 designed to enact, as made plain by the discussion in this House at that date. That was thought to be binding on the Toronto and Niagara Power Company.
Let us see what this wide Charter means 

because this is hot a fight, between Toronto and the Toronto and Niagara Power Company, as was said by the hon. member for Centre Vancouver. It is not even a fight between the Toronto Niagara Power Company and the Hydro-Electric; it is the determination of a principle which will affect every municipality from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Pass this legislation as it comes from the Senate and the Toronto Niagara Power Company have the right, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to erect distribution lines in each municipality and no municipal power can say them nay. They have the right to enter every municipality in the country, to erect poles in that municipality, and no municipality can prevent them. Since 1899 the principle has been recognized that municipalities should have control of their streets. If, in 1902, when the -Toronto-Niagara Power Company obtained their charter, there was an evasion of that principle, it was an evasion that j.vas obtained through Parliament being made to think that the principle was not being renounced..
The 'Minister of Public Works dealt at .some length with the conditions as they are in Toronto to-day, and perhaps it would not be unreasonable if I should follow him into the arena into which he has led us. Let us see what the condition in Toronto is. The Toronto Electric Light Company had the right, under a charter which has expired, to erect poles in Toronto for the puipose of lighting the streets. The right to maintain those poles by the Toronto Electric Light Company on the streets of Toronto has expired. Action was taken by Toronto for a judicial interpretation of those rights and that action was taken not only before the Supreme Court of Ontario and the Court of Appeal, but it was taken to the Privy Council. The Privy Council determined that the poles of the Toronto Electric Light Company had no right to remain on the streets of Toronto, that they should be removed and that their continuance there was a trespass. We have heard considerable to-night from the Minister of Public Works regarding the sacredness of contracts. He says that contracts should be respected and that a decision of the Judicial Committee of the , Privy Counr-4
.3108

cil is something to which we must all bow. I agree with him in the soundness of his law. When the Privy Council makes an enunciation as to a principle of law, that is the law until the Privy Council changes its view, and there is no power than can change that law except the power of Parliament. When the Privy Council says that the poles of the Toronto Electric Light Company are on the streets of Toronto) as trespassing poles and should be removed, is it right or just that Toronto should be obliged to permit these poles to remain on its streets because the Toronto Niagara Power Company have bought them? They claim that under their statute of 1902 although these poles would have had to be removed had they remained the property of the Toronto Electric Light Company, the fact that they have passed from the Toronto Electric Light Company to the Toronto Niagara Power Company gives the Toronto Niagara Power Company the right to insist that these poles must remain on the streets of Toronto, not because the Toronto Electric Light Company have any right to maintain them there but because the Toronto Niagara Power Company under the "rights" they obtained by this charter, have the right, through the acquisition of the Toronto Electric Light Company assets, to insist that the poles shall remain on the streets of Toronto.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is it not a fact that subsection 6 of the proposed amendment aims to prevent the transfer of these poles from the Toronto Electric Light Company to the Toronto Niagara Power Company?


William Folger Nickle: Not as I read that section. Section 6 to which the minister directs our attention says:
If any company heretofore incorporated by "Special Act or other authority of the Parliament of Canada has acquired, or shall acquire the assets or any part thereof, or the right to the possession or use of the assets or any part thereof, of any company or person operating a system for the distribution of light, heat, power, or electricity, in any city, town, village, or township, then and in every such case, the company so acquiring such assets shall carry out with the municipality all the obligations in respect of the said assets, whether arising under contract or in any other manner, of the company from which the said assets shall be or have been acquired.
Does the minister give me to understand that that section has been incorporated?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is incorporated in the proposed amendment.


William Folger Nickle: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well that is what has
been handed to me by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. J. D. Reid) as the proposed amendment.


William Folger Nickle: Then, it is something that we have not heard.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I got it from the Minister of Railways.


Mr. J. D. REID:: They have changed it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was not aware of it.


Georges Henri Boivin: The amendment which has been handed to the Chairman certainly contains two new paragraphs-5 and 6.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Had we not better have the amendment read? Possibly I have been discussing something that was not germane to the issue at all.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Mowat moves to
amend section 374 by striking out subclause 5 thereof and replacing it by the following sub-clause:
The provisions of the last preceding subsection shall apply to and restrict the powers of any company heretofore incorporated by Special Act, or other authority of the Parliament of Canada, notwithstanding that such provisions may be inconsistent with the provisions of such special Act or other authority, and notwithstanding the provision of section 3 of this Act.
And that all the words after the word " provided " in the sub-clause should be replaced by a new paragraph (6) as follows:
6. If any company heretofore incorporated by Special Act or other authority of the Parliament of Canada has acquired, or shall acquire the assets or any part thereof, or the right to the possession or use of the assets or any part thereof, of any company or person operating a system for the distribution of light, heat, power, or electricity, in any city, town, village, or township, than and in every such case, the company so acquiring such asset shall carry out with the municipality all the obligations in respect of the said assets, whether arising under contract or in any other manner, of the company from which the said assets shall he or have been acquired.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Exactly.'
Mr. NilOKLE :	That amendment is ' not
before the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is handed to me
and was proposed by Mr. Mowat in concluding his remarks.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Who moved that amendment?


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Mowat, this afternoon.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I moved subsection 5 in
order to get the section before the House and this is the amendment to subsection 6 which the Chairman has read. I did intend subsequently to submit the amendment which the Chairman has read, but I did not read it. I gave a copy of it to the Chairman and I intended to move it in due course.


William Folger Nickle: It is the first I have heard of that amendment.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: May I ask the Chairman if the two clauses constitute one amendment?


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: Two amendments.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is it all one?


Georges Henri Boivin: There cannot be more than one amendment to a clause at the same time.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Exactly.


Georges Henri Boivin: The entire subsection is proposed to be stricken out according to the two amendments, which were pinned together and handed to me this afternoon when the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) concluded his speech.


Frank S. Cahill: The whole clause?


Georges Henri Boivin: No, subsection 5.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And a new 5 and a new 6 added?	#


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.	.
Mr. MORPHY": In view of the fact that this debate is likely to be a lengthy one, might I suggest that the amendments be copied and distributed among members?


William Folger Nickle: I was in the House this afternoon when the member for Parkdale moved his amendment, which was to the following effect:
That all the words in the first ten lines of subsection 5 of section 3'7 4 down to and inclusive of the word " powers' " he struck out, and the following toe substituted therefor:
. 5. The .provisions of the last preceding subsection shall apply to and restrict the powers of any company heretofore incorporated toy special Act, or other authority of the Parliament of Canada notwithstanding that such provisions may be inconsistent with the provisions of such Special Act, or other authority, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of this Act.
Now, as the Minister of Public Works asked me the question, and so that this matter be represented correctly, I might say that if subsection 6 to which he just now directed my attention, was adopted by this House the adoption of the word " obligations ", which is very much broader than the word " rights " appearing in the Bill as it comes to us from the Senate, would, in all probability, compel the Toronto and Niagara Power Company to be bound in reference to the removal of the poles of that company since acquired from the Toronto Electric Light Company. But when I was discussing the matter with the Minister of Public Works, subsection 6 was not, and is not now, I understand, before the Committee for consideration and decision.
The hon. member for Centre Vancouver said this afternoon that the Railway Board would give courteous and sympathetic consideration to any application that was made to them under section 5 of the Act as it comes to us from the Senate. But let us see what the language of that section is:
Any specific powers inconsistent with the provisions of this section and conferred on any company by any special or other Act or authority of the Parliament of Canada or of any province, shall not be affected by the provisions of this section, but if any municipality complains to the Board that any company, whether incorporated by special or other act or authority of the Parliament of Canada, is exercising its powers oppressively or in bad faith, the Board1 may hear such complaint, and, if it sees fit^, supervise the exercise of such powers.
Now the Railway Commission may be animated with the best intentions in the world, .buit, as the bon. gentleman knows, their .power in respect of any matter that comes before them for consideration are determined and limited by the language that gives them that power. Indeed the language of subsection 5, as it appears in the Act simply gives the Railway Commission .power to supervise when the powers are oppressively or in bad faith exercised. Now that practically means nothing; they can simply .supervise, they cannot prohibit. I would think that the extent that would permit them to go would be thus far: If the Toronto and Niagara Power Company determined that they would erect a very unsightly and unseemly class of poles on a certain thoroughfare through which the use of that street would be greatly encumbered and the people greatly irritated, and dn such event all the Railway Commission could say would be: "You must use a different style

of poles and you must locate them somewhat differently on the street I do not believe the Railway Commission would have the right to say to the company, " You shall not go through that municipality." I do not think there is a gentleman dn the House to-night-certainly not those of us who are advocating the amendment as brought forward by the member for Park-dale-who wants a single member to votte in the dark, not knowing what the amendment means. The amendment means that those of us who are supporting it desire the principle incorporated in the Railway Act that no company shali have the right, no matter whether they have special powers or otherwise, to go through the streets of any municipality for the purpose of distributing electricity without the consent of that municipality.


John Hampden Burnham: That principle no doubt must be conceded. Now then we want to know how you are going to protect the shareholders of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company?


William Folger Nickle: I will answer the hon. gentleman's question in a moment. Now, in regard to 'the matter of transmission, the principle is accepted and recognized that a transmission line may be built through a municipality with its consent; but if the municipality is not willing that that transmission line shall be built then there shall be an appeal to the Railway Commission and the decision of the commission shall he final. Now hon. gentlemen ask me why the occasion for the difference? Why do you make one law as to transmission and another law as to distribution? The difference dn principle is this: It is absolutely essential
10	p.m. that a company shall have the right to put a transmission line through a municipality for the purpose of Teaching other municipalities, and it would be ridiculous to say that any municipality should have the right to obstruct a great work simply by saying "You shall not put a few poles down the municipal township highway, or down the sideline road." But distribution, that is the selling of power to the people who live in the municipality, is distinct from transmission. Then we ask that the principle that has governed this Parliament since 1899 be made effective; and Parliament says that no municipality, for distribution purposes, shall be compelled to accept the distribution lines of any company without its
rMr. Nickle.]
consent. Now the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) asked a question, and if I understood the question it was this: How do you propose to protect the bondholders of the Toronto afid Niagara Power Company?


John Hampden Burnham: Shareholders.


William Folger Nickle: Here is my understanding of the situation'-I will only give a part of the financial meanderings of the various companies, but sufficient to give the House an understanding of the situation as I see it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would like to direct the hon. member's attention to an argument which was advanced by the Minister of Public Works and which impressed me very much. He said that the Privy Council had decided that this company had the right to go into the streets of Toronto, or the streets of any other city, town, or municipality, and that the 'company in question had sold millions of dollars of bonds which the minister believed were bought by the purchasers because the Privy Council had declared that the company had that right. If that be a fact how does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nickle) propose to protect the interest of people who in good faith, and relying upon the judgment of the highest court of the British Empire, invested thedr money in these bonds?


William Folger Nickle: If what the Minister of Public Works says is a fact-I have no knowledge of it as a fact, and I do not think it is a fact; although not for one moment do I allege that he is stating what is not the fact as he understands it-the contention would 'be difficult to refute. But my understanding is that the Toronto and Niagara Power Company have issued only $1,500,000 worth of bonds and $700,000 worth of stock, and that all of it was issued about 1903 to the Electrical Development Company-that no bonds or stock were issued by that company after the decision of the Privy Council. I remember that in the Railway Committee-I was only there a few minutes-'Mr. McDougall (I think that is the gentleman's name) made the statement that the issue of $1,500,000 worth of bonds and $700,000 worth of stock of the Toronto [DOT] and Niagara Power Company were sold because the Toronto- and Niagara Power Company had contracts with the Toronto Electric Light Company and the Toronto Street Railway Company, and that those contracts were the earning capacity that

warranted the sale of the bonds about 1903, before the Privy Council inade the decision to which the Minister of Public Works has directed the attention of the House.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does mot that go to the very heart of the question? - The members of this House are sitting more or less as judges in this matter. I'f two opposing counsel made the statements which the member for Kingston and the Minister of Public Works have made to-night, would not the judge say, " Gentlemen, please turn up the evidence and show me which of you is right?"


William Folger Nickle: And I think the counsel would say, " We have not the evidence."


Andrew Ross McMaster: You should have the evidence.


William Folger Nickle: I quite admit that the member for Brome (Mr. MicMaster) has directed the attention of the House to a very salient point, and it is a point upon which I have from time to time indirectly attempted to get information. I always wanted to know how many bonds were issued by the Toronto and Niagara Power Company subsequent to the decision of the Privy Council, but I was never able to obtain that information, nor do I know where it can be obtained. I have never seen any prospectus; I do not think that any gentleman present will say that any such evidence was "ever produced before the Committee.
The Toronto and Niagara Power Company was incorporated in 1902. In 1903, Messrs. Mackenzie, Nicholls and Pel'latt made an agreement with the Ontario Victoria Park Commission for the right to develop a certain number of horse-power. Later the Electrical Development Company was incorporated under an Ontario Act, and subsequently an agreement was made by that company with Messrs. Mackenzie, Nicholls and Pellatt for the assignment by these gentlemen to the Electrical Development Company of 'the rights and privileges secured from the Park Commission. The Electrical Development 'Company gave a bond mortgage for $10,000,000. The money was probably used for developing power. The Toronto and Niagara Power Company b&tween 1903 and 1905 issued the $1,500,000 worth of bonds, to which I have just directed the attention of the House, and $700,000 worth oi stock, all of which were sold to the Electrical Development Company. The Toronto Power Company was formed in 1908 under
the Ontario Companies' Act, and they owned $2,000,000 of the $10,000,000 bonds of the Electrical Development, and $3,000,000 of the capital stock of the Electrical Development Company-all of the voting capital stock.
Then an agreement was made, I understand, toy Mackenzie, Nicholls and Pellatt to buy out the Toronto Electric Light Company's stock of $4,000,000, at $135 per share. I would just like to say in passing that the Minister of Public Works in his argument failed to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the city of Toronto offered the Light Company $135 per share for the stock of that company. The Toronto Electric Light Company refused to sell to the city of Toronto, but subsequently sold to the Mackenzie group-and I do not use the word " group " in an offensive sense-who subsequently transferred to the Toronto and Niagara Power Company, and in that way " revived " the Light Company's rights to maintain the poles, if I may use that expression.	1
I hold no brief for the' city of Toronto. I am not a resident of the oity. As far as I know the Toronto and Niagara Power Company will never touch the streets of Kings-ston, in which city I reside and which I have the honour to represent. But I do say, in fairness to- the city of Toronto, that attention should be drawn, to the fact that the oity of Toronto endeavoured to buy the stock of the Toronto Electric Light Company, but were not able to do so, apparently for the reason that the Toronto Electric Light Company-which was under the control of the same group that owned the Electrical Development Company and the Toronto and Niagara Power Company-was desirous of selling these assets to the Toronto and Niagara Power Company, for the purpose of holding in perpetuity a grip on the streets of the city of Toronto; and I think it is only right that this House should give relief to the city of Toronto. The Toronto Electric Light Company's $4,000,000 stock was bought at $135 a share. All the capital stock of the Toronto Power Company is owned by the Toronto Street Railway Company. In other words, the grip on the situation is with the Toronto Street Railway Company, whose charter on the streets of the city of Toronto expires in 1921.
The Minister of Public Works made the statement that Mr. Fleming told him in the Committee that he was quite prepared, speaking on behalf of the various companies he represented, to sell to the city ol

Toronto all the assets of the various companies as a going concern. We lawyers know what that means. "As a going concern" means that you would have to value the assets of the Toronto Electric Light Company,-these poles that are on the streets of the city of Toronto as trespass poles, not as poles valued as junk, but as poles with a value which could be computed on the cost' of erection. You would not say, "What is the value of pole A?" deducting from that value the cost of removing it from the streets? hut you would say, "What is the value of pole A after it has been erected in the street?" You would not deduct from its value the cost of its removal, but you would add to its value the cost of its erection. Of course, Mr. Fleming in speaking to the minister said he was willing to sell those assets in the city of Toronto as a going concern, because he knew that if sold as a going concern there would be increased value in it for somebody. But why should the city of Toronto he asked to buy the poles of the Toronto Electric Light Company and add to their value the cost of their erection when the Toronto Electric Light Company were and are trespassers in having those poles on the streets of the city? Why should the city of Toronto be asked to value and take over the Toronto Street Railway Company as a going concern, when in about two years' time the city will have the right to take it over, not as a going concern, as I understand the agreement-and if I am wrong any hon. gentleman may correct me,-but as a defunct concern at a junk value? It would be madness on the part of the city of Toronto to enter into any such arrangement, and they would be simply throwing away the taxpayers' money.
It may be that the Minister of Public Works is right, but I am differently advised in regard to the underground system.
I am advised that while it is quite true that the underground system in the city of Toronto, which is owned by the Mackenzie group, cannot at the present moment be operated without the use of these overhead poles, yet it is not a matter of tremendous expense to connect up that underground system with the transmission lines at the outskirts of the city, and that no such great financial burden would be thrown on the company as the minister represents.
Mr. OAiRVELL: The evidence before the
committee was quite to the contrary. It

was that that is practically a commercial impossibility to-day.


William Folger Nickle: I am furnished by Mr. Geary, solicitor for the city of Toronto, with the following statement:
Mr. Carvell's statement that the Toronto Electric underground will he cut off is inaccurate. A comparatively short length of underground conduit will be sufficient to make the connection'-.
Mr. MiORiPHY:	What length?


William Folger Nickle: "Comparatively short."
-even if their transmission overhead were cut off, which latter does, not seem to he in danger, as a transmission line. Also the whole underground of the Toronto Electric Light is compact and not scattered, with the exception of two small districts.
That was my authority. I am glad that the (Minister of Public Works directed my attention to the report; it gave me an opportunity of reading the memorandum.
Mr. C1AP.VELL: Mr. Geary was present in the Committee when I put the question and he made no such statement as the hon. member has given here to-night.


William Folger Nickle: Well, I have read a note that just came from Mr. Geary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would have been
much better if Mr. Geary had made the statement in the Committee, where he could be contradicted if necessary; but he failed to do so.


William Folger Nickle: Let us assume that the
Minister of Public Works is correct in his contention-I want to be quite frank with the minister. I was in the Committee the day he asked that question, and Mr. Fleming, representing the Toronto interests, gave the answer to which the minister has directed the attention of the Committee h>
night. Mr. Fleming did make the statement that it would be a financial impossibility to operate the underground system of the Toronto Electric Light Company without the use of the overhead poles that the city of Toronto are now asking to be removed from the streets.


Edmund James Bristol: Was it known that these questions were going to be asked of the city, and were they so informed in order that they might have the time and the opportunity to answer such important questions ?


William Folger Nickle: I could not give my hon. friend any information on that point. I

had the misfortune to drop into the Committee-it is hot to-night; therefore I use the word " misfortune"-just while this.dis-cussion was taking place. It interested'me, and impressed itself on my memory. But there was one other point that impressed me that afternoon, and I want to direct attention to it now. Although I was not on the special committee, I requested leave to ask Mr. Fleming one question. I quote from the evidence:
Mr. Niokle : Do I understand you to say that your -Company is prepared to have y-our area restricted to those areas in which you are now engaged?
*Mr. Fleming: I would like to say-
Mr. Nickle: I desire an answer, yes or no? Mr. Fleming: No.
Now, what does that mean? That means that the autonomy of every municipality in Canada is jeopardized. That takes this quarrel outside of Toronto, outside the province of Ontario. It means that if the rights asked, and granted by this Act as sent to us from the Senate, are granted *by this House, these people have the right to erect a distributing plant in any municipality in Ontario, not only this year but for the next ten years and so long as time runs-or until an outraged public rise in their might and restrict the rights. I sav it is unreasonable to ask Parliament to confer a charter that was obtained, if I might use the expression, by a misapprehension on the part of the members of the rights that were being given-a charter not only in perpetuity, but the application of which extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
I do not view this matter as it is viewed by the member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) or the Minister of Public Works. As I view -the matter, the question resolves itself to this: Is this Parliament prepared to enunciate the principle that if a charter is obtained by representation of facts or by representation as to the construction of an Act that is not correct in fact, Parliament is forever estopped from rectifying a wrong that was inadvertently done, and that the people must for all time submit to what in the light of the history of this country during the last twelve years so far as legislation of this House goes, is and will be construed as an iniquity?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not like to give a silent vote on this important matter; therefore I would like to say a few words before the vote is taken, this Bill has been before the committee for several weeks-yes, it has been before the
House for some three years. It is in the interest of the country that the Bill should go thiuugh the House during the present session, and I hope that the House will arrive at some decision which will enable u- to pass the Bill. I think every member of the House wishes to do what is fair and right not only with the municipality, but with this company or any other company that has been incorporated by this or any other Parliament. Some hon. members have suggested that if this charter was brought before the House to-day for approval it would not pass; that we would not grant any such conditions as were granted when this charter was given. But Parliament has granted many charters in the past that would not be granted to-day.	I	can refer to one.	Anumber	of	years ago	the	House	of
Commons granted a charter to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; if that charter was before the House to-day, there is no doubt that it would not pass now in the form in which it passed then. In connection with the charters which were granted in those times certain vested interests have arisen, and I think we should look at the situation in the light of all the circumstances connected with the charter.
So far as I am concerned, I feel this way. The rights of municipalities should be protected if any danger threatens them. It has been stated by many that the rights of municipalities are in danger in connection with this charter. But I wish to point out that since this charter was granted the Ontario Government has passed an Act which has changed the whole condition of affairs for the municipalities. When the charter was granted the municipalities had, in their own right, the power to allow this or any other company to enter that municipality on the basis of a by-law or agreement. But in 1914 Ontario passed an Act, which has -been mentioned this afternoon,' taking out of the hands of the municipalities the right that they had at that time to allow this or any other company to enter those municipalities. If the Bill passes there is no doufet that this company or any other company can enter into any municipality without the consent of that municipality.
That may be all right in many o-theT parts of the Dominion, but -so far as the province of Ontario is concerned the consent of the Ontario Government has to be obtained. That being the case this company -cannot do any business between the city of Toronto and its power plant, if a

municipality should refuse to allow it to pass through, and if the company is prevented 'from transmitting power in that way it must go on the scrap heap. I think it is quite proper to protect the interests cf the municipalities, but we should also do something to protect the money that lias been invested in- this company.
This legislation, has been before the House for several years. I will tell the Committee what I think should have been done some years ago, and what should be done yet. The province of Ontario practically decided that power would be supplied to the people of the province by the Ontario Government. That policy has turned out to be a good thing for the people of the province; we all agree that the Hydro-Electric 'Commission has done good work. But when they decide to supply all the power to the people of the province of Ontario, I think they should take over the power plants in the province of Ontario and not make them junk, which would involve a loss of the money invested in those plants. It would only be fair for the Ontario Government to tell these power companies at Niagara Falls that they were going to take over these plants at a price fixed by arbitration; then get the arbitrators to determine the value, and let the Ontario Government take over the plants and have the power for the people of the province. The Toronto and Niagara Power Company is not the only one at Niagara Falls developing power. There is another company thers developing 100,000 horsepower, all of which will be required by the people of the province. Both are up-to-date plants, they have their transmission lines, and I cannot understand why the province of Ontario does not adopt that policy, with respect to the plants not only at Niagara Falls but also at other places where electric plants- owned by companies are in operation. I think men could be found to arbitrate on the value of these plants and decide what was a fair price. I am sure the people of the province of Ontario would be willing to do what was fair with regard to this or any other company in the province that might be arbitrated upon.
But that does not seem to be their policy, and therefore we in this House are placed in this position. Here we have been for three long years trying to enact a law that is absolutely necessary in the public interest, which is necessary for the protection of the travelling public and for the lives of the railway employees, and yet we can-
[Hr. J. *. Bei&I
not get the Bill through on account of this quarrel between the power companies and other interests in the province of Ontario.
I am satisfied that if this amendment is carried it will not pass the Senate, because it has already been before the Senate; it was before the Senate this year, it was before the Senate last year, and the year before that. The Senate have refused to pass an amendment such as has been made by the hon. member for Parkdale, and if the amendment is carried to-night it practically means this Bill must go by the board for the present session. Now I do not think it is right that this Bill should be prevented from passing this session, and I am willing to go a certain length in making a compromise which in my opinion would be a protection not only for the municipalities but for the company as well.
I say frankly I would hesitate to give a vote that might have the effect of placing this company on the junk heap, or of forcing them to accept an amount that would not 'be fair and right. Perhaps the Senate would accept an amendment on the lines proposed by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens. I would make the amendrnent a little shorter, hut it would have the same effect. The words that are not satisfactory to the municipality are these:
If any municipality complains to the Board that any company whether incorporated by special or other Act or authority of the Parliament of Canada is exercising its powers oppressively or in bad faith the Board may hear such complaint and if it sees fit supervise the exercise of such powers.
Some hon. members who have spoken, including, I think, the hon. member for Parkdale, have argued that the words "oppressively or in bad faith" mean practically nothing. I would suggest that subsection 5 be amended to read as follows:
(5) Any specific powers inconsistent with the provisions of this section and conferred on any company by any special or other Act or authority of the Parliament of Canada or of any province shall not ho affected by the provisions of this section; no such power shall be exercised except in accordance with terms of an order made by the Board after a hearing, at which hearing the municipality shall have the right to be heard: Provided always that whenever any company incorporated by special Act of the Parliament of Canada acquires the assets-
-and so on. That would mean that before this company could enter a municipality it would have to apply to the Board of Railway Commissioners and get permission to enter that municipality. The clause as drafted by the Senate only pro-

vides for the company applying to the board if the municipality thinks it is acting oppressively or in bad faith.
My amendment goes further and says that they must go to the Board of Railway Commissioners and obtain a permit before entering a municipality. I believe that protects every municipality in the Dominion, and it also protects the company who will have to go before the board, which is an independent tribunal, not selected from the province of Ontario particularly, or any other province. When the matter comes before it, the tribunal will decide whether this company must go o-n the junk heap and the shareholders or bondholders must accept the amount they would receive from the company as a result of the decision of the board; or the municipality, if it acts unfairly, must accept the board's decision. This is a provincial matter and I think Ontario should settle it. I come from that province and desire to do what is right and fair by the province of Ontario. But now that the province has decided to supply power to the people of Ontario-with which policy I am in accord-I do not think it is right for the Ontario Government to jjass an Act that will throw into the junk heap private capital that has been invested in any enterprise. Cannot we in this House make some compromise? As has been stated, the company may have larger rights than it was intended -that they should have. But we have a tribunal in the Board of Railway Commissioners, in whose hands we should leave the whole matter. Let us trust them to do what is right and fair, and if we find that they do not fulfil that expectation this Parliament meets every year and can remedy any erroneous decisions that they might make in connection with these matters. I appeal to the members of this House to assist me in some way to get the Bill through during the present session. Hon. members can make any amendments they like, but I have suggested what I consider to be a fair compromise. If my suggestion does not meet with approval, then let us have some amendment or compromise that will be fair and just not only to the municipalities, but to the company or companies that may be affected. But let us get the Bill through during this session.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The amendment proposed by the minister deals with companies entering municipalities, and I am satisfied with the idea. But does it provide for the extension of the work of the company in a municipality in which it is now operating?


John Dowsley Reid: The company has the right by its charter to go into any municipality without going to the board. This Parliament gave them that right. Now, if they want to go into some new municipality, which will be new work, they will have to go to the board and obtain its approval of their entry into the municipality.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They are now in the city of Toronto doing 'business. But suppose they wish to extend into areas in the city of Toronto in which they are not now working?


John Dowsley Reid: According .to the amendment of the hon. member for Parkdale as I understand the position, they cannot do any more now in Toronto without the consent of the municipality, and that means the Ontario Government. If my amendment goes through, they will not be able to do any more work or extend their work in Toronto without the permission of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Frank S. Cahill: If I understand the minister, this will not in any way affect the present standing of the companies in Toronto provided they do not wish to extend operations. It will not in any way affect the standing of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company?


John Dowsley Reid: My amendment does not affect the rights of the companies as they now stand. The bondholders at present have certain rights which are not affected. Nothing can be done to prejudice those rights in any shape or form, but if the company operate in some manner which the city of Toronto might consider contrary to the provisions of their charter an appeal could be made to the Board of Railway Commissioners to prevent the work being carried out. This company, it is claimed, have now the right, independent of any tribunal, to go into any municipality, and I am trying by my amendment to place the company under the jurisdiction of the commissioners in this respect from now on.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister evidently is willing to throw Toronto to the wolves. Provided this amendment that is moved by the hon. member for Parkdale does not apply to Toronto, he would be willing to accept it. As I understand this question, after listening to the debates in the Special Railway Committee, this company in 1902 got a charter from the Parliament of Canada. It was distinctly and well understood

that they had no right to distribute power in any city without the city's consent. There is absolutely no question albout that. Hansard shows it. Every member who spoke on the subject, and the minister in charge of the Bill, agreed that they were only getting the same power as other companies had been getting in the last year or two previous to that time. It was not understood that they had any special privileges other than the rights of transmission. If any municipality objected to their going through with their power line they could appeal to the Railway Commission, but there never was any intention on the part of Parliament or any one. else concerned that they should have the right to go into any municipality and distribute power at will. There was no thought at that time, nor is there now-and I doubt very much whether you could get a mover and seconder to-day in this Parliament, to a resolution for the purpose-to grant a perpetual franchise to a private corporation to go into any city in Canada and operate without the consent of that municipality. It seems preposterous, and undoubtedly it was not the .intention of Parliament at the time that they should have these powers. On the strength of the right which they had t.o develop power at Niagara Falls, transmit it to Toronto and other points, and sell it in Toronto to any one who had the franchise to distribute power, they contracted with the Toronto Light Company to furnish them power in Toronto at a certain price. The Toronto Electric Light Company had right to distribute power in the city for a limited number of years.
On the strength of the limited franchises of the Toronto Electric Light Company and the Toronto Street Railway Company, this company sold stocks and bonds, developed power and delivered it. They delivered it on the distinct understanding that they were selling it to two companies whose franchises would expire. They should therefore-I do not know whether they did or not-have put aside a sufficient amount out of their earnings to have redeemed the bonds at the termination of the franchises of the companies to which they were selling power. If they did not do that they should have done so. If they did not do that and the bondholders suffer any loss by the cancellation of this contract the shareholders who took dividends out of the company should pay them back into the company and that money should revert to the bondholders. The bondholders passed their money over in good faith with the know-

ledge that this company was selling power to the two Toronto companies each with a franchise which would terminate. There is no question in anybody's mind but that a wrong bas been done to the municipality. Every person is willing to right that wrong provided it does not hurt somebody else. We had eminent counsel here from all over the country talking on behalf of the bondholder. The bondholder, it was said, would lose if this amendment should carry. But there was not one of them who said what the bondholder would actually lose. When Mr. Beck was here in the interest of a million dollars worth of bonds, he made a very eloquent speech. When he started I asked him whom he represented and he said the bondholders. When he got through I asked him if he thought the interests of the bondholders were in any danger should this amendment pass and he said that he did not think so but that he was only speaking on the general principles of international investment. * The opposition has all been on the ground of vested interests. Vested interests: I have very little respect for them if they do not represent honest investment, and honest service to the community. I have no respect for the vested interest that is represented by the stock of this company. The interest that is represented by the bonds in the company should be protected by the stockholders. I think the bondholder could make the stockholder take out of his .pocket and return the dividends that he took out of that company knowing the franchise would expire.
The Minister of Public Works states that the company are not in a position to deliver power to the underground system; yet, my distinct recollection of the statement of the solicitor of the city of Toronto was they had the power to deliver to the underground system but not to distribute on the streets. The whole question resolves itself into this, that the company got a charter from the Dominion Parliament which was construed to mean that they could gg upon any street or highway in any municipality in Canada. It was clearly not the intention of Parliament that they should have any such right. Oh the strength of that, they claimed, they afterwards sold the bonds. I asked some of the gentlemen who appeared before the Committee for the prospectus on which they sold the bonds and my impression is they did not say they were selling bonds on the strength of the decision of the Privy Council. The city of Toronto did make the company an offer but the company refused to accept dt.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is it not a fact that in
the offer made by Toronto to purchase the stock of the Toronto Electric Light Corn-pay "there was a clause that the electrical current in the future would not be supplied by the Toronto and Niagara Power Company but by the Hydro-Electric Company?


Frank S. Cahill: I do not know as to that. When they talk of confiscation let me remind the Committee that Toronto offered 135 for the stock of this company and, that being the fact, it seems to me that there is a sufficient asset to take care of the bondholders. I say again that the bondholder is the only man in whom I have any interest. I do not believe we should sacrifice municipal rights even for the bondholders. I do not believe we should sacrifice municipal rights for any number of millions. If a mistake was made by this Parliament, it is the duty of Parliament to right that mistake and to give back to Toronto and all other municipalities the rights which belong to them. What happened is that a certain company had a franchise that had terminated. They had the right to sell electricity to consumers and to light the city streets. When their contract terminated this company stepped in and took over the assets and the terminated contract. The Toronto Electric Light Company must have had sufficiently high rates from Toronto to pay off all their liabilities because they knew that their franchise would only run for ten years. The Privy Council determined that they had no more rights under that contract but this company, with a charter .from the Dominion Parliament, steps in, takes over this defunct franchise and we are asked to vote against this amendment in order to give these Toronto interests the right to make this franchise perpetual in, the city of Toronto. There is no doubt that if they carry their point here to-night they will be asking for the same right in other places in Canada within a few days. The Minister of Public W'orks said that if this amendment carried the Ontario Government were going to do something. That seems to me to be anticipating a good deal. I would wait until they do it first. If the Ontario Government undertake to confiscate anybody's property it will be time enough for us to step in and forbid it. In the meantime let us right the wrong this Parliament did, and vote for the amendment.
Mr. 6HEARD: A good deal has been said
about securing the bondholders and the
interests of the Toronto Niagara Power Company. The Toronto Niagara Power Company is essentially a transmission line. The bonds were issued to the world at large on the strength of it being a transmission line and nothing more. It had no right to distribute. At the day that these bonds were sold it had no terminal market in the city of Toronto. True it was coupled up with two main customers, the Toronto Electric Light Company and the Toronto Street Railway Company. The Toronto Electric Light Company was distributing light and power in Toronto and *was connected up with it. The Toronto Niagara Power Company was supplying the Toronto Street Railway Company and that was its market for power. Those who bought the bonds in the Toronto Niagara Power Company knew perfectly well that both of these companies held terminable franchises and that when these franchises expired the market of the Toronto Niagara Power Company would be at an end. The Minister of Public Works (Air. Carvell) makes the argument that if you cut off one of this trinity of heads the balance would be only junk.
The one end of it never was connected with the company now under discussion; it never belonged to it, but to the transmission company under the conditions under which the bonds -were sold, and the bonds stated in the charter were for one million and a half dollars-nothing- more. But this company was part of an interlocking directorate-at least the owners of the company were-ancj this interlocking directorate was a very complicated financial machine. It was one of the creations of Sir William Mackenzie ' and his colleagues; and I can assure the House that no one in Canada is better able to create an intricate and far-reaching scheme of interlocking directorates, whose tentacles will touch the uttermost parts of this Dominion, than the same gentleman whose interests are being defended upon the floor of this House to-night in the opposition to this amendment. I want to say a word in reference to what this interlocking directorate means. They originally started with a transmission company, which had a [DOT] capitalization of a million and a half dollars. That was all the power that was given in the original Charter, nothing more. But they grafted upon That other companies. They grafted upon it the Electrical Development Company which was to manufacture power at Niagara Falls, and which1 had a capitalization under its original charter, I believe, of $10,000,000. In addition they

have the Toronto Electric Light Company, the purchase price of which was around $4,000,000 when it became part of this interlocking directorate. They had the old Electric Light Cbmpany of the city of Toronto which had a capitalization of about a million; and they had, in addition to that, a new issue of bonds about that time, amounting to something like $6,000,000; which with additional bonds issued by the Toronto Power Company represented an increase from a million and a half up to $25,000,000. The Hon. James Beck, of New York city, probably one of the highest-priced counsel for defending interlocking directorates in the State of New York, and one who is known by every financial institution in the United States, was brought here and addressed the Committee in the company's behalf, il 'had the pleasure of hearing his magnificent address-because I am very partial to fine speeches. I knew Mr. Beck's capabilities as an after-dinner speaker, and I expected that he would have an electrifying effect upon the Committee, and apparently he did. I listened very attentively to the burden of Mr. Beck's song. He pleaded earnestly, eloquently and hard to save the million and a half of capital, and doubtless had in mind the bondholders of the Toronto interlocking directorate with their capitalization which he stated was something like $35,000,000; but when asked who the bondholders were, and where the bonds were, he was entirely at sea and he knew nothing at all about it; he relied upon the broad, genera} moral principle which he felt sure would appeal, to a nation like Canada, that once a bargain always a bargain, and where vested interests were concerned it should stand immortal. That was pretty much the Hon. James Beck's argument to the Committee. He lost sight of the fact, however, that he was arguing for principally that great financial magnate of Canada, Sir William Mackenzie; but he could not come from New York without knowing the reputation of that gentleman in all the financial centres of the United States at least; and to argue that any repudiation of the obligation in bonds put up by his company was going to menace and threaten the financial standing of this Dominion was utterly and wholly absurd. Because I venture to say that there is not a large financier in the whole of New York State but has been importuned by the same outfit to loan every dollar of funds available for some scheme or other put forward by these same magnates, and we know [Mr. Sheard.f
what the history has been all along the line. W7e' can commence at the Gulf of Mexico and go up almost to the North Pole, and we see a trail of financial misadventure along the whole route. The Mexican Light, Heat and Power Company was floated in the city of Toronto; and I was told by a prominent bond house of the enormous number of millions that had gone into that enterprise. It was only a very few years ago that the revolution broke out in Mexico and the whole thing was on the rocks. We come along up and we know perfectly well where the Brazilian enterprise landed. Why it was the grandest financial suc-
11	p.tn. cess of the age. Men in the street, in the midst of the summer heat, were buying the stock which was advancing by leaps and bounds. All of a sudden there was an interlocking directorate there, there was a fusion of interests; and to the amazement of every body the dividend day was passed. Then when we come farther north we have another great enterprise of this great interlocking directorate-the Winnipeg Street Railway. I remember in the city of Toronto, not many years ago, when this stock was at two hundred and thirty-five. There was a delay in paying dividends, and finally that stock also passed its dividend. When an explanation was asked ior, the explanation vouchsafed was that although they had a permanent franchise for light, heat and power, the jitneys had knocked them out in the progressive city of Winnipeg.


Mr. JACOBS:: The hon. gentleman seems to forget that Sir William Mackenzie was knighted by His Majesty.
'Mr, SHEARD: I do not know who was responsible for that, but I am willing, if I am not out of order, to say that it is no credit to Canada that he was so knighted, in my humble judgment. But to keep to what I am saying, that is the amount of fear and menace there is, in the repudiation of bonds to the amount of a million and a half in one of these enterprises. We come up to the larger conception of this great financial mind-the Canadian Northern Railway, the railway from coast to coast, whose contractors were Mackenzie & Mann, and whose owners were the same, but whose ultimate owners, these men knew perfectly well, would be the Dominion of Canada. They knew that the people would be left with the baby on the step, and as the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) said in this House, what a miser-

able, ill-thrived, almost offensive-smelling baby, it was. Now the tentacles of this corporation have been loosed from the throat of the Dominion, and being thus disengaged for the moment, are going to be wrapped around the neck of every municipality in this country. Make no mistake about it. They know it perfectly well, and when I say "they" I mean the men who are behind this Senate's clause in the proposed Act. The Parliament of 1917 studied this Act, and they introduced such a proviso as is being proposed in the amendment to the present Bill as amended by the Senate. The Bill was sent to the Senate with that proviso but the Senate amended it. The Senate put the joker in the pack and the Bill came back with it, and the intention was for this House to swallow it holus bolus. Oh, it meant much to the interlocking directorates, it meant much to the Mackenzie & Mann interests to get that Act through last session. I came as a young, green member to this House. I thought there was some great power in the independence of Parliament which would uphold and stand for public rights and public interests. The moment I stepped off the train at the station I saw the great financial magnate talking to a crowd. I saw him as I went to put my bag in the Chateau, surrounded' by the incoming members, with some of whom he appeared to be on very intimate and friendly terms. I saw his galaxy of legal representatives, whom I knew as coming from Toronto, and many of them I knew personally. They were there from the first day the House opened until the 24th of May, when the House closed. I went home, and they went on the same train. They never let up in the vigilance of their watch. And when the House resumed this year, they were there, and they have been there constantly ever since-and I can name them. They have no't been there by ones and twos, they have been there by the dozens-men whose fees would be enormous. They are the men sitting in this gallery to-night listening to these words, men who have been here in the same interests from the first hour this Parliament opened.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would sit in the
gallery myself to hear this speech.


Charles Sheard: Well, I should hope the hon. member would sit in a different part from that to which my ideas are related just now. The question before the House and
the country is: How far is the Parliament of Canada going to stand for public (rights of all municipalities? Or is it going to stand for the vested interests which are behind these concerns? The hon. Minister of Public Works has made a strong appeal to the majesty of the law and to the respect which is owing to the Privy Council. I was in the service of the city of Toronto when part of this transaction occurred. The city gave to the Toronto Electric Light Company, which has an underground distribution, a contract to light their streets. That contract was for five years or under, and it gave the company the privilege for that period to put lighting poles on the streets. When the city could make other arrangements they terminated their contract with the company and ordered them to remove their poles. But [DOT] the company would not obey. So the city of Toronto proceeded through the courts until finally judgment was given in the Privy Council that the company were trespassers, as the hon. member for Kingston has explained. To an ordinary individual, such a judgment would be sufficient. Not so to this company. The Toronto Electric. Light Company immediately transferred their assets to the Toronto and Niagara Power Company-whose sensibilities so many of u:s are defending to-night-and then the Toronto and Niagara Power Company said: "Oh, well, we now own these poles; we have the right to plant them there, and there they will stay." And there they stayed to this day. That is how much the Toronto and Niagara Power Company are prepared to respect a judgment of the Privy Council, set forth by the hon. Minister of Public Works as a thing so to be respected and obeyed.
I do not wish to argue that two wrongs are going to make a right; but I do say that the whole idea-and there is but one idea in it-is to weave into this Railway Act a power for the Mackenzie interests which will give them the right to go into any municipality from the Atlantic to the Pacific and revive any latent charter that may be lingering in the murky pigeon holes of any municipal office and bring it into action as a competitor against any municipal power and lighting scheme, to be operated against such scheme to its detriment, no matter what is the result.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am going to support the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Parkdale. I am going to at least put myself upon the side of those who believe that in voting for

that amendment they are supporting the rights of the people. It is not the city of Toronto's battle; the battle affects every municipality in the Dominion of Canada from ocean to ocean. All along from the Niagara Power plant, we have the company's line passing through the city of St. Catherines, the city of Welland, the city of Hamilton, the town of Oakville, the town of Mimico and the city of Toronto -the whole line there already, and we have the possibilities of these competing distributing plants being extended not only in every municipality in Ontario, hut in every municipality in the whole Dominion. The vested interests may talk about the Hydro Electric in Ontario, but that undertaking was the outcome of the oppressive . measures of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company hitched up with the Toronto Electric Light Company, because they were in the position where they could supply or deny light and power to any firm they pleased; they could supply one factory with power, and the next factory in opposition to them would have to depend upon steam. Undoubtedly the Toronto and Niagara Power Company looked for a permanent market not only in the Toronto Electric Light Company but in the Toronto Street Railway	Company-and	that is the
real milk in the cocoanut, gentlemen. They expect to compel the city of Toronto to renew the franchise for the Toronto Street Railway. And the argument of the hon. Minister of Public' Works will hold good when they come back next year or the year afterwards and say, "Here, you gave them a charter under this Act, you discussed it fully, and you made provision for these powers. What is the use of giving them these powers when you are going to permit the city of Toronto to take over and operate their principal customer, the Toronto Street Railway? You must maintain the rights of the Toronto Electric Light Company and its companion concern, the Toronto Street Railway Company, and you must maintain a market in the city of Toronto in perpetuity"-that is practically the language of the Minister of Public Works-in order to make complete the operation and the carrying out of the trinity linked up in that way.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did the hon. gentleman understand me to say that I thought Parliament had any power to interfere with the contract between the Toronto and Niagara Power Company and the street railway or the Toronto Electric Light Company? because I want to tell him that I know
[Mr Sheard.]
too much about the constitution of this country to make such a statement. It is not true.


Charles Sheard: I understood the Minister of Public Works to say that the whole thing wias coupled up in this way; the producing of power on the banks of the Niagara river, the transmission of that power, and its distribution to the Toronto Electric Light Company and the street railway company.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly I said that.


Charles Sheard: Very well; and that one part of the trinity was useless without the others.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I said that.


Charles Sheard: Now, as one of the great customers, the Street Railway Company is the remaining end of the circle, the selling end. If that is essential to the maintenance and operation as a going concern of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company, is it not a fair inference that the suggestion is that they shall still continue to draw their power from that source?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No; because this Parliament has absolutely no jurisdiction over the matter whatever.


Charles Sheard: That is the way the hon. minister put it as justification for giving them this power, as I understood him.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to detain the House at any great length at this hour. From the trend of the discussion one might gather the impression that the city of Toronto was the only municipality in the Dominion interested in this matter. But I can assure the House that I have no particular interest in the city of Toronto. However, I am interested generally in . the municipalities throughout the Dominion of Canada. The question at issue is that of dealing with the rights of these municipalities, the jurisdiction which they exercise over their streets, and the power of the Dominion of Canada to invade those rights. It seems to me that we should examine first the attitude of the Federal Government towards municipalities so far as transmission companies are concerned. That has been referred to several times to-night, but I ask the patience of the Committee while I refer to it again in order that we may see exactly what the stand of the Government has been on this question in the past.

There is no doubt that the legislation, from the earliest days down, admitted that the jurisdiction over the streets rested in some body other than the Dominion Government, whether the municipality, the province, or, as in the case of Ontario, the Hydro-Electric Commission. When that is conceded we must look at the attitude of the Dominion Government in its legislation dealing with this question. About the first clause of this kind we find is in an Act passed in 1899. I will read the clause:
When any company has power by any Act ot the Parliament of Canada to construct and maintain lines of telegraph or telephone or lines for the conveyance of light, heat, power or. electricity, such company may with the consent of the municipal council or other authority having jurisdiction over any highway, square or other public place, enter thereon for the purpose of exercising the said power, and as often as the company thinks proper may break up or open any highway, etc.
In that year they were required, whether they were corporations for the transmission of power or corporations for the sale and distribution of power in any municipality, to obtain the consent of the municipal council or other authority. That continued to be the law until 1903. The member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) pointed out that the law at that time resolved itself into two branches, one governing the question of the transmission of power and the other governing the question of sale. The transmission of power was subject to the consent of the municipality, and if they refused, to the consent of the Board of Railway Commissioners. But when it came to the question of the sale of power, this Parliament was very jealous of the rights of municipalities and said that no company could go in unless they obtained the consent of the municipality by by-law, which is the most formal manner of obtaining that consent. That provision was subsequently re-enacted and continued down to 1917, when the Railway Act was revised. Now, the intention of Parliament is absolutely clear: That the rights of the municipalities are sacred and should not be encroached upon by any corporation without the consent of the municipality by by-law. In 1902 this company was incorporated. That an error was made is evident from the discussion which took place at that time. I quote from the remarks of Mr. Pringle:-
I understand that it means just what it expresses. All companies have to obtain the consent of a municipality before passing through it..
There is not the slightest thing in the discussion which took place on that occasion
to show that the intention of Parliament was to grant to this corporation any greater rights or any greater benefits than could be enjoyed by any other corporation in Canada. When they seek to establish that Parliament intended to give them greater rights I submit that the burden of proof is on them to show clearly that that was the intention of Parliament. So far as the legislation of this House was concerned, it remained practically in that position until 1917, when the Railway Act was revised by a special committee, passed by the House of Commons and sent to the Senate.
I take issue with the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Carvell), who cast some ' reflection on the members of Parliament who saw fit to say that these rights should be restored to municipalities. I have the greatest respect for his honour, his integrity and his judgment; I believe that he is absolutely sincere when he says that these rights should not be interfered with. But I assure the hon. gentleman that while I have that high respect for him and that high estimate of him, I have just as great a respect for myself and just as high an estimate of myself and for my judgment and my action in voting in support of the amendment.
Hon. gentlemen talk about vested rights. Well, put it on the ground of vested rights, if you will, for the sake of -argument. We will eliminate. all question of dispute between the city of Toronto, the Toronto and Niagara Power Company and the HydroElectric. Under the Act the vested rights may be in the Toronto and Niagara Power Company, but the first vested rights in regard to the streets of these municipalities w-as either in the province or the -municipality, or, in Ontario, in the Hydro-Electric Commission. I ask the minister, does he stand here and say that it is dishonourable for Parliament to restore to municipalities rights which were deliberately taken from them without their knowledge, without their consent, without any consultation with them? When that Act was passed no doubt Parliament believed that they could exercise jurisdiction if any mistake was made. But I stand broadly on the principle that when the conflict comes between the eight million people in Canada and the Toronto and Niagara Power Company, if there must be sacrifice on the part of either, that sacrifice must he on the part of the corporation, not of the people who own and control the streets in the municipalities of this country.
But, Mr. Chairman, when we put it on that narrow ground of vested rights, I do not believe that we are placing it upon the



ground upon which it should be placed. When we talk of vested rights, about legislating away the rights this corporation got under the Act of 1902, we are overlooking the fundamental principle which should govern our action in this connection. It is not a matter of depriving a company of vested rights; it is not a matter of taking anything away from them. It is a matter of putting them in the class of public utilities in which all these transmission companies must come; and it is then for us to say whether as a Parliament we can exercise jurisdiction by controlling them. It is simply a question of control over a public utility corporation. Those people who argue that these contracts are very sacred must realize that during the last fifteen or twenty years one of the objects of Federal legislation has been to exercise control over public utilities and common carriers. Will any hon. gentlman in this Committee argue that because a railway company received a charter some years ago before any Railway Act was in force, we must not apply the Railway Act to that corporation? It is true that had the Act nbt been put in force the company might have had the privilege of charging double or treble the rates which are at present fixed by law. But we 'realized that these corporations, these utilities, are servants of the public, and notwithstanding any great concessions which they may have received in their original Act of incorporation they must be bound by the general laws of the country even though those laws may cut down the rates which they nnay charge for transportation, even though they may cut down the rates of a telephone company, or telegraph charges, which have already been cut down. We must realize that Parliament is supreme, and that when an injustice is being done to the public by these corporations in the legal exercise of their rights, Parliament must step in and the public must be protected. All we are asking in this case is simply that the Dominion Parliament shall exercise its proper functions, that it shall perform its duty to the public and step in so flar as this public utility is concerned, just as it proposes to step in under the other clauses of the Act. All we ask is that Parliament shall say to this company: "Notwithstanding you received your charter in 1902, you must be subject to the general laws of this country. We are going to control your rights to enter streets, but we are not going to take away your rights to sell and distribute power throughout the province of 
Ontario or the Dominion of Canada." Is there anything in this amendment which takes away from the company any specific rights which were granted to them under their charter? Is there even any suggestion of that in this amendment? Was there any suggestion of it in the Bill which was passed in 1917? I submit that the question to be answered by every man in this Committee, either on one alternative or the other, is, in the first place: Mus't the vested rights of the municipalities give way to the vested rights of private corporations which have been procured through error or misunderstanding? On the other alternative, you must ask yourself the question: Are we going to except one corporation in this country from control which can be justly exercised over it by Parliament? I think there is not a man in this House who asks himself that question honestly and conscientiously who can do otherwise than come to the conclusion that Parliament is supreme, and that this corporation must submit to the control of Parliament, no matter what the ultimate outcome nnay be, so long as the public interests are served.
The Minister of Public Works said what a bad lot of people we would be in this House if we passed this amendment, but on looking over the report of the special committee that was appointed in 1917 to consolidate and amend the Railway Act, I find that it was composed as follows: Messieurs Ames (Sir Herbert), Armstrong (Lambton), Bennett (Calgary), Blain, Car-veil, Cochrane, Cromwell, Donaldson, Graham, Green, Lapointe (Kamouraska), Lemieux, Macdonell, Meighen, Nesbitt, Oliver, Pugsley, Rainville, Sinclair and Turriff. Was that committee dishonourable? Did they do anything to damage the credit of the Dominion of Canada? Were they disloyal to the trust which was reposed in them by the people when they passed the amendment which was submitted to this House and later , went up to the Senate? Was the House of Commons in 1917, when it passed the section which we ask to have inserted in this Bill, dishonourable? I think that they could hold their heads as high, so far as business integrity and business morality is concerned, as this or any other Parliament in the history of Canada.
It is complained that we may have difficulty in getting this Bill through this session unless we very materially consent to the amendment of the Senate. But I submit this proposition: The House of Com-

mons is the elective body representing the people of the Dominion of Canada; the Senate is the body which has been appointed for life; and when it comes to a question of their judging on the morality of the House of Commons, I must say that I think the morality of the House of Commons will compare favourably with theirs. If legislation is being impeded in this conn try, it is not by the House of Commons, but by the autocratic body of the Senate which is not responsible to anybody and which looks better after the interests of private corporations than of the people whom we are elected to represent. I have very strong feelings upon this subject. Those men who passed that Act in 1917 had free and full discussion on it. They realized their duties and their obligations. Are we to pass judgment on them and say "You did something which was immoral so far as business obligations are concerned and you must accept the reprimand which has been delivered to you by the Senate of Canada"? So far as I am concerned I do not care to accept any reprimand which may have been handed by the Senate to the last Parliament. If we pass this amendment, I submit, it is the duty of the Senate to accept the Bill as we pass it, and if they do not accept it, then, I submit, it is the duty of the Government to bring down some restrictive legislation so that the will of the people cannot be thwarted by a body which is not responsible to the people.
'Mr. PARDEE:	I do not intend at this
late hour to go into the legal aspects of the case now before the Committee, as that has already been done very ably by several speakers who have preceded me. There is one thing I should like to say, however, and which I think this Committee ought to keep in mind all the time, and that is with respect to the argument that has been presented in favour of vested rights. We have heard it declaimed both in the Special Committee and in this House time and again that there were certain vested rights in regard to the bondholder. That may be very true; there are certain vested rights there. But I submit that although the bondholders may have vested rights, the first and only thing that we, as representatives of the people, ought to consider are the vested rights of the people. There has been much sympathy expressed for the bondholder. He has been held up time and again as having put his money into this venture, and now, forsooth, because certain things may hap-198i
pen in a legislative way, he may not get back his money. As far as the hondholder is concerned, he has a right to be looked after by this Committee and by this House, if he has not' already looked after himself, but the peculiar circumstances of this case must all be taken into consideration.
We have here four companies, all mixed up. They are under different names and under different heads, but, nevertheless, these four companies are under one control. There is not one of them that is not subservient to one set of men. True it is, the Toronto and Niagara Power Company were pioneers, but from what I gathered in the Committee and here, that pioneer work amounted to this:	The Toronto and Niagara Power Company issued Jl,500,000 worth of bonds, and $700,000 worth of stock, and there they stopped; that was the end of it, so far as the issuing of stock and bonds under that charter was concerned. That charter was granted by this House under certain very exceptional conditions, con-tions, I believe, which have never obtained in this or any ot/her House before. The Minister of Railways has asked what we would do if the Canadian Pacific or some other company was in the same situation. In answer to that argument, I would say that nobody can read the debate that took place upon the granting of this charter and come to any other conclusion but this:
These men left this House knowing and being absolutely satisfied in their own minds that they were coming under the Railway Act and had no greater rights than that Act gave them. Under these circumstances, what happened? They went on and sold $1,500,000 bonds, and issued $700,000 worth of stock. Some one then, looking over the Act, lawyer-like, I will admit, said there is a flaw; here is a chance where we may go on and carry out our undertaking; that undertaking may be carried out irrespective of the clauses of the Railway Act and consequently irrespective of the rights of the municipalities. The case was taken to the lower court and decided in favour of the company, then to the Court of Appeal who upset the judgment of the lower court. They took it to the Privy Council and again the judgment of the lower court was upheld. The Privy Council held that the company had the right to go on and across the streets of the municipalities. It appears to me to be a most significant thing that during the course of the various states of litigation that took place in the lower court, in the Court of Appeal and in the Privy Council, bonds were sold.



H24 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
We have been told by the Minister of Pub-lie Works that they were sold to the extent of thirty or forty million dollars. Certain it is though, by all the evidence that could be adduced before that committee, that there were certain bonds issued but never sold until after certain decisions were given. I will admit that the bonds were sold, but under what conditions were they sold? They were sold under these conditions-and this is where I say the bondholder is not entitled to one jot or tittle of sympathy. What did he do? No bondholder or set of bondholders will take up several million dollars' worth of bonds without going to the bottom of the whole affair and ascertaining whereon the authority of the company to issue the bonds rests. Very properly they found out, and what did the bondholders say? This conversation occurred as surely as the night follows the day. They said: Show us your charter; show us the proceedings upon which your charter was founded. And they did. They knew of the litigation and knew that there was a doubt whether or not they had the right to exercise the rights that the court upheld. They recognized the fact, as we do here to-night, that the rights given to this company were purely a piece of judicial legislation which has always taken place, and which judicial legislation is nine times out of ten not in the minds of those who pass it. They said:	We will	take your	bonds;
but they did not take them without the guarantee of the four companies. They said: We will take these bonds provided the four companies-the Electrical Development Company, the Toronto Street Railway, the Toronto and Niagara. Power Company and the Toronto Electric Light Company- guarantee them. And they did. Are the bondholders hurt? The hon. Minister of Public Works said: If you pass this legislation to right a wrong that was never intended by this Parliament these bonds will not be worth fifty cents in the dollar. With the guarantee that these bondholders hold, they are worth dollar for dollar, and the company and the bondholders know it right well. Therefore I think I might ask in all fairness, why should we by our vote give to this company the right to walk into any municipality in the Dominion and say: We may go here, there and everywhere, and the wishes or the rights of this municipality amount to absolutely nothing as against the powers that Parliament gave to us inadvertently, but which we intend to take advantage of. I say, Sir, that if you have not 
local autonomy in your Dominion, provincial and municipal affairs, and if we here, the people of the Dominion of Canada in our various spheres, are not allowed to exercise that autonomy in the way that seems best to us as communities, then the sooner we make up our minds to hand over the Dominion of Canada to companies who may desire to do as they please with us without any reference whatever to the iwill of the people, the better. It is a plain statement of facts. There has been much camouflage, and a great many red herrings have been drawn across the trail, but the matter is plain. And when I listened to the Hon. James Beck the other day in this Chamber 1 thought that as a speech, and in touching only the high spots, it was an absolute classic. He stood before the members of that committee and I will admit he played upon their feelings, and he played upon mine. But the one burden of that speech, and the sole tune of that song was: Take care, oh do take care of the down-trodden bondholder. There is no down-trodden bondholder, and there is no repudiation of the contract of this Parliament in the slightest degree. That charter was granted on a distinct understanding, the persons who got it well knowing that their powers were confined within certain terms. They went on and completed their works, and as my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) so well said, they were supplying only two customers, and knew that the lives of those two customers were limited. Why, as prudent business men, did they not establish a sinking fund? They did not do so, but traded upon a judicial interpretation of statutes never intended, and consequently find themselves in the cul de sac in which they are to-day. So far as I am personally concerned, I am here representing the people and not the corporations, and I believe that this is one of the times when the House of Commons should stand absolutely by the rights of the people without fear or favour.
Edmund James Bristol: I do not purpose to speak at any great length on this matter because I think it is unnecessary, but I think if would be well if we got before us clearly what it is that the hon. member for Park-dale asks us to vote upon. It seems to me to be a very simple matter, and I really do not see why it should call for so much argument. The proposition of the hon. member for Parkdale is this:	Are you going to put all the electric power companies of Canada under one class of legislation, or are you going to leave one to run at large?

That is the proposition clearly and concisely put. In the interests of the municipalities and of the people of the country, what ever may have been the rights given in 1902 to the Toronto and Niagara Power Company the time has come when there should be one class of legislation governing all companies of this kind. Section 374 provides for electric companies in this country to have through transmission lines for power and transmission. In the case of refusal by the municipality to allow transmission through the municipality, there is provision for application to the Railway Board, and in the case of distribution they must apply to the municipality, and if the municipality refuses, the matter there ends. That is the legislation which it is proposed to apply to all companies at present in existence. It has been suggested by my hon. friend from Vancouver, that there may be other companies in the same line as the Toronto and Niagara Power Company. What I most strongly urge is this:
If there are any such-which I do not believe, because this matter has been under discussion by Parliament for practically three years and it has received a great deal of newspaper notoriety-and if there are any others, we would have heard of them. But assuming that there are, is that not all the more reason for making this legislation apply to every company in this country and not allowing these companies (at large to exercise their rights when and wherever they may desire as against the rights of the municipalities? It is suggested that this is not the proper place to deal with this matter but .somebody should take it upon himself to apply to Parliament to ask to have the Toronto and Niagara Power Company's charter amended at some other time and on some other occasion. In view of the fact that the Toronto and Niagara Power Company took their charter with, what every member of this House admits, the full knowledge and belief that the Railway Act of that day applied to the charter, we are doing them no harm now, they having been allowed to run free for a few years, and having got rights that they never expected, by putting them under the same legislation as every other power company in this country.
It is suggested by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) that the province of Ontario has passed improper legislation in that regard because it does not allow municipalities to pass bylaws without the consent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
It does not seen to me it is the duty of this House to sit in review on the legislation of the province of Ontario. That is a matter for the people of Ontario to deal with just as it is a matter for the people of Quebec or for any of the other provinces to deal with matters that come within their jurisdiction. We are not here as a court of review to sit in judgment upon the province of Ontario or any other province but we are here to pass legislation in the interest of the people of Canada and we should leave them to fight out their own provincial rights in their own provinces.
The only other matter that has been raised for our consideration is the question of the rights of bondholders. I fancy that the picture of two of our ministers weeping over the rights of these bondholders will go down in history because I do not believe that the rights of the bondholders will be affected very much. The suggestion made by Mr. Beck was that in so far as he knew no bondholder would be affected. I do not believe there is one particle of doubt that these bonds are all amply secured. We are told that this company has a 250,000 horse-power development at Niagara Falls. We are told	that they were
the pioneers in electrical development and we are asked to sympathize with their pioneer efforts. The pioneers in the development of electrical power, and the people who spent large sums of money, were the Niagara Falls Po.weT Company. They were at it for ten years on the American side iand they spent millions in perfecting the machinery which enabled Niagara's power to be chained up. The next power company was the Ontario Power Company, an American concern. The Toronto Niagara Power Company were the third set of people to go into that line of business and when they began the development of electrical power it was fairly well known and understood. But there was something that was not known in 1902 and that was the extent to which electricity was going to he developed and the vital importance that it was going to be to the people. We had very scant knowledge as to the protection that should be given to the people in connection with a matter of that kind. Every effort was made at that time that reasonably could be made, both by the late Mr. Clarke and Mr. (now Sir Edmund) Osier, to see that proper protection was given to the municipalities. As my hon. friends who support the amendment have said, it is perfectly and obviously clear that the gentlemen who got this

charter, and who are here to-night, knew perfectly well that they received that charter subject to the rights of municipalities in connection with their own interests.
Is Parliament supreme in matters of this kind? What are the rights of franchise holders as compared with the rights of the people? A franchise is merely a part of a public right given by Parliament to certain people to administer. It may be changed and altered. It is not a vested right; it is simply a permission to certain people to exercise definite public powers that belong to Parliament and to that extent these powers must be absolutely subject to the legislative control of Parliament. I am satisfied that hon. members will find that when they go back home to their constituents in the different municipalities, towns and cities, they will find it hard to explain why they voted for alleged vested rights and financial interests as against the rights and interests of the municipalities of their own constituents.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Mr. Chairman, this question has been so fully, ably and comprehensively dealt with from the legal standpoint by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) and others that I do not feel called upon to say very much. I have not very much sympathy with the bondholders. They are a class of people who, as was said by the hon. member for Lamb-ton (Mr. Pardee) are well able to take care of themselves, and in this case they evidently did. What has impressed me is that there is not a man here to-night who will say that the legislation which gave this company the powers it enjoys is legislation that would he adopted at the present time. This House made a very serious mistake in 1902 and the effect of that mistake is to deprive the city of Toronto, and all the municipalities concerned, of the control of their streets. That was recognized at the time this legislation was before the House.
I remember very distinctly that the Canadian union of municipalities, representing every municipality from the Atlantic to the Pacific, sent their representatives down here to voice their opposition to the measure. They did everything in their power at that time to resist the attempt of this company to get the rights which they sought. In addition to all that has been quoted as to the understanding of Parliament in regard to the application of the general Railway Act to this company, I am informed that the chairman of the Railway Committee of that day, Mr. Mahlon

Cowan, wrote a letter to one of the mayors of a western town declaring that the company that was being chartered would come under the general Act. That being the case and the first offence being to deprive the municipalities of their vested rights, that initial fault ought to be corrected by this Bouse to-night. The amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Parkdale makes that correction and I submit that this Committee ought to adopt that amendment and put all the electrical companies in the same position in regard to the Act.


Mr. BOYS:: any province, or any power or authority heretofore or hereafter conferred thereby or derived therefrom, no telegraph or telephone line, within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, shall, except as (hereinafter in this section provided, be constructed, operated or maintained by any company upon, along, or across any highway, square or other public place, without the consent of the municipality having jurisdiction over such highway, square, or public place.
Subsection 3 then provides, exactly as I do in my proposed amendment, that if that consent is withheld the Railway Board shall then decide the terms upon which the permission shall be granted. Now, if the Act, known as the Act Respecting Corporations Operating Certain Public Utilities, makes invalid a by-law or an agreement respecting this power company, it will also make it invalid respecting tele-
12	p.m. graph and telephone companies;
yet our Act as drafted at the present time distinctly provides for obtaining the consent of the municipality in that very manner, so if it is good in the one case it ought to be good in the other. As far as I am concerned, I do not think that the Ontario statute would stand in the way. II this company had not a franchise at the present time I quite appreciate that no bylaw or agreement made toy a municipality could give any company the right to use those streets for a period of more than one year, as I understand the law of Ontario, or for more than five years upon a vote of the people without, at all events, it having the sanction of either an Act of the legislature or the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. But if we say in our Act of this company, which now has the right to use the streets of municipalities: "You must first ask consent, and if you fail to get that consent then go to the Railway Board/' surely we can, if we wish, define the manner in which that consent is to be obtained; and so long as it is obtained in accordance with our legislation it seems to me it makes very little difference what the province of Ontario does in that connection. So I think that by an amendment of this kind the company is reasonably protected and so is the municipality.
For my part, I cannot bring myself to think that it is proper, notwithstanding all that has been said, that when this charter has heen granted and when over $30,000,000 have been spent in the undertaking-the statement has never been challenged, it was made over and over again in the select committee and nobody challenged it, and I think we may fairly say that it is certain

there is in this undertaking over $30,000,000 -that we should jeopardize, or, as has been suggested by the editor of Saturday Nigin,, confiscate that property. I cannot bring myself to do that; at all events noi if there is any reasonable way of protecting the municipality and at the same time the company.
Reference has been made to bondholders, and to the million and a half dollars' worth of bonds. It would seem to me that it was hardly necessary to argue that proposition. It is said that this particular company issued bonds to the extent of only $1,500,000. But surely when we understand that it forms an important part of three distinct systems, namely, the generating plant at the Falls, the transmission plant, and the distribution plant, we must realize that to take any one of those away would render the balance worthless. If you say to this company or to any other company, "You cannot enter any municipality without consent, which consent may be withheld without any reason whatever," you surely make useless the whole undertaking. And that is what we are asked to do.
If I was now being called upon to cast a vote as to whether or not I would support a charter such as was granted in 1902, it goes without saying that.I would not think of doing so. But the position to-day is very different from the position then. It was only in 1899 that the idea of obtaining consent of the municipalities was first determined upon by Parliament, and the very idea of obtaining consent was fresh in the minds of the members of Parliament in 1902. Therefore if it was thought proper to make this company get the consent of every municipality before proceeding with its undertaking, surely Parliament would have said so in plain English. It seems to me we are casting a serious reflection upon the members of Parliament of 1902 when we quietly sit down to amend their work, because from a word or two that was dropped from three of four members we suggest the other members did not know what they were doing. In 1899 that policy of consent was adopted, it was everybody's mind, and there was no suoh provision put in the Special Act. In 1903 in the consolidation it was again inserted, but there, was no saving clause put in the legislation then, and in the year after this charter went through, and they knew of that mistake, why do we not find in the consolidation some saving clause indicating that so far as this company was concerned the rights obtained by this charter-which

I admit is an omnibus, wide open, perpetual charter-were granted under misapprehension? Why did we not on the first opportunity the year after take occasion to correct the mistake made? It was not done, it was not dealt with in any subsequent consolidations and amendments. It is said that as a matter of fact this was raised as far back as 1912, and that because of the war and of the fact that the Railway Bill did not go through in 1917, the matter has been dragging along ever since. But there is no doubt that this very charter was used in the floatation of some $9,000,000 worth ol bonds-at all events, that is the uncontradicted evidence before the Committee- after the decision of the Privy Council, and how any one can argue or suggest that a bondholder would then be purchasing bonds with any doubt as to the position of the company is beyond my comprehension. We had the court of last resort outlining the powers of that company, and there was no chance of varying those powers unless Parliament itself was to abrogate what it did in 1902. Consequently on the strength of that charter $9,000,000 worth further bonds were sold. Are we to abrogate those rights entirely? Surely not.
The suggestion I have to make later, if this amendment is defeated, it seems to me would protect the company and the municipalities; and I do not think that any municipalities outside, we will say, two or three hundred miles of the Niagara plant need have any fear of invasion by this company so far as their streets are concerned. Without a shadow of doubt the company was originally incorporated for the purpose of generating and transmitting electricity from Niagara to Toronto. I have not much doubt that it was formed for the purpose of supplying current to the street railway and the electric light company, which was a convenient way of disposing of the current, much more so than setting up their own poles.
If the company wanted to go along a street where there were already telephone poles, street railway poles, and hydro poles, the board could say to them, " No, if you wish to tan the locality that is reached by this street you must go up to a further cross street where there are no poles and find a way there." In that way' I think we would do away with the greatest evil, the placing along the street of endless poles.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member for Parkdale has brought in a resolution by way of amendment that would, to my mind, as has been stated by others, amount to confiscation of practically fifty per cent at least of the value of this company's assets.
The bonds to that extent would suffer. When we are settling the rights and powers and privileges of this company, I cannot, as a member of this House, having regard to the judgment of the Chancellor of Ontario and of the Privy Council of England, lightly ignore a -position of that kind and vote for the confiscation of the money of any body, whether he lives in Canada, England, United States, or France. I am not sure that this House has been serious enough in viewing this question, I might quote in addition to what the member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) quoted, from an article published in Toronto quoting the London Saturday Review:
The recent attempt to have the Railway Act so amended that it would, in effect, have made the charter of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company valueless, and would, at the same time, have betrayed the investors who, in good faith, placed their money in this undertaking, met with its just deserts at the hands of a Committee of the House of Commons. Such attempts at confiscatory legislation are not being overlooked in England, whose moneyed men furnished so much of the capital which went to build up just such enterprises in Canada. For1 instance, a recent issue of the London Saturday Review had this to say:
"Canadian and Australian Governments have taken to an ugly and dishonest trick of recent years, which, unless abandoned, will effectually cut off the inflow of British capital. It is this. A syndicate or company of shareholders, as a rule British, are given powers by the local legislature to build and equip some great .undertaking, such as a railway, or an electrical power plant. When it has been completed and found to be running at a profit, the Colonial Legislature arms the State with powers to run a rival undertaking, which, owing to Government patronage ruins the private concern. This is practically what the Government of Western ^Australia has done to the Midland Railway. This is apparently what the Government of Ontario is trying to do to the Electric Development Company of Ontario, which hqs brought an action against the Attorney-General and the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario. The Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario has done his best to defeat the Development Company by a legal technicality, which the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has very properly disallowed."
Let me ask, is there any truth in what the Privy Council said? Was this Toronto and Niagara Power Company a pioneer? The member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) says they were not. In return, I assert that no company established on the United States side of the Niagara Fails had trans-

mitted electricity any distance beyond the city of Buffalo-a matter of far less than half a hundred miles. At that time the electrical experts of the world were in doubt as to the possibility of the commercial transport of electricity at a profit. Nikola Tesla said one thing and Edison said another. This company had the courage and the nerve which made the Privy Council say it was a pioneer; therefore, it got wide powers. I freely concur in what has been stated here, that on the floor of this House there wias a discussion as to whether or not the powers were so wide. But the company interpreted its own statute; the company's solicitors undertook at a certain stage to say what those powers were. Having taken, the Act and studied it and found out what their powers were, they, as they had the right to do, went on and issued $9,000,000 worth more bonds. Why, it is said that when this company first got into Toronto, the city was ablaze with glory and joy because a real, splendid new enterprise had been, brought to their door and they were going to be flooded with electric light. They were pleased with it and they continued to be pleased with it for many years. Not until the HydroElectric, a provincial utility, came into the field, was any objection raised or antipathy shown to this particular company. Now, I am rather inclined to view the HydroElectric Commission as one of the greatest public utilities that Ontario has. Bo much do I think of it that I am inclined to belittle the arguments of hon. gentlemen who fear the competition of this company against the Hydro Electric, which has the public purse, the public pulse and the public generally behind it; which is carrying on business in Ontario not for profit, but for the benefit of the people. When men speak of this small company fighting its way on its own money-borrowed, it is true,-most of it-against one of the greatest provinces in this Dominion, with its purse outpouring to the splendid Hydro Electric utility, I say it is rather stretching an argument to assert that the public right is being interfered with. I do not believe that any public right is going to be hurt by this cbmpany. The Hydro Electric is in nearly every part of western Ontario to-day; there is no need of another company coming in. In the course of time, when the Hydro Electric is fully developed, it can take up a further field in eastern Ontario. I do not see why they cannot compete with an overflowing purse behind them.

Let it be remembered just here that the Hydro, in spite of all its good and of all its usefulness to the public, has never yet developed a single horsepower; it has bought its power from companies like this, and others. It is not a pioneer, and I decline to accept the argument that to support the law as found by the Chancellor of Ontario and the Privy Council in England is plain treason to the Hydro Electric Commission and to the people of Ontario.
I do not believe that the people of Ontario will accept such an argument. They are as fair and as broad-spirited and as equitable and as manly as any people in the Dominion. I do not think that their view is so narrow and restricted as the view represented by some arguments that have been offered here to-day. The Hydro has a splendid body of engineers to regulate it, and they are taking up large developments. It cost $15,000,000 to develop Chippewa creek, I hear a whisper, "$30,000,000"; be careful that it is not $50,000,000. In any case, they are prepared to go into the field, and that any Act of this Parliament should be passed that would operate as confiscation is to say the least, unreasonable. No	sensible man can deny that
there would be a loss. In two years the Toronto Electric Railway Company goes over to the city of Toronto, and they will use Hydro-Electric, provincial power. There is 40,000 horse-power gone at one swoop. It may be that there are worse things in the world than a little competition, even for a publicly-owned utility. Every one in the country is not buoyed up with the assurance of the final and ultimate success of our National railways under federal ownership, or of Hydro-Electric under provincial ownership. We all hope they will succeed, for the interest and the benefit of the people, but no man knows. Consequently, to put our eggs all in one basket might be the worst thing that ever happened.
Let me point out one thing to the committee. This Toronto and Niagara Power Company has 27,000 customers in Toronto, notwithstanding the fact that it charges more for its service than the Hydro-Electric charges. Their argument is that the people pay more because their system is better and more efficient, and the service consequently better. Charging more against a big corporation like the Hydro, yet holding 27,000 subscribers-that is not competition in the ordinary sense. That is not bidding down to. make Hydro go lower. Only last week the Hydro knocked 20 per cent off all municipal charges in the province of Ontario,
and they can easily do it. I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Parkdale. I believe it would be confiscation. I feel that the temper of the House compels me to support the amendment proposed by the minister, because he has left some remnant of this company intact, as I understand it. If I am wrong, it may be said hereafter that that was the understanding I had. I do not know that it is wise fior us to accept what was said in debate in preference to the deliberate judgment of the highest court in the realm. The Act is the thing. It stands there to be scrutinized, and I think we should hesitate before creating a precedent here to-day upon data that is not quite sufficient to warrant the precedent being established. Mention has been made of the hon. Mr. Beck of New York. Hon. gentlemen may not remember everything he said, but one thing that impressed itself very strongly upon me was this sentence: "Canada must be a borrowing public. The United States is a lending public." England may not be a lending public for many years to come, and we may in the future require to raise money on the public credit. To raise money, the public credit must stand high, and the public credit springs from the fount of Parliament here. If this Parliament enacts legislation that goes to foreign lands with the hall mark of shame upon it, so that the credit of Canada is impaired, then if the amendment of the hon. member for Parkdale carries we may regret for many years to come that Parliament took that stand, probably without mature consideration and in the heat of a summer evening.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: As a member of the
Special Committee on this Bill I wish to say a few words. I have listened to all the arguments on this question pro and con of the most capable lawyers probably in this country for four times, 'and they have all amounted to practically the same thing each time. Going back to the granting of the franchise to this company in 1902, we were told this afternoon, and have been told time and again before, that the Railway Committee of that day did not know what they were doing. I do not think we have any right to assume that any more than we have a right to_ assume that the Railway Committee of this day does not know what it is doing. As a matter of fact, a good deal of reference has been made to some of the objections raised by Mr. Osier and Mr. Clarke at that time, and yet the

Committee passed the Bill in spite of these gentlemen's objections. That looks to me as if the Railway Committee of that day knew exactly what they were doing. I can construe it in no other way. The objections were m/ade, and still the Railway Committee of that day passed the Bill. Furthermore, the mayor of Toronto at that time, Mr. Urquhart, wrote a letter to the Toronto'-City Council and the Controllers pointing out that the Mackenzie and Mann people had been given exactly the powers which the Privy Council decided had been given to them. There was no objection from the Toronto City Council that we ever heard of in the Railway Committee.
As far as the bonds are concerned, it has been said that $1,500,000 of bonds were issued by the transmission company, which was the first company formed, I understand. These were never sold, but were taken up by the development company. Afterwards, the development company built the transmission line to Toronto. The Committee never heard of any objection to that from any of the municipalities. The lines were built without any trouble until they invaded North Toronto. In the meantime the development company had sold some $7,000,000 of bonds. There was a question before the special committee as to whether value was received for the bonds, but there was no objection made before the special committee by the solicitors for the city of Toronto that the money was not properly expended. Some $34,000,000 or $35,000,000 was expended and $27,000,000 of bonds . were issued altogether, I understand. When the trouble did arise there was an appeal to Chancellor Boyd, who was one of the most capable judges in the province of Ontario. He gave a decision in favour of the company. The first bonds had been sold previous to that decision. After that decision more bonds were issued, but they were held over until the appeal had been heard by the Privy Council, and when the Privy Council, the court, of last resort in the Empire, gave their decision these bonds that had been issued, $9,000,000 worth, were sold. Nobody can tell me that the solicitors who were engaged to investigate the title that was to be the security for these bonds did not take the franchise as the main security, because anybody who has ever tried to sell public utility bonds know that you cannot sell them unless you have a proper franchise. The two franchises that hon. gentlemen say were the security for these bonds were both limited franchises, and I do not believe that the
fMr. Nesbitt. 1
purchasers of the bonds would have bought them except for the fact that the franchise was behind the bonds. That may be disputed, but I have listened to all the arguments four times now, and I have never heard any reason given to change my mind that that was the main source of credit for the sale of these bonds.
The hon. member for Parkdale this afternoon made an argument I have never heard before on this question. He said that it was a mistake of the law clerk that was responsible for the franchise being granted. I have sat on the Railway Committee since I have been a member of Parliament, and ,1 know that the Committee always look carefully over the Bill to see that the law clerk has drawn it properly before they vote on it.
That has been my experience in any Railway Committee on which I have sat, and I believe that the Railway Committee of that day knew what they were doing just as much as the Railway Committee of this day does. It is said, quite truly, that we would not grant a franchise of that kind today, but you must not think of it for to-day. You must go back seventeen years ago when the distribution or the transmission of power was in its infancy. A power company had been, established at Niagara Falls before that time, but as my hon. friend from North Perth said, the furthest transmission that had taken place up to \that time was to Buffalo, by the International Power Company, which I believe has since changed its name. There is no doubt that, whatever faults there might have been in the franchise at that time, tfhe city council wer5 then glad to get this company to transmit power to Toronto. It has been said that these people have got their poles on the streets of Toronto contrary to the order of the Privy Cbuncil that they should be removed. These poles were ordered to be removed, and why has the city of Toronto not enforced that order of the Privy Council? Because, as the member for North Perth says, there are 27,000 people using this power in the city of Toronto, and I do not think they would be in favour of having these poles removed. That must be the reason why the city has not ordered their removal before now. They have stopped this company from lighting the streets of Toronto, but private people of Toronto still patronize the company. I shall not dwell on this phase of the subject further, but what strikes me forcibly is this:	These
people got the franchise and proceeded to sell bonds, and my experience has been that

if a private individual breaks a contract- at least if any man breaks a contract with me-he is not trusted any more by me. A man may break a contract with me once, but never a second time, because I will not trust him, and I believe that that is the case with businessmen throughout the length and breadth of tlhis land. What has built up the trade of the British Empire more than the fact that the people with whom she traded could depend on the goods which they received being according to representation? If a man lies to me about any particular thing, he may deceive me once, but it is my fault if he deceives me twice. Some one, I think the hon. member for Park-dale, talked this afternoon about our being honest, and I could not help thinking when I heard him whether it was the intention that this Parliament of Canada, the representatives of the people of this country, should be asked ito break a solemn contract and discredit us in the eyes ol the financial world. There can be no other interpretation than that, no matter how you may camouflage the legal aspect of the case. We have had a considerable lot of legal talk and for four years I have listened to it. But so far as I am personally concerned I look at the matter from one standpoint. If we pass the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Parkdale we practically confiscate these people's interests. There is no question about that. The bonds may or may not be good, but we have no right to confiscate any proper interests that have been built up with the legal endorsation of the Parliament of this country. And if all the lawyers in the United States and Canada were to talk to me about the legal aspects of the question, I could not consider it from any other standpoint than that we have no right to break a contract once it is made, and that we should stand by it even though it costa us something. I am as perfectly willing as any man to protect the municipalities, and I think the amendment suggested by the Minister of Railways fully protects the municipalities where these people have not entered into business; and it fully protects the municipality of Toronto as regards the future. It has been said that this company has Dominion-wide power and that from Halifax to Vancouver they can go into any municipality and occupy the streets. But after all we must give credit to the company for having some common sense. There would be no object in going into any muni-cioality unless the proposition would pay. If the city could not get power for less than
they were being supplied by the existing corporation, there is no fear, ,n my judgment, of this or any other company going into any municipality. I do not know of any municipality that would not welcome any corporation that could sell them power cheaper than they are getting at the present day. That is true of any municipality as it is in the case of individuals. The fact is, no matter with what legal phraseology it is surrounded: There people were granted the franchise and sold bonds. Some one said this afternoon that there was no proof that any of the bonds were sold out of Canada. But suppose that to be the case, is that any reason why we should confiscate the interests of the people of Canada? As a matter of fact, it was stated before the special committee time and again that these bonds were sold in England, France and the United States. The great majority of them were sold there, but even if they were not, is there any justification in our confiscating their value? By all means no. If they were sold in Canada, that is all the more reason why we should protect the interests of the people who held them. I am perfectly willing to see either the minister's clause inserted to protect the municipalities where these people are not now operating, or to accept the proposed amendment of my hon. friend from South Simcoe. But let us not confiscate the rights of any one and have the people of the world say that they cannot invest money in this country without running the risk of con-fiiscation.
The Committee divided on the amendment of Mr. Mowat.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, yeas 56, nays 52.
Mr. J. F. REID:: I was paired with the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), otherwise I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr. MoMASTER: I should not have voted, Mr. Chairman; I was paired.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I did not want to make two mouthfulls of this but the next amendment is to the latter part of subclause 5. The Senate understood that this company was to buy out the Toronto Electric Eight Company. Now it seems to me that that is not so. I propose to move an amendment to change the latter part of the subclause and this will be subclause 6: I therefore beg to move:
That subsection 5 of section 374 be amended
by striking out all the words in the last eleven
lines from, and inclusive of, the word "pro-

vided" to the end of the section and substituting the following as a new subsection 6:
(6) If any company heretofore incorporated by Special Act or other authority of the Parliament of Canada has acquired, or shall acquire assets or any part thereof, or the right to the possession or use of the assets or any part thereof, of any company or person operating a 'system for the distribution of light, heat, power or electricity, in any town, city, village or township, then in every such case the company so acquiring such assets shall carry out with the municipality all the obligations, in respect to the said assets whether arising under contract or in any other manner, of the company from which the said assets have been or shall be acquired.
Section as amended, agreed to.


John Dowsley Reid: I think that completes all the clauses of the Bill. However, I would like to ask the committee to take up clauses 25 and 27 and make the changes in them that I shall propose. These are two clauses in reference to the employees of the Board of Railway Commissioners who are not now under the Civil Service Act. This will bring them under the Act. I therefore beg to move the reconsideration of section 25.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Dowsley Reid: I beg to move:
That section 25 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Such other officers, clerks, and employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the Board may be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act 1918, and of any Acte in amendment thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. J. D. REID moved the reconsideration of section 27.
Motion agreed to.
John Dowsley Reid: I beg to move that section 27 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
27. The officers, clerks and employees attached to the Board may be paid out of such money as may be appropriated by Parliament for the purpose.


William Stevens Fielding: The minister says "such other officers." That evidently excepts some. Who are those that are excepted ?


John Dowsley Reid: Section 25 excepted all officers employed by the Board of Railway Commissioners.


William Stevens Fielding: The amendment says "such other officers," meaning that there are some who will be appointed by the Civil Service Commission and others who will not be?
[Mr. Mowat.J


John Dowsley Reid: There are some officers such as Mr. Spencer. He is a special officer or inspector. They must all come under the Civil Service Commission, the same as the special officers in any other department.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: Shall I report the Bill ?


William Garland McQuarrie: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer again to section 325.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before referring to section 325 it will be necessary for the hon. gentleman to have the unanimous consent of the Committee. Is it the unanimous will of the Committee that the hon. member he allowed to revert to section 325 of the Bill?


William Garland McQuarrie: I can go on with it now or wait until the third reading. It will take me a few minutes to explain it, but if the Committee do not wish me to go on to-night I shall defer what I have to say until the third reading. The amendment to section 325 has the effect of practically wiping out all agreements made between municipalities and the railway companies fixing rates in those municipalities. It also has the effect of wiping out an appeal which is now pending to the Supreme Court. 1 want to explain these things to the Committee, but if you would prefer me to do it on the third reading I should be glad to postpone what I have to say. It is so late now that I do not like to keep the Committee, but if you wish me to go ahead I am prepared to do so.


John Dowsley Reid: I have no objection, but I do not like to ask the Committee to remain.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is the way I feel, too.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. member wish to have the clause opened up again?


William Garland McQuarrie: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: I would not like to have the clause opened up again. Rather than have the clause opened I would prefer that you bring it up on the third reading.


William Garland McQuarrie: I will take it up on the third reading, then.
Bill reported.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Reid the House adjourned at 1 a. m. Thursday. '

Thursday, June 5, 1919.