CONFERRING OF TITLES ON CANADIANS.


[Stage Direction]
On motions being called:
Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been directed to a clerical error in the report I presented to this House in reference to the question, of titles some few days ago as a result of which -one of the clauses of the report may have an ambiguous meaning. I am therefore going to move, so that the intention of the Committee may be expressed:
That clause (b) of the report be amended by inserting the words "and of a '' after the word ''distinction" at the end of the second line of clause (to) and inserting the word "or" after the word "distinction" in the fifth and sixth lines of the said clause (b).


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: How will the amended
clause read?


William Folger Nickle: If the amendment is carried. the clause will read as follows:

(b) "To provide that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise to ensure the , extinction of an hereditary title of honour or titular distinction, and of a dignity or title as a peer of the realm, on the death of a person domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada at present in enjoyment of an hereditary title of honour or titular distinction, or dignity or title as a peer of the realm, and that thereafter no such title of honour, titular distinction, or dignity or title as a peer of the realm, shall be accepted, enjoyed or used by any person or be recognized."
The object of the amendment is to make the clause read as the Committee desired and to remove the ambiguity from it.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Is it not unusual to pass a motion of this kind without having a day's notice?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I believe it is customary to pass such a motion where it merely corrects what is obviously a clerical error. I understand that is all this motion purports to do.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. McKENZIE:: I would like to ask the hon. Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) if he has any news as to the conditions at Winnipeg.


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (for the Minister of Labour):: There is no material change in the situation at Winnipeg.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I might say further to my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) thc^t our advices are to the effect that the municipal, provincial, and Dominion authorities are all co-operating and that measures have been taken to ensure the maintenance of law and order.


Samuel Hughes: What to do-to surrender?



FAMINE IN INDIA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth):: As relating to a matter of very considerable interest at the present time, 1 would like to ask if the Government has any information to give to the House and the country on the prevailing famine in India.
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council):	Mr. Speaker, a
committee of public spirited citizens in Toronto some time ago organized for the purpose of collecting relief for the sufferers from the famine in India and at their request the Government communicated,

through the Imperial authorities, with the Government of India tendering this relief and inquiring whether relief in grain or cash would be the more acceptable. Two communications have been received in reference to the matter. One is that the Government of India gratefully accept the offer of the 'Committee and express a wish for cash rather 'than grain. Another statement has followed. After stating that the attention of the Government of India has been drawn to certain statements which appeared in the Canadian press to the effect that millions of British subjects are starving, they point out that the statement is not . correct and they send the following statement which they ask to have made public:
" Food position in India though undoubtedly grave has no resemblance to descriptions in Toronto circular which is exaggerated and in many parts untrue. Owing to failure of autumn rains, to serious epidemic of influenza which attacked two-thirds of the population, and accounted for -six million deaths, and to absence of large number of young men on military service, area sown with winter crops very short. This, in conjunction with general rise in wages and in standard of living, with inflated currency and reflex action of world prices, has caused foodstuffs to rise to unprecedented prices causing hardship to many sections of the population. But resisting power of people is greater than ever before and although prices are double those of famine year of 1900 number of relief in April was only 337,000 against five and a quarter million in April 1900. Plague is less virulent than usual and no report ejther from private or official sources of any deaths' from starvation have been received. Though there have been food riots in some places they are not as stated in circular of daily occurrence. Thanks to excellent monsoon in 1917 walls in most parts are still holding water, mails are delivered regularly and business is brisk. Stocks of food grains are low but special measures have been taken to conserve supplies and wheat has been imported from Australia. Given normal monsoon there should be enough food until autumn crops are in sight. At the same time low stocks and excessive prices have created situation which is causing great anxiety to Government of India and serious hardship is undoubtedly being experienced by many sections of population." End.
The 'Secretary of State for India adds that season such as now being experienced in India inevitably occasions suffering and privation to poorer and more helpless classes and gives ample scope for private charity in addition to Stat^ relief.


Samuel Hughes: Who is the author of this essay?


Mr. ROWELL:: That is a cable from Lord Milner sent at the request of the Secretary of State for India to be made public here in Canada.

CONFERRING OF TITLES ON ,	CANADIANS.



DATE FIXED FOR DISCUSSION OF COMMITTEE REPORT.

William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to name Thursday as the day for discussion by the House of the report of the Committee upon Titles, Honours and Decorations. I have conferred with the Chairman of the Committee, and the date is entirely agreeable to him.


Samuel Hughes: Will the discussion take up the whole day?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In what form will this discussion come up?


William Thomas White: There will be a motion by the Chairman of the Committee for the adpotion of the report, and the discussion will be upon that motion.



THE BIOLOGICAL BOARD ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 106 to amend the Biological Board Act-Hon. Mr. Ballantyne-read third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion that the House go into Committee on Bill No. 19 to consolidate and amend the Railway Act:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister explain the necessity of an amending Bill?


Hon. J. D. REID:: The Bill that we are going into Committee on is the consolidation of the Railway Act. We did pass a Bill to amend the old Railway Act which now stands for third reading. If this Bill goes through its third reading, I intend to withdraw the other Bill.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (Algoma East):: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a letter I have received from Winnipeg under date of April 11, 1919, referring to a matter that came before the Special Committee that dealt with this particular Bill. The letter is as follows:
Enclosed please find a clipping from to-day's Manitoba Free Press, which states that Locomotive engineers in some instances deliberately kill cattle on the railroad tracks1. I, for one, repudiate such a statement, and these people should be brought to time land made to prove their case. Such a statement should not be allowed to go unchallenged, and I trust that as you are an ex-railway employee in engine service, and know the danger of such an undertaking, you will see your way clear to have this matter remedied. I think our standing as a body of men is above such reproach and should not be dragged down in this manner.
Not being a member of the Raihvay Committee, I do not know who made the statement complained of, but I cannot conceive of any hon. member making such a statement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I have very
grave doubts as to whether the hon. gentleman is in order in raising a discussion upon the mere motion, that I do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee on a Bill. The hon. gentleman would be in order in bringing this matter up in Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Short title.
John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Chairman, it will be remembered that this Bill has been before the House of Commons and the Senate during the last two or three sessions. A special committee .of this House took evidence from a great many persons interested in the different sections. This Bill contains altogether 461 sections, and with the exception of 35 sections no changes have be^n made in the original Bill as passed by this House and the Senate. I thought we might take up these sections in which no change has been made either by the House or the Senate, and after passing those come back to the 35 sections which have been amended,- some in the Senate and some in the House. If that suggestion meets with the approval of the Committee perhaps we can make faster progress than by taking up the Bill clause by clause. Of course, if we come to any clause on which any hon. member wishes to take issue we could take it up and dispose of! it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the hon. minister give us the clauses which were amended?


John Dowsley Reid: I have a list of 'the clauses in which no changes have been made, and also a list of those in which changes have been made.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister give us the list of clauses in which changes were made?


John Dowsley Reid: The following are all
the sections in which changes were made by the special committee. Sections 2, 5, 6, 10, 26, 39, .40, 80, 151, 179, 240, 250, 255, 262, 282, 285, 323, 325, 345, 347, 358, 364, 371, 37.3,

380, 381, 382, 383, 402, 409, 429, 436, 438, 439, 444.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: Is there no change
in 374?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


William Foster Cockshutt: It has been changed since the original Act was passed.


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes. There are two clauses that the member for East Lambton (Mr. J. E. Armstrong) wishes to discuss. Then, of course, there is the power clause, with reference to the dispute in Toronto. Nearly all the others are clauses to which, I think, no objection will be taken.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Which are the two
clauses that the member for East Lambton wishes to deal with?


John Dowsley Reid: 3 and 258. They are with reference to placing Canadian steamships under the Board of Railway Commissioners


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are they still in the Bill?


John Dowsley Reid: The special committee passed them without any change. Clauses that any member wishes to take objection to, we could allow to stand and discuss with the 35 clauses to which amendments have been made.


Mr. CAHILL:: I suggest that the minister put on Hansard the amendments that were proposed, but defeated; also the clauses to which amendments were proposed, such as the power clause, and sections 34 and 258, that the member for East Lambton refers to. These are contentious clauses, although they have not been amended. We do not want to have it understood that only these 35 clauses which have been amended are contentious. Let us put in one class all the clauses that were amended and all that are contentious or in respect of which proposed amendments were defeated; then we can go ahead with the rest.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not before me the amendments that were proposed in the special committee, but I have had printed all x the amendments made in the special committee. I have three copies here; the others will be here in fifteen or twenty minutes, and a copy will be supplied to each member. If, in considering the non-contentious clauses, we come to a clause which any member wishes to discuss, we can let it stand and deal with it when we come to consider the sections to which amendments have been made or which any members

wish to discuss. I think that the whole discussion will come down to four or five important matters. There is the Toronto matter, the telephone question, the matter of railway crossings-there, are not more than four or five altogether. So that if the Committee will pass the clauses to which there are no objection we shall save time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is quite proper that we should take up first and get through with these non-contentious clauses. What has become of this contention between the Niagara Power Company and the city of Toronto? I could never understand why it was imported into the general Railway Act. However, it is in the Railway Bill, and I should like to know how the matter stands.


John Dowsley Reid: When this Bill was before the House three years ago the House adopted a clause with reference to that matter. When the Bill went to the Senate the Senate' amended that clause, and they amended it again last year. Last year's clause was put in by the Senate this year. It is section 374, which reads in part:-
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 Board may hear such complaint and if it sees fit supervise the exercise of such powers : Provided always that whenever any company incorporated by Special Act of the Parliament of Canada acquires the assets of a company operating within a municipality, which said municipality has the right by agreement to purchase any of the assets of such company, then and in every such case the municipality may enforce its rights under such agreement as fully as if such purchase had not been made and may enforce against such purchaser the provisions of such agreement as if it were the original party entering into such agreement with the municipality.
That is the way it came from the Senate, and the special committee passed it as it came from the Senate. Although this clause is in the list of those to which there are no amendments, still, when we come to it, it is for the Committee to say whether they -will accept the Senate amendment as passed by the special committee, or whether they will further amend the clause.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I know I have no right to go to the middle of the Bill to ask about this clause, but I want the Committee to have some general idea as to how the matter stands between the two contending

forces. Can the minister tell me whether they have reached any conclusion?


John Dowsley Reid: The matter stands exactly as before. The Toronto city authorities were not satisfied with the clause as it now stands in the Bill, and I do not know that the others were very well satisfied either.. This is a kind of settlement that the Senate thought might probably be fair to both parties, but it is now for the Committee to say Whether they will concur with the Senate or amend the clause further.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We certainly have nothing to do with settling the dispute. We are creating legislation under which the parties can negotiate. That is about as far as we can go.


John Dowsley Reid: That is the situation exactly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-definitions:
John Dowsley Reid: We were to take up first the non-contentious clauses.


The CHAIRMAN:: I am very sorry, but we shall have to take the clauses in order and postpone the consideration of those that we do not desire to discuss at present.


John Dowsley Reid: Very well. Let clause 2 stand.
Section stands.
On section 155-scheme lhay be filed in Exchequer Court:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This section deals with insolvent companies. In the last two sessions when this Act was before 4 p.m. us the Bankruptcy Act was not in contemplation. What bearing will the Bankruptcy Act have upon this section?


John Dowsley Reid: We will let the section stand.
Section stands.
On section 2-definitions:


John Dowsley Reid: We now return to the clauses that were allowed to stand. Some of them are not contentious. In paragraph (b), .subsection 4 of section 2, strike out the word " minister " and substitute therefor the word " Board." Under the Railway Act, returns were heretofore sent to tire minister; now they are to be sent to the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Mr. McMASTER:: Why are they not
sent direct to the Dominion Statistician?


John Dowsley Reid: They are sent to the
Dominion Statistician as well.


Mr. BUREAU:: Do these returns appear in the annual report of the Minister of Railways?


John Dowsley Reid: No, these are the regular railway statistics. 'Sections 380 and 381 are amended so that the statistics are sent to the Dominion Statistician and to the Board of Railway Commissioners. The former will publish them; the latter will have them for their own information.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: With reference to subsection 14, I may say that in Alberta a justice of the peace has jurisdiction over the whole province, but this subsection as drafted limits the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace to the " district, county, riding, division." I should like, therefore, to have the word " province " inserted before, the word " district " in the second line of subsection 14.


Jacques Bureau: Why not say " justice " means a justice of the peace, and stop there? The jurisdiction is defined by the local legislature.


Henry Arthur Mackie: What I want to avoid is that there shall be no dispute as to the jurisdiction of our justices of the peace if they take cognizance of the matters mentioned in section 2.


Mr. BOYS:: That would not be satisfactory to Ontario, because our justices of the peace are appointed for the county, not for the province.


Jacques Bureau: The jurisdiction of a justice of the peace is defined by the statute. It must be so defined in Ontario.
Mr. .BOYS:	Only for the county.


Jacques Bureau: Then when you come before a justice of the peace who has not jurisdiction under Dominion statute, you can simply raise the question of his jurisdiction. But I think the word " justice " should be defined as follows:	"Justice"
means " Justice of the Peace." That is sufficient.


John Dowsley Reid: The clause as it stands in the Bill is the same as it has been in the previous Acts for a number of years. This is an exact copy.


Henry Arthur Mackie: That is no reason why we should not amend it now.


Mr. MOW  AT@: If the word "province" is inserted before the word " district," that would cover the whole case.
Amendment (Mr. H. A. Mackie) agreed to.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I omitted to refer to subsection 13. This should be amended so that when a judge is authorized to do any act or make any order, he shall be deemed to act not as persona non designata, but he shall have all the power of the court, acting for the court, especially in directing other persons to be notified, or in making amendments, or in regard to expropriations where it appears that there are separate and distinct interests, and where one sum is offered for compensation for the whole land, and the company should make separate offers to each, so that if one person accepts, he may get out of the proceedings and not be compelled to have his interest diminished by reason of the cost of arbitration, which cost he cannot, under the circumstances, avoid. If the Committee will permit me to refer to clause 215, it will be seen that under that clause application may be made to the court or to a judge for directions. For instance, paragraph (c) reads:
A notification that within ten days after the service of this notice, or, where the notice is served by publication, within one month after the first publication thereof, the party to whom the notice is addressed does not give notice to the company that he accepts the sum offered by the company, either he or the company will be entitled to apply to have the compensation fixed 1919Tbitrati0n aS provided in the Railway Act,
In the definitions, an owner is the person who is capable of granting title, but it is quite possible for a person to have an interest in land under agreement of sale, which, in the western provinces, is similar to a promise for sale in Quebec, and not to be able to give title. At the same time, he has an interest in the land, and it might be possible for him to accept the amount offered to him separately, if a separate amount were mentioned for him. Under present circumstances, he is not able to do that, and if any other person who is interested in the land desires to create a great deal of costs or trouble, the person who would be willing to withdraw by accepting a certain sum of money is compelled to stand the cost of an arbitration and possibly the cost of an appeal. In the case of a judge as defined, should there be an appeal, this circumstance arises:	If one
of the parties is dissatisfied and gives notice of appeal, the first thing that is discussed is that the judge is persona non designata, and there is no appeal from his order or direction or judgment, and if the party wishes to take any appeal at all. he will have to wait until there is an arbitration, but if there is no arbitration and one party desires to take any advantage of an 
appeal, then he is prevented from taking an appeal by reason of the fact that the ' judge is designated as a person to arbitrate and not as a judge of the court. What I am asking for in subsection 13 is that the judge shall be designated as a judge of the court, and that his decisions, orders and directions shall have the force of a judgment and. not simply the force of a direction coming from a person who stands in the position of a person designated.


Mr. NESBITT:: That might be better put as an amendment to another clause.


John Dowsley Reid: In clause 232, there is an appeal from the award. Would not that cover the point?


Henry Arthur Mackie: If clause 232 contains the amendment I desire to suggest to the Committee,- some difficulty mFght arise about turning .back to the definition of the word " judge ", because the definition of the word " judge " would rule in clause 232. I am afraid the amendment must be made in clause 2, subclause 13, so as to give the judge the power of the court, and it would -have to be repeated in clause 232.	.


Mr. MOWAT:: I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. H. A. Mackie) whether he is quite sure that the laws of his province do not follow those of the older provinces which have Acts called " Judges Orders Enforcement Acts," which put any duty of a judge outside of court statutes in the same position as if he were acting wholly as a judge. We have that in Ontario, and, I imagine, also in the other older provinces.


Mr. WALLACE:: Would the minister
kindly postpone the consideration of this Bill until every member has a copy of the amendments sent by the special committee to the House of Commons Committee? Some of the members have not had an opportunity of considering them.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member was present on' the Committee and knows the amendments that were proposed, and I hardly think it is fair that we should postpone proceeding with the Bill. We know what the amendments are when they are mentioned here.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would suggest that it might be well to postpone the consideration of any long amendments, but there is no need to do that in the case of small, simple amendments such as changing a word or tvvo.

Mr. H. A. iMAlOKI'E: In answer to the inquiry of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat), the following cases have been decided on the point on which I touched regarding the question whether a judge is persona non designata or has the power of the court:-	j
Marsan vs. G.T.P- (2 Alta. Law Reports): Saunders vs. E. D. & B. (6 Alta. Law Reports) : Gauthier vs. C.N.R. (7 Alta. Law Reports). In every one of those cases the question was discussed whether an order given by a judge sitting as an arbitrator had the force and effect of a judgment of a court. If it has not, you may not appeal from it; if it has, you may appeal. A very peculiar situation has arisen, in this way: Where notice has been given of an interim direction by a judge, and notice of appeal has been taken from that direction, subsequently, if an arbitration was held, you could not appeal from the arbitration because, it would be contended, you had appealed from the direction. Then the question would be; should we have appealed from the direction? This question has arisen, and I should like to have the point cleared up.	'


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The doctrine which the hon. member expounds is well known to the law. I did not have the opportunity of attending the Committee when this Bill was being considered. The question is, was it the intention of the Committee that the judge should sit as a judge and discharge the ordinary functions of a judge, from whose direction there would be an appeal? If it was the intention of the ' Committee that the judge's decision should be final, there is no necessity for providing for an appeal. If- that was not the intention, we should make it clear what was intended.


William Alves Boys: I think there is no question that it was the intention of the Committee that there should be an appeal, because the Committee dealt with section 232 in which an appeal is provided for. I do not think the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton applies in so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, unless it be on a question of practice. If his idea is that we should expand the meaning of the word judge so that any action on the part of a judge acting under this Act should be subject to the ordinary appeals and consolidated rules of the province of Ontario, that would necessitate a complete revision of the rules and would revolutionize our practice. Section 232 lays down that an appeal shall lie, and the proceedings that are to be taken. It was the intention of the Committee that that appeal should be open either to the railway company or to the person whose land was being expropriated.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the sections make it clear what the intention of the Committee was, I think we should be satisfied.


William Alves Boys: I do-not think there can be any doubt as to the intention of the Committee, because section 232 in plain English provides for an appeal. All that paragraph (13) of section 2 does is to say that a "judge" means a judge of a superior or county court, and I think that definition is necessary, otherwise it might be held that "judge" meant only a judge of a superior court. When we say that it means a judge of a superior or county court we realize that the appeal provided for under section 232 would lie from either.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Section 232 says: "Within one month after receiving from the arbitrator .... a written notice of the making of the award." It is quite clear that the appeal is from the award. My hon. friend from South Simcoe has stated my position correctly. I desire to revolutionize this section so that an arbitration judge shall be constituted a judge of a court from whose judgments there shall be an appeal, just as in the case of a judge of a court.


Mr. MORRHY:: I rather agree with my hon. friend from South Simcoe. I would point out to my hon. friend (Mr. H. A. Mackie) that section 232 provides for dealing directly with questions of fact upon the evidence taken before an arbitrator. Further, paragraph (7) of section 2 defines a "court" as follows:
" Court " means a superior court of the province or district, and wihen used with respect to any proceedings for the ascertainment or payment, either to the person entitled, or into court,
of compensation	includes the county
court of the county where the lands lie; and "'county court " and " superior oourt " are to be interpreted according to the Interpretation Act and Amendments thereto.
So we have all the machinery possible under section 232 to cover anything a judge may do as arbitrator.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I quite realize that there is an appeal from every act of a judge of a court as designated here, but if he is sitting as an arbitrator in an arbitration he has not the power of a judge of a court, but of an arbitrator; he is in the position of a person designated. If there is no arbitration there is no appeal

of an intermediate character up to the point of arbitration, because one cannot	appeal	unless there is an
award.	Section 232 is the only one
under which an appeal is provided for. Suppose under section 215 you go to a judge designated as arbitrator and ask him to direct that John Smith or Peter Jones be summoned before a certain board for the settlement of differences and some one desires to take an appeal from that. There can only be an appeal from the award. The judge should be a judge of the court and not an arbitrator purely and simply, and all he does should have the force and effect of a judgment from which we may appeal, whether there is an award or not.


Georges Henri Boivin: Will the hon. member state his amendment?


Henry Arthur Mackie: It would take me some time to formulate it. I did not expect that the Bill would be taken up this afternoon, nor that it would be dealt with ir. this way.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Where is the authority in this Act to go before a judge to have an order to compel somebody else to appear before a board?


Henry Arthur Mackie: Section 215 says:
(c) A notification that if within ten days after the service of this notice, or, where the notice is served by publication, within one month after the first publication thereof, the party to whom the notice is .addressed does not give notice to the company that he accepts the sum offered by the company, either he or the company will be entitled to apply to have the compensation fixed by arbitration as provided in the Railway Act, 1919.
A notice to this effect must be served upon the opposite party preliminary to proceeding to arbitration to fix compensation' or damages. If an application is made under this section, it is not to a judge of the court, but to a judge appointed as arbitrator.


Jacques Bureau: If the party to whom you serve notice is in default and does not accept within ten days you just set your case for trial. That is the law of Quebec. If the other party does not appear it is an ex paTte arbitration. You do not need to have an order from the court 5 p.m. to set your case. You set it de jure. After you set your case a man is debarred from pleading further unless he receives permission.
Mr, H. A. MACKIE: My point is that it is before a man acting as an arbitrator and not as a judge.


Mr BUREAU:: He has all the powers of an arbitrator, and you proceed the same as . if you had three arbitrators under the old system. If a man is in default you do the same as in an ordinary process-we call it "inscription" in our province-for trial, and the otl|er party may appear to crossexamine witnesses. In our province that would be allowed even though he had not disputed or filed an appearance. He may appear in person at the time of the trial, and has a right to cross-examine witnesses , if he desires, but he is barred from filing pleadings. When a man declines to accept your amount and says he wants so much for his land, that is a complete answer to your notice-I am not sure what it is designated in Ontario, whether it is "bill of particulars." If he does not answer he is in default and you inscribe the case before the court and proceed.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Suppose a railway company offers a lump sum for a piece of land in which four or five parties are interested. One man may ask a certain sum for his interest, and it may not be accepted, with the result that there is an . arbitration. The company or some individual interested in the land appeals, and A or B, who is willing to accept a certain sum and avoid further .proceedings, has no remedy. He has no judgment in his favour. Any direction that the court gives is a direction from an arbitrator and not a judge and the man must stand the proportion of costs of all proceedings.


Jacques Bureau: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is a question for the final division of the money. When there are several persons interested in the land the money must be paid into court and there must be some machinery to divide the money according to their interest, and the man who took the appeal would have to take the responsibility of costs.


Henry Arthur Mackie: If I were permitted I could get the reports, which I have not with me, and could, convince the Committee that I am absolutely right in my point.


Jacques Bureau: If a man does not dispute a case they cannot charge costs against him. It is a case oi, "II s'en rapporte A justice." If a man wants to dispute it let him bear the costs that are incurred against him.
Mr. BOY'S: 'Sedtion 217 refers only to an absent party, or substitutional service. We de not want an appeal from a judge in regard

to substitutional service. That would only make the costs of arbitration so much more expensive to the parties interested. When a sum is offered by a company and is refused you proceed to arbitration under section 232, and have the right of appeal and unless we want to give further appeals the section is all right as it is. If what my hon. friend is suggesting should become law it would simply mean that when a county judge makes an award . you can appeal from him to the Superior Court in the province and then to the Supreme Court, and from there to the Privy Council. We want to avoid that sort of thing and there is a remedy provided now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-to what persons, companies and railways applicable:
John Dowsley Reid: I move that the section be amended so as to read:
This Act shall, subject as herein provided, apply to all persons, railway companies and railways within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, whether heretofore or hereafter and howsoever incorporated or authorized, except Government railways, to which, however, it shall apply to such extent as is specified in any Act referring or relating thereto.


Jacques Bureau: Why not mention the
Canadian National Railway Act? That is the only Act that is going to regulate the railways. There is only one Act now, as I understand it, that will apply to the Canadian National Railways, the Act passed the other day. The Canadian National Railways include the Intercolonial Railway. I understand the intention is to simplify the system and have as far as possible one uniform law applicable to all. There are only two systems the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific.


John Dowsley Reid: There is the Canadian Railways Provident Fund, and we might have some other railways.


Jacques Bureau: The provident fund would not have anything to do with the administration of the railways.
iMr. J. D. REID: We have some railways that have not been transferred to the Canadian National Railways.


Jacques Bureau: Well, others that have
not been transferred come under this Act.
Mr. |J. D. REID: There are railways owned by the Government, but not transferred to the Canadian National Railways.


Jacques Bureau: Owned by the Government but not transferred?


John Dowsley Reid: They may not yet have been transferred.


Jacques Bureau: Are there any railways that have not been transferred yet? I cannot understand how the Government can own anything and have the property of it in strangers.


William Alves Boys: If in a year or two hence a further Act was passed this provision would be necessary. You want it to apply not only to the present but to the future, five or ten years hence. As it is worded now it would apply, but restricted in the manner suggested by the hon. member it would not.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I think it would be better to leave it as it is. We have to consider every Act as standing on its own legs, and this could not refer to an Act that has not been assented to by the Governor General or become law.


Jacques Bureau: This Bill has not been assented to yet but we take it for granted that it will be law as soon as it passes the House. The Government either owns or does not own railways. If it owns railways there is only to be one law regarding their operation. The moment a railway is the property of the Government it comes under the control of the Canadian National Railways; until then it is Tegulated by the general Act.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: My friend is asking that this well expressed language "except Government railways" be altered to apply only to the Canadian Government Railway Act.


Jacques Bureau: What I suggest is "except as provided by the Canadian National Railways Act."


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I think we should leave this language "except Government railways." Every one understands what it means. What is the use of imparting doubt or surmise into an Act which every one wants to be clear.


Jacques Bureau: We would like to know what the other Acts are. I hate to travel all over the statutes from Confederation to find out what they are.


William Alves Boys: Exoept where inconsistent with the provisions of the National Railway Act.


Jacques Bureau: That is not what it says.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend did not understand me. If he looks at the provisions of the National Railway Act he will find a clause which makes the Railway Act applicable except where inconsistent with the provisions of the National Railway Act.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, hut there is the general Railway Act of Canada, the Canadian National Railway Act and the Intercolonial Railway Act-three of them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-application to:
John Dowsley Reid: There is an additional subsection that it is proposed to insert here. When the Bill was before the House three years ago there was a subsection (c) added reading as follows:
(c) every railway or portion thereof, whether constructed under the authority of the Parliament of Canada or not, now or hereafter owned, controlled, leased or operated by a company wholly or partly within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, or by a company operating a railway wholly or partly within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, whether such ownership, control or first-mentioned operation is acquired or exercised by purchase, lease, agreement or other means whatsoever, and whether acquired or exercised under authority of the Parliament of Canada, or of the legislature of any province, or otherwise howsoever; and every railway or portion thereof, now or hereafter so owned, controlled, leased or operated shall be deemed and is hereby declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. S-9 E. VII, c. 32, s. 11. Am.
That subsection was put into the Bill in this House, but when it went to the Senate they struck it out. The special committee inserted it again. The reason it was put in was to cover a case in the province of Quebec where the Quebec Central railway, incorporated under the Provincial Government and, of course, under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government, was leased for ninety-nine years by the Canadian Pacific. The result is that a portion of that railway, in so far as operation is concerned, is under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government while it is really part and parcel of the Canadian Pacific Railway system. This clause is for the purpose of bringing this railway, which is practically owned by the Canadian Pacific, under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. The representatives of the employees in Ottawa were very strong for having this inserted for the protection of the employees, There is also the other question of placing the freight rates under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commissioners.


Jacques Bureau: I do not know that the amendment has been distributed or seen by the members. The object of the amendment is all right, but it may be necessary to consider the wording. The intent of the law, as we understand it in discussing it in Parliament, may not be carried out when we come to analyze the words used. There must be some objection to this subsection if the Senate refused to insert it a couple of years ago. What reasons were adduced for its rejection I do not know.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: The Senate said that Parliament's right constitutionally to declare in this general way that every railway should be deemed a railway for the general advantage of Canada was questionable. It said, further, that the question of the invasion of provincial rights bore also upon it and that it was always open tc^ a company to apply to Parliament to have its undertaking declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. It seems to me that the clause which passed this House in 1917, and which has been read oy the minister, expresses in apt words what is desired chiefly by the employees of the railway. Here is a provincial railway operated by the Canadian Pacific; the men get accustomed to the regulations of the Canadian Pacific right along and suddenly they are switched before they know it to a provincial railway, where the regulations may be different as to hand rails, height of bridges and all those things that serve for the protection of the men. They do not desire that there should be this difference between the two railways. They desire that the provincial railway, which to all intents and purposes is the Canadian Pacific, be left under the direction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. I do not think there is any reason why we should not re-enact what this House did in 1917. We should put it up to the Senate that they have not considered it from the aspect I have now given, that the operating rules should be uniform to insure the safety of the men.


Jacques Bureau: I do not want to be understood as objecting, but an amendment of that length ought to be submitted to the members instead of being merely shoved under our noses.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member was in the House three years ago when we discussed the. clause thoroughly, and I did not think there would be any objection from him.


Jacques Bureau: I am not referring to this clause alone; I understand certain amend-

merits have been adopted by the special committee and will foe submitted to this Committee. I claim that we have not had an opportunity, not being members of the special committee, to study those clauses, I do not object to this clause going through, although I do not believe the safety of the men is any better guarded than under the Quebec Railway Act. Whether this clause is based on the Quebec Act, or the latter is based on this, I do not know, but they are alike.


John Dowsley Reid: The employees on the Canadian Pacific railway have uniform rules in connection with the operation of the whole system.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that. I do not object to it.


John Dowsley Reid: The representatives of the employees state that the rules are different on this particular line.


Jacques Bureau: That may be, but they have a remedy under the local law the same as they have under the Federal law.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In 1917 we also wanted to put them under the Railway Board as far as rates were concerned.


Jacques Bureau: I am only saying that we ought to have a copy of these amendments before being asked to pass upon them.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: The representatives of all the railway brotherhoods urgently requested that this amendment should be included in the Bill. They called attention to the fact that the Quebec Central Railway is not under the control of the Railway Commission, and they were most anxious that the employees who are operating that road should be placed in the same position as other railway employees in Canada.


Jacques Bureau: That does not answer my request to have a chance to look at these amendments before they go through. I have absolute .confidence in the Special Committee, but my name is Thomas-I would like to see.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. member want to see the amendment?


Jacques Bureau: Yes, I would like to have time to read it quietly.


John Dowsley Reid: I will hand the amendment to the hon. member.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does this mean that
we are putting .an exclusively provincial road under the control of the Board of
Railway Commissioners? Take, for instance, the railroad between Sydney and Louisburg, which was built by the Dominion Iron and Steel Company under their charter from the local legislature. They are operating the line to some extent as a passenger railway, but largely as a traffic road. Do we put that road under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners?


John Dowsley Reid: The railway the hon. gentleman has referred to would not come under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, unless, say, the Canadian Pacific railway purchased 'it and had it declared as a work for the general advantage of Canada. This, clause would not interfere with it so long as the line was not made part and parcel of a through road. The reason for this clause is that judicial doubts were expressed as to whether the Board of Railway Commissioners had jurisdiction in, such a case. If we pass this clause it gives the Board of Railway Commissioners jurisdiction after the road has been purchased or leased-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Or operated.


John Dowsley Reid: -or comes under the control or operation of a -through line system. Then the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners extends to it in so far as that board has jurisdiction over the main line.


Jacques Bureau: This amendment provides that if a provincial road is leased, purchased cr owned-I have no objection to ownership -by a company which is partly or wholly under Federal jurisdiction, that road comes under such .jurisdiction. But at the expiration of the lease it remains under Federal jurisdiction, which is what I abject to. Why not add: "Shall be under Federal jurisdiction while such lease or agreement continues?" It seems to me that .would be better. Take the St. Maurice railway between Shawinigan Falls and Three Rivers. Suppose it were leased by the Canadian Pacific Railway, although incorporated by the local legislature, that road would remain under Federal jurisdiction after the lease expired and the Canadian -Pacific surrendered control.


John Dowsley Reid: It has to be declared a railway for the general advantage of Canada, and* is brought under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners when transferred either by purchase or lease.


Jacques Bureau: By purchase is all right.


John Dowsley Reid: Where railways are
being operated as part of a through system or in conjunction with each other, it is better anyway that they should be under one jurisdiction. While there might he something said for letting the road go back to provincial jurisdiction at the termination of the working agreement or lease, I do not think it is in the interest of the road or of the employees; therefore I would prefer leaving the amendment as it is.


Jacques Bureau: I remember trying to obtain incorporation of a railway exclusively within a certain province, but the Government said: "No, we do not want to incorporate a road like this." If a road is incorporated by the legislature, I admit that for the purpose of better operation it is all right to place it under Federal control while it is operated as part and parcel of another system which is under Federal control. But when the lease has expired why should you force the owners of that line to remain in that position? Why should they not return to the original jurisdiction under which they were incorporated?


John Dowsley Reid: As far as this case is concerned, it would not make any difference, for the reason that it is a nine hundred and ninety-nine year lease. But at the same time, is it not almost certain that when a lease is taken of a road it is taken for a long term? You very seldom hear of a lease of a railway for only a few years.


Jacques Bureau: But you are legislating for all railways.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that.


Jacques Bureau: If this is going to be
legislation for the Quebec Central, tet us so state. If it is going to be for all railways, we should not force any railway which may be leased for a term to a larger system to remain under Federal jurisdiction after the lease expires or when the reason for its having been taken under Federal jurisdiction ceases to exist.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Suppose you lived on a
short line which could not get along unless it had connection with a through line; and suppose the short line charged you more for carrying freight ten miles than the through line, under the jurisdiction of the Railway Board, charged for a thousand miles-what would you say then? .


Jacques Bureau: I would go before the
Railway Board and have the rates cut down. I do not think we are so wise that we ought to legislate for these people who
INTr. Bureau.]
have organized companies and put up their money, and tell them that they are making a mistake; and that if they connect for a certain length of time with another line that has a Federal charter, they must stay there forever. I do not believe in that. After the expiration of their agreement with the larger line, they should be enabled to revert to the conditions which existed before they entered into the agreement.
Mr. MlORPHY: The hon. member is overlooking something that will rather upset his argument when it occurs to his mind. The men who work on the main line railways are anxious that any subsidiary lines that are taken over shall have the same appliances, equipment and safety devices and the same general regulations for the safety of the operatives that exist on the large trunk lines. I am informed that many accidents have been brought about by lack of uniformity as between the smaller line and the larger one in the matter of the equipment of brakes and other connecting devices. If at the end of, say, a ten-year lease a local road ceases to be subject to the regulations of the Railway Board and may put on such local equipment and devices as it thinks fit, we shall be right up against the trouble that this section is intended to obviate, namely, lack of uniformity of devices, contrivances and apparatus for the safety of the operatives of the road. If for no other reason than that, I should say that once under the Railway Board, a system should always remain there.


Jacques Bureau: I assume that the Provincial Legislature are just as wise as we are, and that they are able to make laws and regulations for the safety of their citizens just as well as the Federal Government is. If a provincially incorporated company chooses to make an agreement with a larger company which is under Federal jurisdiction, it is right that during the life of the agreement it should be under Federal supervision in such matters as these. But why should we prevent men from following their own inclination and their own wishes in the matter after the agreement has expired? If the only safety exists in the Railway Board or in Federal legislation, then away with the right of the provinces to enact railway legislation-that is What the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Morphy) comes down to.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There is quite a difference between a local road with limited jurisdiction and a Dominion or Federal

road with an overshadowing jurisdiction. The local road cannot compel uniformity as regards the Dominion road; consequently there should he some paramount power to enforce uniformity of appliances. A local Government may be the best Government in the world for the railway operatives, but it has no power over Federal roads. While the local Government might be as advanced in the matter of railway legislation as the Federal Government, still, it might choose different kinds of appliances from those used on the Federal road, and it would be like the tail wagging the dog; the smaller road would attempt to set up its standards of uniformity against the equally good but different standards of the main line. 'My idea is that uniformity is the crux of the situation and that some - paramount power ought to rest in the Dominion through the medium of the Railway' Commission.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The point made by my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) is very clear to me. I assume that there is no intention on the part of this legislation to interfere in any way with provincial jurisdiction over provincial railways. If a privately-owned road passes over to the Canadian Pacific Railway, for instance, there is no objection to its being under the jurisdiction of the Board while it is held by the Canadian Pacific. But the member for Three Rivers contends that when the lease terminates, we should not prevent the company from going back to its former status if it wishes to do so. We should so construct our legislation that when the instrument which creates the jurisdiction terminates, the locally owned company may go back to its former jurisdiction.


George Brecken Nicholson: The point raised by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) is of paramount importance to railway employees throughout the country so far as it relates to safety appliances. Notwithstanding anything that may be said as to the efficiency of any megsure that a Provincial Legislature may enact with regard to safety appliances, you cannot have uniformity where nine provinces are dealing with the same thing. It is essential that there be uniformity in appliances on freight and passenger cars, and in respect of equipment of all kinds. Let me illustrate by referring to one of the appliances in connection with freight equipment on railways in Canada and the United States that come under the jurisdiction of the Dominion Railway Board and the Interstate Commerce Commission. I refer to the hand-grips on
box cars. It becomes second nature to a railway man in the dead of night, without stopping to look, to reach to a certain place to take hold of the hand-grip on a freight car; and if it is not there, he may get under the wheels. I repeat that you cannot get uniformity unless you have uniformity of control. Railway employees as a body have been working long and arduously to get this enactment into the railway law, so that the Railway Board will have jurisdiction and will know that the equipment is uniform. They do not want to interfere with the right of a province in its own railway, but they do want the large body to have jurisdiction over the smaller one,


William Alves Boys: I endorse absolutely what has been said by my hon. friend (Mr. G. B. Nicholson). The very matter that he has referred to is what gave rise-to the amendment. In 1913 complaints were made to the board with regard to the operation of the Quebec Central railway, which was under a 999-year lease to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Application was made for the establisment of uniformity of devices, appliances and so on.
What has been done here is to pass a law so that where any provincial road is owned, controlled, leased, or operated by a company wholly or partly within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, the provincial company shall also be within the provisions of the Railway Act and subject to the jurisdiction of the Dominion Railway Board. In that way uniformity in devices will be obtained. If what is suggested by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) were adopted, and at the end of the lease the company went back to the regulations which obtained in any province they might be quite different, for instance, the devices on box cars, which have bden referred to, and accidents would be almost certain to result. It is for that purpose that this clause is inserted. It is really for the protection of railway employees.


Jacques Bureau: If you take the case of a smaller road which has operated for a number of years with a larger road, for instance if you take the case of the Quebec Central, you will find that its equipment is just the same as that of the Canadian Pacific. It could not couple its cars with those of the Canadian Pacific if it did not have the same coupling device. To have different equipment would restrict the trade of the company and make it an absolute failure. Business interests would compel it to have the same equipment. All these new devices

must be used, because it would be suicidal for such a company not to have them.


William Alves Boys: We need not worry about the Quebec Central, because it is under lease to the Canadian Pacific for 999 years and will continue to be operated by that company.


Jacques Bureau: I object to the principle that we should bind forever a company which is at present under a certain management. This control ought not to go beyond the time mentioned in the agreement, [f a company is subject to provincial legislative powers, let it be so; but if it amalgamates with a federal company, I am willing that, for the time of the amalgamation, it should be subject to Federal jurisdiction, but when that agreement expires, why impose upon that company the necessity of remaining where perhaps, it would not like to be?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The company can come to the Parliament of the day and get relief.


Jacques Bureau: Why force it to come to Parliament?	-
MrrNESBITT: It might be better for it.


Jacques Bureau: We are not here to do guess work for the welfare of other people who are supposed to look into the matter of their incorporation when they become incorporated. This is a question that affects future interests of people who Are not bound by any agreement. When this agreement has expired by the lapse of time, you force them to remain in a condition to which they did not want to submit before they came to make this agreement and which was imposed upon them by the making of the agreement.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We did not force it upon them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it impossible to use other language than the language used here? The objectionable part is the clause "for the general advantage of Canada." No matter how small a property may be, if it is entirely within a province, when you declare it to be for the general advantage of Canada, it will be very awkward to be obliged some day to come back to Parliament for legislation declaring that it is not for the general advantage of Canada, and that 'is the only way to get back to the former itatus. It would be a very peculiar piece-of legislation to put through this House,
fMr. Bureau.!
to declare that a certain piece of property was not for the general advantage of Canada. If the language was used that this road while so operated shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the board, then when the owner got the property hack, he would be no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the board. In that way, you would have the same effect, but the property would not be forever declared to be property within Dominion jurisdiction.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Henry Arthur Mackie: I would ask the permission of the Committee to draw attention to a matter which properly would come under clause 8. Before I really understood the procedure of the Committee, I had allowed this clause to slip by. It has been carried, and I have to ask the permission of the Committee to speak to it.


John Dowsley Reid: That is satisfactory.
On motion of Mr. H. A. Mackie, the Committee reverted to the consideration of clause 8.	.
On clause 8.-provincial railways connecting with or crossing Dominion railways:


Henry Arthur Mackie: Under this -clause the question of crossings arises, and a case may very will be imagined, indeed, a case has occurred where some difficulty has been apprehended in the matter of crossings and the meaning and definition of " crossings ", where, for instance, a railway company operating or about to operate under a provincial -charter has a certain location route and another -company operating under a Dominion charter had virtually the .same route and they came into conflict. A case has arisen in Alberta between the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific. The Canadian Northerh had. a provincial charter and the Canadian Pacific a Dominion charter. The lines of the two railways as shown by their respective location plans.- though at different levels-both cross each other and also join each other .so as to run along much the same right-of-way at .several places, in what the plaintiff's counsel designates the -"confliction area." The case was tried .and decided by a .single judge, which decision is. not by any means binding, .and it might be profitable for the Committee to have a better definition of what is meant by the word " crossing," .so as to. cover a case where roads are not in operation. The learned judge in that case said:

In my opinion, that section has no application to the case in hand. It seems to me that the evidence establishes a case substantially of both companies claiming a right to build upon the same right-of-way and that at different levels ; that one railway " joining " another means joining on the same level so as to enable cars to be transferred from the tracks of one road to the tracks of another; and that " crossing " means the passing of the tracks of one railway on, over or under the tracks of another by meeting at any angle, continuing at the same angle to the opposite side of j:he track crossed and immediately leaving the track crossed.
The question taken before the court was this: " Is there any question of crossing any track or level inasmuch as neither railway cqmpany has thought of construction or operation?" The judge comes to the conclusion that it is merely a question of the right of a Dominion Parliament charter having precedence over a charter of the province. He says:
To he concrete, the Dominion Parliament has exclusive legislative authority with respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway Co., the defendant company y and the Legislature of the province of Alberta exclusive legislature authority with respect to the Canadian Northern Western Railway Co., the plaintiff company. These legislative bodies, while each exercising its apparently exclusive jurisdiction, have conferred, each upon its own creature, powers apparently equal and a conflict has arisen.	-
The decision of the court was that where, as in this case, there is a conflict of rights granted by two different authorities, the authority granted by the Dominion Parliament is supreme. I submit that some amendment ought to be made to make it clear that where railways have secured authority from different sources and a conflict arises, the right granted by the Dominion Parliament shall have precedence over the rights granted by any other legislative authority.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I think the section
already provides that.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is what we intended to provide.
Mr. H. A. MA'CKIE: It may be that it does, but I cannot see it, and I shall be very glad if one of the members of the Railway Committee will point out where this provision is.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I think paragraph (a)
of section 8 covers the point raised by my hon. friend, and if it is in any way deficient I should like him- to point it out.
Progress reported.



PRINCE OF WALES TO VISIT CANADA.


William Thomas White: I have the honour to announce the text of a message from His Majesty the King to His Excellency the Governor General, as follows:
I am very glad to tell you that with my entire approval the Prince of Wales will visit Canada this year leaving England in August. He will open the new Parliament Buildings in Ottawa.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at eight o'clock and again went into Committee on Bill No. 19, to consolidate and amend the Railway Act, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Henry Arthur Mackie: The hon. member
for North Perth says that section 8 covers the point under discussion. The section says:
Every railway, the construction or operation of which is authorized by special Act of the legislature of any province, and which connects with or crosses or may hereafter connect with or cross any railway within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, shall-	'
-and so on. Under this section it is assumed that the railway is in operation or has been constructed or partly constructed. It does not contemplate railways on which no work has been done. The case I was dealing with is this. A railway company gets a charter from the province under the Provincial Railway Act and does everything necessary preparatory to the construction of its road. Another company is incorporated under the Dominion Railway Act, and it also complies with the requirements preparatory to the construction of its road. One company begins construction, and in doing so encroaches upon some territory or route that the other company, which we may call the plaintiff company, purposes to operate under the provincial charter. There is a conflict between the two. The routes cross and re-cross and at some point the defendant company constructs exactly on the same route that the plaintiff company had in view. The plaintiff company in this case seeks an injunction to restrain the defendant from constructing over a certain portion of its proposed route, because the

plaintiff, by provincial charter, claims exclusive jurisdiction. The defendant company claims that it has a perfect right to construct wherever it sees fit because it holds authority from the Dominion Parliament. The defendant says: "You have done nothing; you are not operating and have not even constructed; we have begun first and are entitled to priority, notwithstanding the conflict of rights between us. Take the case brought before the courts of Alberta, in which the Canadian Northern Railway seeks an injunction against the Canadian Pacific. Under Section 227 of the old Act it is provided:-
The railway lines or tracks of any company shall not cross or join, or be crossed or joined by or with any railway lines or tracks other than those of such company whether otherwise within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada or not until leave therefore has been obtained 'from the board as hereinafter provided.
The judgment in the case says:-*
In my opinion, that section has no application to the case in hand. It seems to me that the evidence establishes a case substantially of both companies claiming a right to build upon the same right-of-way and that at different
levels. ,	,	:
" Joining" means joining on the same level, and " crossing " the passing of tracks *of one railway over or under the tracks of another by meeting at any angle, continuing at the [DOT]same angle to the opposite side of the track crossed, and immediately leaving the track crossed. The judgment proceeds:-
The proper conclusion is, I think, that to this extent at least and speaking generally, Dominion railway legislation prima facie predominates over .provincial railway legislation, that Parliament in legislating in relation to Dominion railways may as far as may be reasonably necessary to effect the object of its legislation impose obligations upon a provincial railway, that where Parliament has legislated with relation to a Dominion railway-as ilt has by the Railway Act and the defendent company's charter-what it has enacted cannot be derogated from by provincial legislature, and consequently had I thought it necessary for the decision of the questions involved in this action to have expressed an opinion upon S. 227 of The (Dominion) Railway Act with regard to crossings and junctions, I shiouild have held both that it wa!s within the power of the Dominion Parliament and also that it purported to and did apply to a provincial railway.
I have saiid that it seems to me, speaking generally, a Dominion railway will have predominating rights over a provincial railway, prima facie: wihat I mean to imply is that all other things1 being equal the predominance is not to be doubted ibut that the subsequent history of either railway may perhaps give the provincial railway a status which can be interfered with only, if at all, to a restricted extent.

Idington, J., in one of his judgments, says:-
The Dominion Parliament having by virtue of its exclusive powers over the enumerated subjects in sea 91 of the B.N.A. Act created a corporate power and thereby conferred on one or more persons the power to construct or cause to he constructed a railway, that rail-1 way cannot be crossed by any other railway company which, with its work, is only the product of the somewhat analogous powers given by section 92 to provincial legislatures over "local works and undertakings."
I am with great respect, quite unable to understand how any express and exclusive dominating power such as given by the Act to the Dominion Parliament despite the so-called exclusive authority subject thereto given to the province is ever in any case to be minimized, much less deleted from the Act, because of some apparently inconsistent power given to the provinces. If need be to discard either, it is the subsequent and subordinate power that must, be deleted as it were, in order to give the precedent and paramount power its full effective operation.	'	.
in conclusion, the judgment says:
I am of opinion, therefore, that the plaintiff company, in its present condition at least of being an unconstructed railway, can in no way interfere, with the construction of the defendant company's railway.
There seems to be the same difficulty in the way when both railways are umcon-structed. That is the decision of an Alberta judge. This does not make the matter final. Rather than have any repetition of lawsuits on this very, point, I ask Parliament to make it clear, under this or any other section, that where there is a conflict between the .provincial and Dominion legislatures in the granting of powers to railway companies which have not constructed and net operated, the authority given by the Dominion Parliament shall predominate over the power given by the legislature. That is the whole point at issue and one that has already caused some litigation. It is easy to understand how a company having a Dominion charter, if it is necessary to obtain even the consent of the board to cross a certain route or line to be constructed, receives that consent and the Dominion Government has no knowledge that a provincial legislature has given the same authority to another company over the same ground. Why not do away with conflict in a case of that sort? Section 8, or any other section which may he subordinated to it, only deals with railways when in operation or constructed, or which al least have done something towards construction or operation, I believe that answers the objection of the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) and I hope I have made my point clear.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am still in the dark, and I hope to convince my hon. friend that this Bill gives a complete answer to his contention. Without Te-quoting section 8, I will just read the first two words: "Every railway The Bill does not say " every constructed railway ". To get the hieaning of the term " railway " I refer to the interpretation clause of section 2, subsection 21, which defines the meaning of the word " railway
" Railway " means any railway which the company has authority to construct or operate-
Not " has constructed " or " has oper- _ ated ", as my hon. friend has argued, not that has been partly constructed or .operated, but any railway which may thereafter be constructed.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Under this Act?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Yes, under this Act.
-and includes all branches, extensions, sidings, depots, wharvesetc. Section 8 provides that the Dominion jurisdiction is paramount to the provincial. Section 8 operates generally and applies to all railways under a provincial or federal charter whether they are constructed or unconstructed. It seems to be so clear that I cannot conceive of any court having any difficulty in the reading of the section.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Has the definition of " railway " been altered as compared with the definition in the last Act?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If any judge on this reading gave the decision which the hon. gentleman says was given, I think' he must have given that decision without having looked at the interpretation clause as it is in the Act. No judge could give such a decision if this wording were there.
On section 10-Chief Commissioner and Assistant Chief Commissioner:


John Dowsley Reid: I move:
That section 10, subsection 2, lines 1 and 2, be amended by striking out the words " or assistant chief commissioner " and inserting a new subsection between sections 2 and 3 as subsection 2 (a) :
" (2a) Any person may be appointed Assistant Chief Commissioner who is or has been a judge of a superior court of Canada or of any province of Canada, or who is a barrister of at least ten years' standing at the bar of any such province, or who is a barrister or advocate of any such province and has held office as a Commissioner of the Board for a period of at least ten years."
The object of the change is merely to say that if it is thought advisable a person
who has been a commissioner for ten years, although not a barrister for ten years, may be promoted to be assistant chief commissioner. It really means that Mr. McLean may be appointed to fill the position of assistant 'chief commissioner.
Mr. MoMASTER:	I note that in the
tenth line you say " who is a barrister or advocate " while in the ninth line, you merely use the word " barrister." I think it would be well to say " barrister or advocate " in both cases.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no objection
to adding the word " advocate " in the ninth line.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the necessity
of putting in " advocate." Is there any difference between a barrister and an advocate? There is not in our province.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not see any great necessity at all.
Mr. iMcMASTER:	You have used the
word "'advocate " in one case and you say " barrister or advocate " in the other. I quite agree with my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie). "Barrister" and " advocate " mean the same thing in the province of Quebec. I would suggest that you either strike out the word " advocate " or insert it in both cases?


John Dowsley Reid: I think it would be
better to strike out " or advocate " in the tenth line. I would therefore move:
That the words " or advocate " be stricken out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not quite understand the effect of the last two lines.
" or who is a barrister of any such province and has held office as a commissioner of the Board for a period of at least ten years.
If you stop at " province " is that not all you require?


John Dowsley Reid: I believe that has been added because Mr. McLean is not a barrister of ten years standing. Therefore, you could not appoint him to be an assistant commissioner, but if you say " who is a barrister " and who has served for ten years as a commissioner that would qualify him in case he might be appointed as assistant commissioner. He has been a barrister for probably four or five years.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I know nothing about Mr. McLean, but I am opposed to the Parliament of Canada passing legislation to suit any particular person. I think the in-

tention was that any occupant of that position ought to have the standing of a barrister of ten years or be a judge of the Superior Court. '	'


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. McLean was one of the commissioners reappointed. He has had ten years' experience as a commissioner. But as the Act now stands the very fact of his being a barrister of three or four years' standing would not qualify him; he would have to be a barrister of over ten years' standing before he could be appointed chief commissioner. It strikes me that if he has had ten years' experience on the Commission in addition to being a barrister of four or five years' standing, his qualifications would probably be equal to those of a man of ten years' standing as a barrister without the ten years' experience as a commissioner.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: You might very soon have cases where men would be claiming the rights which are being created under this section and which it was never intended they should have. If a man has practised law for ten years he has had a fairly good training. We are departing from the requirements that were originally thought necessary for the occupant of this office and saying that a man who was not a barrister until yesterday may get the same position as a judge of the Supreme Court or a barrister of ten years' standing.


John Dowsley Reid: I must admit that it is to qualify Mr. McLean for the position of assistant chief commissioner. But after all he must be a barrister. He has been a barrister for a number of years and has served ten years on the Commission, and the information I have from the Chief Commissioner and others connected with the Commission is that Mr. McLean is really one of the best commissioners ever appointed. I am	in	the hands ofthe Committee,	but	I would like
to see the clause go through for the reasons I have stated. While acting as a commissioner Mr. McLean has been practically discharging the functions of a judge, and the requirements we are specifying here constitute in my opinion qualifications sufficient to justify appointing him to the position of assistant chief commissioner. However, if the Committee think differently I shall drop the clause.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have nothing further to say about it. I object to special legislation to make a position for any person unless justified by the greatest possible necessity.
rMr. McKenzie.]


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I think if the hon. leader of the Opposition knew Mr. McLean his objection would not be put forward. I had occasion while the late Judge Mabee was chief commissioner to have his opinion of Mr. McLean, and, in short, it was that he did not know any one in the whole North American continent who was his equal as an expert on railway rates. Judge Mabee said he was a perfect encyclopedia on the subject and without him the board would have great difficulty in getting along. So that while the general principle advanced by the hon. leader of the Opposition is a . sound one, here is a special case of a man whose outstanding abilities are recognized by his superiors and who has had many years' experience upon the board. The legislation that is proposed now to^apply to Mr. McLean will probably never be required again; and even if it is, the appointment has to be made by the Government, and it does not necessarily follow that a man gets it just because he is a barrister of ten years' standing. Having some knowledge of Mr. McLean's work I am of opinion he is much more valuable than if he had been a barrister of ten years without any experience as a commissioner.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not saying anything against Mr. McLean. I would not know him if I saw him on the street, and I never heard of him before. I would be very sorry to block his way to promotion or to deprive the country of his services. But it is the principle I object to; we should not specially legislate any man into a position of this kind. No matter how' good he is, there are plenty of other men equally as good to take his place.


Mr. CANNON:: The member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) suggested an amendment to sub-paragraph 2 (a). It seems to me that if his suggestion is accepted it will lead to a misunderstanding as regards our .province. According to the diplomas that we receive from our universities we are called "avoeats" in French and "advocates" in English; we are not called "barristers."


John Dowsley Reid: It was at the request of the hon. member for Brome that the clause was amended. It was considered in Committee and for the very reason. the hon. member states the word advocate was inserted. [DOT]


Lucien Cannon: I do not blame the hon. minister at all; I say I do not concur with what the hon. member for Brome suggested. I think the clause ought to remain

as drafted, and it might be improved by adding the word "avocat" where missing,


Mr. FIELDING:: I am sorry the hon. member for Brome is not in his place. In one place the words "barrister or advocate" occur, and in the other place it is simply "barrister." The argument of the member for Brome was that to be consistent you should put the word "advocate" in both places.


John Dowsley Reid: I move that the word "advocate" be added in both places.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 26-commissioners:
John Dowsley Reid: Subsection 2 as it came from the Senate is now subsection 3. It read:
The secretary shall be paid an annual salary to be fixed by the Governor in Council not exceeding tour thousand dollars.
That has been changed to read:
Such annual salary as may from time to time be fixed by the Governor in Council.
Mr. Cartwright has been secretary of the commission since the board was organized, but his present salary, $4,000, cannot be increased unless the Act is changed. It * was stated to the Committee that the Government would like to increase his salary to $5,000 per annum, and the change has been made for this reason. We could not change the amount in the subsection to $5,000, because if we did we should have .to bring in a resolution.


Mr. SHEARD:: Are the appointees of the board governed in any way by the Civil Service Commission?


John Dowsley Reid: No. A good many of the officials are experts. A portion of the staff, consisting of clerks and stenographers, hre really in the same position as others who come under the Civil Service Commission, but in this Bill we have not specially made them come under that commission.


Charles Sheard: When the matter of the appointment of experts in the new Department of Health was discussed, it was contended that such officials must come under the Civil Service Commission. It seems to me that the departments are not all in harmony in the matter of their coming under the Civil Service Commission, and this is one of the cases in point.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 40-approval of certain works after construction:


Georges Henri Boivin: This section was
amended in the committee by adding at the end thereof the following words:
Provided that where the doing of such work affects the safety of the public or the employees, no such approval shall be given without due notice and hearing.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there anything in the Act to define what "due notice" shall be?


John Dowsley Reid: The commission may make regulations at any time that are satisfactory .to the employees. At present, fifteen days' notice is required in the West and ten days in the East.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 155-insolvent companies:


John Dowsley Reid: The leader of the Opposition asked how the Bankruptcy Act would affect this section. Section 2, subsection (k), of that Act says:
"Corporation" includes any company incorporated or authorized to carry on business by or under an Act of the Parliament of Canada or of any of the provinces of Canada, and any incorporated company, wheresoever incorporated, which has an office in or carries on business within Canada, but does not include bundling societies having a capital stock, nor incorporated banks, savings banks, insurance companies, trust companies, loan companies or railway companies;
So that railway companies are not excepted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 179-unauthorized changes forbidden:	.
John Dowsley Reid: This clause is intended to compel railway companies to pay their employees for any loss that may result from a change in the location of a divisional point. The clause has been made stronger by the amendments that we are now include ing in it. The Railway Brotherhood thought that the wording as regards the partial removal of a divisional point was not quite sufficient, and I should think the clause as improved would be quite satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 210-prior contracts:
Henry Arthur Mackie: I move to amend
clause 210 by adding after the word " agreement " in the fifth line thereof the words " or notice thereof by way of caveat or otherwise," because in Alberta as in the other western provinces, the only way in which registration may be obtained is by register-

ing a caveat. This is merely to meet the ' requirements of registration in the western provinces.


John Dowsley Reid: Would not the 'words
"or caveat duly registered" be sufficient?


Henry Arthur Mackie: The registration is done both ways. A notice may be registered with caveat attached, or it may be registered by itself, so that I would prefer the amendment I have moved.


John Dowsley Reid: I am not a lawyer and do not know whether this would make any difference in the clause, but as a layman I cannot see why it should make any difference. What does not appear to me to read right is the phrase " or notice thereof." The hon. member, of course, knows what that means in Alberta. What I had in mind was " if such contract or agreement-"


Henry Arthur Mackie: Or notice thereof
by caveat.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not see any objection.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is there not a provision in the Railway Act for notice by caveat as stated by the hon. gentleman? If there is, the wording suggested would be unfortunate. The clause seems very plain and comprehensive in itself.


Henry Arthur Mackie: This is the Alberta law:	An agreement for sale, mortgage or
any agreement of whatever nature it may be, with the exception of an absolute transfer, cannot be registered except by caveat. That caveat is drawn up and a notice something like this is filed in the Registrar's office:
Take notice that so-and-so declares that he has *a claim against a certain property under an agreement for sale, or under a mortgage or under any other documentary Evidence. That notice is filed and that is the only means we have of registering the interest that a man may have. "Under the clause as it stands we have no way of getting notice to anybody, unless provision is made for notice by way of caveat. I do not know why the matter should be doubted, because this is the Alberta law, the Saskatchewan law and the Manitoba law.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The clause says: " If such contract or agreement." Would it not follow that the agreement would have to be drawn up in whatever form is required by the province, without that form being specified?


Henry Arthur Mackie: No. No matter what sort of an agreement a man has, it cannot find its way into the hands of the registrar of the province. The man may give it to the registrar if he likes, but the registrar will not record it. The only way in which [DOT] he will record it is, according to the law of the province, namely, by a notice of caveat, which says: Take notice that I claim an interest in-describe the property-by reason of an agreement of sale dated a certain date made between so-and-so and so-and-so, and govern yourself accordingly. The registrar will accept that notice and he will stamp it upon the record which contains a description of the land in question, and nobody can deal with that land until the registrar removes that notice of caveat. In Alberta that is the only way in which a man who has an interest less than an absolute interest in a piece of land can protect, his interest.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If that is the only way in which an agreement can be registered in the registrar's office, then what is the matter with the clause which merely uses the words " if such contract or agreement is duly registered?" If the notice of caveat being filed in the registrar's office constitutes due registration, then this clause covers the point, because it refers to an agreement duly registered.	,


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps we might let the clause stand in the meantime.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I have no objection to letting the law clerk consider the amendment, and I have no doubt he will find that the law is as I have stated.
Section stands.
On sections 215 and 217-expropriation proceedings:


Henry Arthur Mackie: These sections were allowed to stand at my request. My reason for asking that was merely because I wished to argue from them in relation to subsection (13) of section 2. The committee did not adopt my suggestions in regard to subsection (13) of section 2, so I have no reason now for asking that these sections be allowed to stand.
Sections 215 and 217 agreed to.
On section 232-appeal from award:


Henry Arthur Mackie: What I was endeavouring to point out under subsection (13) of section 2 was that a judge appointed as arbitrator who granted an order or gave a direction in any proceedings taken under the arbitration was acting as a person desig-

nated, and not as a judge of the oourt, and that if an appeal were taken from this interlocutory measure, if I may so call it, a . legal question of very great difficulty would arise. I was unable this afternoon to convince the Committee by my own exposition of the case, and I shall now endeavour to convince it by a judgment of the court. In the case of Marsan vs. the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, reported in the Alberta Law Reports 1909, volume 2, the judge says-'(page 43):
Quaere-Whether or not the judgment of a judge who is persona designata is appealable in view of the decision in C.P.R. vs. Little Seminary of Ste. Therese, since the enactment of s. 220 of the Railway Act.
Qusere-Whether or not a dissatisfied litigant who has the right to appeal must appeal and is not at liberty to bring the same matter before the Court in a different way.
Held, that where the right of appeal was doubtful and the plaintiff had given notice of appeal, and at the same time brought an action for injunction, in which action the validity of the order appealed from would have to be inquired into, the matter was properly before the Court.
Secondly, from the same judgment I read:
Where there is a failure to comply with the Act the jurisdiction of the judge is wanting, and the company may be restrained from acting under a warrant granted. The warrants in question-
These are warrants for possession of land.
-if these appeals were granted by Mr. Justice Beck under and in pursuance of the power given in section 217 and 218 of the Railway Act and the learned judge in granting such warrants acted persona designata and there can be no appeal from his decision: C.P.R. vs. Little Seminary of Ste. Therese, and particularly the language of Mr. Justice Patterson, p. 618.
Mr. Justice Stuart says:
.With respect to the appeal from the order of Mr. Justice Beck directing the warrant of possession to issue, the preliminary objection was taken by council for the respondent company, that Mr. Justice Beck was acting as persona designata in making the order, and that, therefore, in accordance with the decision in The Canadian Pacific Railway Company vs. The Little Seminary of Ste. Therese, there is no right of appeal. There may be some doubt as to whether this case is now binding upon us in view of the subsequent insertion of section 220 into the Railway Act, but inasmuch as the plaintiff has in fact appealed from the order granting the warrants, and has brought his actions for injunctions as well, it is clear that the whole matter is now properly before us, either in the one form or the other.
The point I have been endeavouring to make is this: Some company may want possession of land, as in the case I have cited. They go to a judge and say: " Give us a warrant for possession." The respondent
company says: "You have no right to the possession of this land because you have not fulfilled all the requirements of the Railway Act." An injunction is sought, and notice of appeal is given from the judgment granting the warrant. Then when action is taken on the basis of the warrant granted you have a double remedy before the courts: First, the notice of appeal that you have given, and, secondly, an action for damages for trespass, whether nominal or actual. One of the litigants will tell you at once:
" You cannot seek damages by way of injunction because you have given notice of appeal." The other litigant says: " When the judge gave you this warrant he was acting as persona designata and you cannot appeal from his decision." That was the case I put before the Committee this afternoon, and I ask that subsection 13 of section 2 be amended to make it clear that when a judge gives suoh an order as giving a warrant for possession or directs notice to be served these orders aie orders of the court, and not merely the orders of a man who stands in the position of an arbitrator.
To further convince the Committee of the ambiguity of the law, let me cite another case, Saunders vs. the Edmonton and Dun vegan Railway, and we may see how other judges look at this question. In the case I cited a moment ago I was dealing both with a single judge and the Appellant Division, but in this case you have other judges of the Appellant Division sitting, and observe how they disagree with the judgment given in the Marsan case:-
By virtue of section 220, the Railway Act, eh. 37, R.S.C., a judge in granting a warrant of possession under sec. 217 to a railway company is acting as a judge.
A full court^in Marsan vs. the Grand Trunk Pacific held that the judge was acting as an arbitrator, was persona des'ignata. In this case the full court, but not the same personnel, holds that he is acting as a judge.
The report says:
By virtue of sec. 220, the Railway Act, ch. .37, R.S.C., a judge in granting a warrant of possession under sec. 217, to a railway company is acting as a Judge of the Court and not as a persona designata; Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. vs. The Little Seminary of Ste. Therese, 16, S.C.R., 606, distinguished. The grant of such a warrant is, therefore, subject to appeal.
A warrant of possession granted under sec. 217, the Railway Act, ch. 37, R.S.C., by a judge of general jurisdiction is effective for the purposes intended until set aside in the regular way, and the fact that there has been a failure to comply with some of the statutory provisions does not render the warrant void, but merely irregular.

The Chief Justice in delivering his portion of the judgment in the case says:
The plaintiff by his statement of claim alleges that he was in August, 1912, the owner in possession of certain lands and that at that time the defendants " wrongfully and unlawfully entered upon the said lands " and did certain damage. He claims (1) Damages for the wrongful acts complained of; (2) An injunction; (3) In the alternative if the railway is authorized to be constructed through the lands, damages for the land taken and to the remaining land.
The defendants deny the plaintiff's allegations and set up that they went upon the land in pursuance of a warrant of possession duly obtained from a judge of the Supreme Court. Plaintiff joins issue	
Even if it is open to the plaintiff under the pleadings to test the validity of the warrant of possession, which is doubtful, I am of opinion that he has failed in his attack upon it. He contends that the judge in making it is acting as a persona designata and that any failure to comply with the express provisions of the Act would result in rendering his act a mere nullity.
I do not need to take time to read the contradictory opinions of judges in this matter. Assuming for the sake of argument that the legal talent of this House say that the decisions I have read provide that you may take action and bring before the courts of your province the very subject matter of the order about which you would take an appeal, and that consequently whether you have the right of appeal or not you are still at liberty' to take an action for nominal trespass, why should a man on a legal question be obliged to take a double remedy-first to file a notice of appeal from a decision of a single judge arbitrator, who in one case is not a judge and in another case is admitted to he a judge? Why should he be put to all, the trouble of taking action to maintain the very point he could maintain if he hqd a proper case for appeal? I hope that' I have made it clear that section 232 deals only with the appeal from an award, and does not provide any machinery by which you can appeal in cases such as I have cited. In conjunction with this matter I may call attention to section 243 which says:
-and where there are different interests in the same lands all shall as far as possible be dealt with in one proceeding.
These sections should be taken jointly, because often a judge, if acting in that capacity, could settle by an order of the court the claims of any one of the litigants, whereas now, no matter what may be the attitude of the litigants, it must all be decided in the one proceeding as far as possible. It is of the greatest importance,

I contend, in view of the contradictory decisions that have been given in our province in this matter, that the law should be made clear whether a judge is acting simply as an arbitrator or as a judge of court. This brings me back to section 2, paragraph (13). Even if- you amended section 232, the courts would immediately turn to the interpretation clause, and if they held under it that "judge" meant a judge arbitrator and not a judge of the court, all that you might say in section 232 would be of no use. So that if an amendment is to be made in section 232 there must also be an amendment in paragraph (13) in section 2.	.


John Dowsley Reid: We had quite a discussion in connection with section 232, and I think perhaps it is better to leave it as it is. There is an appeal in a case of award for compensation where the amount is over $600. In other cases where it is necessary for a railway company to take possession of lands they apply to the judge for authority to enter, and the judge granting such authority is acting as an arbitrator. In such a case there is no appeal. The judge can issue an order giving the railway company power to enter and take possession of lands, and that order is final. But after possession is taken, if the party from whom the land is taken is not satisfied with the amount of the award he can appeal to a higher court, if the amount exceeds $600. If a railway company wishing to start construction work could not begin until their right to take possession had been considered by various courts they would be greatly disadvantaged. From the decision of the judge who gave authority to take possession there might be an appeal from one court to another and the railway would never get possession of the lands or be able to build its railway. This clause empowers the judge, -who may be an arbitrator, to give authority to enter and take possession, and as regards compensation the owner can appeal. The judge decides the question of possession, and the compensation is disposed of afterwards.


Henry Arthur Mackie: The angle from
which the minister views the matter is altogether different from my viewpoint. It is true that under the Railway Act. which is now before Parliament if a judge grants an order for possession and he is wrong you may move at once that the party who got the warrant of possession shall deposit in the court a certain amount of security. That is provided for in the Railway Act.

There is no harm done in so far as the ultimate result of the case is concerned, but in so far as the man who is to receive the money is concerned there is, because the court can order the issue of a warrant of possession and also issue an order for security, but this entails unnecessary costs. But the point I have made is that if something is irregularly done or without jurisdiction by >a judge, I have no appeal under the law as it is interpreted by the court .at the present time. That it has been on the Statute Book from time immemorial is no reason why it should remain on the Statute Book. It is only creating trouble in the carrying out of the Act. 1 am not merely raising a legal point but my object is to avoid litigation. Apparently the policy of the Government is to foster litigation. I am a barrister and I would like to have a lot of work .but where difficulties arise, such as have' arisen, and when judges hold contradictory opinions, why not settle it at once? It is just a question whether a judge is acting as a judge of a court or is acting as an arbitrator. If he is acting as an arbitrator I have no redress except to take an action at law, and as the basis of my action I must allege trespass which will mean a nominal fifty cents and costs. Why should my client be put to all that trouble? I should simply have to file notice of appeal to the full court and the case is -decided on the merits, or on legal questions, before the court, and if there are any costs incurred it would be the costs of appeal and any court is in a position to deal with costs and to decide as to whether a warrant of possession may properly be given or not. I am not dealing at all with the question from the angle of the minister that no harm can ensue from this section, because if a warrant of possession is' given a man has his recourse and he can get his money. A man who has got irregularly a warrant of possession may be forced to give security in the courts. Why should a company be permitted to go before any judge in the country and get a warrant of pdssession on affidavits which are not correct? Why should it be that under such circumstances I should -have no relief except to take a straight action at law and put my clients to all sorts of trouble? Why should a company be allowed to take advantage of such irregularity for the purpose of proceeding with the construction of a line? Our purpose is to see that the Railway Act is lived up to. I had a conversation with a minister yesterday and he said that he would see that the law's of the country were
obeyed. I told him that I would do the same thing. I am asking that the laws of the country be obeyed and that no railway company be allowed to start'the operation or construction of any railway on the strength of a warrant of possession' obtained from a judge on affidavits Which are not correct. I have no remedy except to tell my client that he must take a straight action and claim trespass, the result of which may secure him $1 and costs. That is a condition of things that I have proven here, not only by my own exposition, which is not very clear, but rather by quoting from the judgments of the courts. Now is the time to make the law right, and there is no reason why this Committee cannot go back to subsection (13) of section 2 and say that when we speak of a judge, we speak of a judge having the power of a court. If we do that, it would settle the whole situation.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I think the clause should remain as it is. We must take it for granted that the judges are men of common sense- they are as a rule-and that they are not going to issue these warrants without fully considering the case. It is to the advantage of the country that there should be as few appeals as possible. The minister has put the business side of it in a very clear manner, and I do not think that is a different angle from that from which it has been viewed by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Mackie). The section says that a company should not be held up, but that the ultimate result will be to do justice as between the land owner and the company. My hon. friend does not suggest an amendment here, but he wants the law made so clear that there can be no appeal. I venture to say that we cannot so frame the law that there will be no appeal.


Henry Arthur Mackie: What time have I had to prepare an amendment when the motion is made to-night that we go into Committee,at once and no notice is given that we are going into Committee?


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: If my hon. friend even had time to prepare an amendment I do not think he could prepare one which could resist the ingenuity of the bar of Alberta to get by the statute. My hon. friend has proved to us apparently that even the courts of his own province differ as to whether the word "judge" means qua judge or a judge as persona designata. Apparently the Superior Court of Alberta has held that he is sitting as a judge. It is stated in sub-

section (13) of section 2 that "judge" is a judge of the Superior or county court.
It would be far better to leave it at that and have the law construed under the ordinary canons of interpretation that he is a judge. If any particular case should arise of that kind, which I doubt now in view of the decision of the appellate division of Alberta, or if a judge should be held not to have power, which is very doubtful, let that case take care of itself. Anybody who has studied the railway law and the cases in Canada knows that it is a case of the most extraordinary rarity that any dispute has been had as to the warrant of a judge ordering possession. We would be going out of our way if we tried to make an amendment to cover the extremely rare case that the hon. gentleman has cited here. It would probably result in an increase in ligitation on the part of ingenious litigants or their counsel and we would be no better off than before. I think the clause should be left as it is.


Henry Arthur Mackie: May I claim t'he
indulgence of the Committee for another *moment? The hon. member (Mr. Mowat) seems to think that we are so isolated in [Alberta that our judges are limited in their knowledge of 'the cases. In connection with the case I have cited to this Committee, it was not my desire to detail all the law on [DOT]the subject but if you will permit me I will entertain you for the balance of the evening. For the benefit of my hon. friend let me quote some Ontario cases on this *point showing that the Ontario people have pot had smooth sailing in so far as that point is concerned. .We have, amongst the English cases, Law Reports 12, Appeal Cases 602, 56 Law Journals' Privy Council *Decisions 66; 57 Law Times, page 602 ; 26 Ontario Reports, 667; affirmed 27, Ontario Reports 46; 16 Supreme Court Reports 606.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What did that 26 Ontario Reports decide? Just read from it please.
, Mr. H. A. MiAiCKIE:	I am no't reading
these but I am just referring to the Ontario decisions.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What does it say?


Henry Arthur Mackie: I will get the report and read it if you wish me to.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That will be more satisfactory.
* Mr. H. A. MACKIE: What is given here as a tabulation of the cases on which the judges reached the decision which I read. They have not detailed in extenso the de-

cisions which they have referred to. But they have merely given at 'the bottom of .their own judgment a list of the cases to which they have referred. Amongst these cases is 26 Ontario Reports and I am prepared to give that decision if my hon. friend wishes ft. But you have the decision of the case that I read to the Committee, ;you have these references and you can go back and look up these cases for yourselves. I could go on and give more 'cases to show that this point has been at issue in o'ther provinces.
You have the English decisions, the Ontario decisions, and our Supreme Court decisions, on this matter; and the Alberta courts after having discussed all these cases are divided in their opinion. Surely it is not for the Committee to ignore this thing.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 240-Warrant for immediate possession in certain cases:


John Dowsley Reid: The reason the words in line five, "to carry on" were struck out and the words "for the construction or maintenance of" substituted, was because of a question raised as to whether it included maintenance.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 243-to be continued in court where commenced. Different interests:


John Dowsley Reid: There is no change there. That was held over on account of the other clause.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On [DOT] section 250, subsection (3)-space above rail:
John Dowsley Reid: When this subsection left the House before, it read " rail level," and the Senate changed it to " base of rail." It was to decide where you would measure the height of a bridge from. The railway employees appeared before the Committee and stated that they preferred the subsection in its original form. The term "rail level" they say is better understood by the railway authorities than the term " base of rail." So we are just reinstating the old term.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is the top of rail ?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes; whether you measure from the top of rail in determining the height of a bridge or from the base of the rail where it touches the ties. It makes a difference of about five inches in the height.
Section as amended agreed to.

On section 255, subsection (1)-Railway on highway. Leave. Compensation. Consent of municipality:


John Dowsley Reid: The words inserted in line 7 and in line 19 " in so far as such sections are applicable," were to make the meaning plainer as to what sections would be applicable.


Jacques Bureau: What is the restriction for? Is that to exempt Government railways? There must be a reason for it.


John Dowsley Reid: ' It is not to exempt the Government railways.


Jacques Bureau: There must be a remedy for every wrong.


John Dowsley Reid: It has not anything to do with the Government railways. It is to make it plainer that where -we take land for a railway, if the conditions justify, this Act will apply.


Jacques Bureau: It does apply. If the board orders the taking of land certainly the owner is entitled to compensation, and the compensation must be established by the provisions of this Act.


John Dowsley Reid: I am informed that when we do not take a man's land, for instance, where the railway is running along a highway, the Act would not be applicable without this provision.


Jacques Bureau: I do not understand it. Supposing the railway follows the highway, there is no land to be taken; that is public property. Your own railway does that in some parts of the county of Chambly where there is nothing between the roadbed and the main highway. What compensation do you want to give-for the noise or the frightening of horses?


John Dowsley Reid: A railway may run alongside a highway without taking any land, but it may injuriously affect a man's land in the vicinity', and in the absence of this clause there would be no power to award compensation.


Jacques Bureau: That is a new principle. You do not award compensation for any nuisance created by a railway without touching any man's land.


John Dowsley Reid: It is not. a new principle; I am informed by the solicitor for the Railway Commission that legislation to that effect -was passed in 1911. I should think, if a railway were running close to a man's house, it might cause a nuisance which would entitle him to compensation.


Jacques Bureau: He has his right of action at common law.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There would have to be a question of severance in any case.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 262-Crossings.
Mr. H. A. A1ACKIE: I should like to have the last two lines of subsection (5) amended to read as follows, in order to meet the case of Alberta:
"Municipality" means an incorporated city, town, village or rural municipality.
Mr. J. D. REID; What are the divisions of land in Alberta?	*


Henry Arthur Mackie: There are three-local improvement district, municipality, and rural municipality.


John Dowsley Reid: Just add the words " or rural municipality " after the word " parish ".	"


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Henry Arthur Mackie: Subsection (5) says:
"Crossing" meats any steam railway crossing of a highway, or highway crossing of a steam railway, at rail level, and every manner of construction of the railway or of the highway by the elevation or the depression of the one above or below the other. ,
The member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) said that the definition of " railway '' covered the point that I had raised. Section 262 defines " crossing "-the very thing with regard to which I was arguing and citing cases a few minutes ago. Suppose you have a railway company operating under a provincial charter and a railway company operating or about to operate under Dominion charter, and there is a conflict between the two with regard to the route that they are to cover, which is to have priority?


John Dowsley Reid: The definition of the word " crossing " relates to this particular section, and so far as provincial roads are concerned, would apply only to those which have not been declared for the general advantage of Canada. Even if two railways are side by side, if they are under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, the board may order them to build one or more subways or overhead bridges. Of course, this act would not apply to a railway incorporated under provincial law, over which the board has no jurisdiction.


Henry Arthur Mackie: This ' definition
makes " crossing " apply to every manner of construction of a railway or a highway by the elevation or depression of the one above or below the other, and deals also with Tail levels. Section 8, under which I made my observations a few moments ago, says:
Every railway the construction or operation of which is authorized by special act of the Legislature of any province and which connects with or crosses or may hereafter connect with or cross any railway within the legislation or authority of the Parliament of Canada, shall, although not declared by Parliament to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, be subject to the provisions 'of this Act relating to,

(a) the connection or crossing of one railway with or by- another, so far as concerns the aforesaid connection or crossing.
Suppose two railway companies are building simultaneously on the same route and one encroaches upon another, which is to have priority?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: According to my memorandum, we did not strike out the whole of subsection (1) of this clause; we simply changed the word " nine " in the third line to " nineteen According to the list of amendments, we struck out the whole of subsection (1).


Georges Henri Boivin: Subsection 1 is entirely struck out, according to the official copy.


John Dowsley Reid: The Parliamentary Counsel, in the memorandum he gave me.
stated that subsection (1) shoud be stricken out and that the Act that we passed a short time ago would fit in.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If that Act is inserted here, that will be all right, but that is not the way the Committee passed the clause.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that, but I am
moving now to strike out subsection (1) in accordance with the advice of Mr. Gisborne, the Parliamentary counsel. The hon. member will remember that we passed an Act which, of course, is now law, and that Act takes the place of subsection (1) in this Bill.


Mr. STEVENS:: At the time that we were discussing this clause, that Act was in process of passing through this House.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 282-packing in spaces:


Georges Henri Boivin: Section 282 is amended by adding to subsection (4) the following proviso:
Provided that if there is at any time any method of packing which, in the opinion of the Board, is an improvement over the present re-
[Mr J. D. Reid.]
quirements, the Board, after hearing on notice, may authorise or direct the use of such improved method.


John Dowsley Reid: This was put in at the request of the Board of Railway Commissioners after they had consulted with the railway brotherhoods.
Section as amended agreed to.	*
On section 285-notice to Board of accidents :


Georges Henri Boivin: Section 285 has been amended by striking out from lines 9, 10 and 11, the words "Any conductors or other employees making a report to the company of the occurrence of any such accident," and substituting therefor the words "The conductor or other employee in charge of the train, place or structure in connection with which such accident occurred."


John Dowsley Reid: This amendment was made at the request of the brotherhoods representing the railway employees.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 323-tariffs of tolls:


Georges Henri Boivin: Section 323 has been amended by striking out from lines 3 and 4 the words "in which his name in full and title are stated."


Jacques Bureau: Why is that struck out?


John Dowsley Reid: Because, if these words were left in, every time there was a change in the directorate, for instance, if a director or an official of the company resigned, his name and title would have to be taken off the printed time-tables.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 346-Members of Parliament and Board, etc., free:


Henry Arthur Mackie: Why are not judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, and of the superior courts, county courts and district courts for the several provinces included in this clause?


John Dowsley Reid: The Railway Act has
never provided for judges being given free transportation. There is no particular reason why they should travel free. On the contrary, judges must go on circuit and their travelling expenses while on circuit are paid by the province. If we were to give the judges free passes it would mean that the provinces would be getting the benefit except, of course when judges were travelling for private reasons. I cannot see why the railways should be deprived of this source of revenue.


Henry Arthur Mackie: In Canada, but in no other part of the British Empire, the. judges are treated as magnified civil servants, and are underpaid. While they get their travelling expenses on circuit refunded, they are not free to travel to and fro throughout the Dominion as they should be permitted to do, in order that they might have an opportunity of learning how the different provinces conduct their law courts. I think the judges should be given an annual pass over all the railways.


John Dowsley Reid: I quite agree that the judges are not receiving sufficiently high salaries, but the only way to remedy that is for Parliament to vote them a higher salary. I cannot see why we should expect the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways to help pay the salaries of our judges by giving them free passes. We should be big enough to pay them adequate salaries ourselves. Although the judges are not receiving adequate salaries, I might say that ever since I have been a member of the Government I have never found any difficulty in getting a man to accept a judgeship when one became vacant. We should appoint to the Bench the very best men we can get, and we cannot get the very best men at the salaries we are paying to-day. I believe that in some cases the result is that people probably do not get the judgments they would if we were able to appoint the very best judges. But I do not think we should discuss the salaries of judges on this Bill.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I will give a reason why they should be granted travelling passes. Historically and traditionally the judges should stand between the legislative body and the people. If there are a number of men chasing after judgeships it is because of the way in which the appointments are made. In the province of Alberta to-day there are three judgeships vacant, and twelve politicians looking for judgeships. So long as judgeships are granted principally for political services rendered, rather than upon a man's record at the Bar, just so long you will not be able to get the best men in the country to sit on the Bench.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: I understand that the Government is considering the question of increasing the salaries of the judges.
I think the reason advanced by the hon. member for Edmonton for granting passes to judges is a fallacious one. If judges should be allowed to travel on the railways free to see how court business is conducted
in other portions of the Dominion, you should extend the same privilege to sohool teachers, for instance. The whole principle is wrong.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 371-municipal and other systems, connection with stations, etc.:
Georges Henri Boivin: This section is amended by inserting in subsection (1), line 1, after "any" the word "province" and on line 7 after "such" the word "province". Subsection (2) is struck out and the following is substituted therefor:
(2) The Board may also upon the application of any interested party authorize any telephone company operated by any province, municipality or incorporated company to install at its own expense telephone connection with any station of the company, the annual charge, if any, to be paid by the company for such service and all other terms or conditions connected therewith to be such as the Board may determine having regard to all local conditions, but in no case is such charge to exceed the customary local rate.


John Dowsley Reid: This is the telephone clause: All the different parties interested were heard before the Committee, and I think the section as now drafted is satisfactory to all.


Jacques Bureau: It is a compromise clause?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 373, paragraph (b)-Height of wires:
John Dowsley Reid: We took this matter up with the Board of Railway Commissioners, and the maximum height mentioned in this clause was agreed upon. Twenty-two feet was considered high enough in cities, towns and incorporated villages; 18 feet in the rural districts, and 17 feet at crossings.


Jacques Bureau: What is a police village?


John Dowsley Reid: In Ontario the Government gives power to a small number of people, probably 100 or 150, to form themselves into what is called a police village. They can assess themselves to put down sidewalks and make different local improvements.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They are separate from the township?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.	1
Section as amended agreed to.
[Stage Direction]


On section 374-Power companies:
John Dowsley Reid: This section stands.


Frank S. Cahill: Why?


John Dowsley Reid: This is the section that relates to Toronto. There will be quite a discussion on it and it will be necessary to take it up another day. Some members who are not here now would like to discuss it.


Charles Sheard: Will the minister fix a special day for the discussion of section 374?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes,


Charles Sheard: And will he announce the day in time?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: Has the minister any idea when it will be?


John Dowsley Reid: It will not be taken up again this week, but some day next week, probably on Tuesday, unless the Acting Prime Minister has something special for that day.


Jacques Bureau: Can it not come up before Tuesday?


John Dowsley Reid: No, not before Tuesday or Wednesday.	.
On section 376, subsection (7)-Connections with other systems, power of board to order:


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: Why were the words "including compensation if any", in subsection (7), in line 29, not struck out?


John Dowsley Reid: We are now on section 376. We made no changes in it.


Thomas George Wallace: I move to amend subsection (7), of section 376 by striking out the words "including compensation if any" in line 29, and adding thereto the following:
Provided however that the charge to such first-mentioned company, province, municipality or corporation for any long distance conversation or message transmitted over a line owned, controlled or operated hy the company shall not be more than the established long distance rate of the company.


John Dowsley Reid: We had a considerable discussion in the Committee in regard to this and went into the matter thoroughly, and the Committee decided that the clause as it is now and as it has been in the ,Bill should remain.
'Mr. CASGRAIN:	Is this amendment
,made at the request or suggestion of the

Bell Telephone Company or any other company?


John Dowsley Reid: We are not moving
the amendment; it is moved by the hon. member for York (Mr. Wallace). I do not know at whose instance it is moved.
, Mr. FIELDING: Perhaps the hon. member might explain the amendment. Those present at the discussion in the Committee will understand it, but to many hon. members the striking out of a few words will pot convey any clear meaning.


Jacques Bureau: Is it for the purpose of
.restricting the jurisdiction of the Board and determining the terms upon which connections shall be made?


Thomas George Wallace: It is to provide that the Bell or any other telephone company shall not have power over independent telephones.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that when
a small company want to connect with a larger system, if they cannot agree upon the terms they shall go before the Board, who shall determine the terms and conditions upon which they shall connect, and determine conmpensation, if any. What is the object of striking out the words " including compensation if any"? Is it to eliminate compensation, even if there is a right to it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This was very fully discussed in the Committee. Certain persons desired to eliminate these words, " including compensation if any," because they claimed that no compensation should be allowed. The majority of the Committee decided that it would be better to leave it to the board to decide if compensation should be allowed.


Jacques Bureau: That is what the clause does now?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Exactly. It was argued by the majority of the committee that if these words were eliminated the board would not have power to allow any compensation, no matter what the conditions were or how deserving the case. Therefore, the committee decided to leave these words in.


Jacques Bureau: After discussing the matter?


Henry Herbert Stevens: After an exhaustive discussion for days.


Jacques Bureau: What is the object of the amendment? If you strike out the words " including compensation if any " you limit

the powers of the board. Supposing there is any damage done we prevent the board from assessing the damages. Is that the object?


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I think I understand what the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) means. There is a strong feeling which he represents here, I understand, that users of the Bell telephone should have the same right to use their long distance lines as if they were subscribers, although they are subscribers to a private line. The way the law is now, and with the words " including compensation if any," there is an addition to tne rates of the Bell Telephone company. It amounts to $600 in some cases where there are over 400 subscribers to a local line. It was thought that was too much of a burden to put on the users of the local telephone lines, and that all local telephone users should have tne right to connect up with the Bell without paying that extra compensation.


Jacques Bureau: We decide, without hearing the merits of the case, that whether or not any company is entitled to compensation they shall not have compensation?


An hon. MEMBER:: That is what it
means.


Jacques Bureau: I think that is rather arbitrary, and I would not like to vote for anything of that kind. I think it would be better to leave it to the decision of the board after hearing the evidence. Unless there is some further explanation given I cannot see my way clear to support the amendment..


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not see why the
words " including compensation if any " should be in at all. " Upon such terms, as the hoard shall direct " ought to he sufficient. The inclusion of the words " such compensation if any" lends colour to the argument that compensation was intended. We had a case before the committee. I think it was the case of the Ingersoll Telephone company. This company had a large number of phones and sent about six times as much business to the Bell company as they got from it. It was a great advantage to the company. Many other companies would also do that. There are many small companies, some of them struggling to get along, sending business to the Bell company which is much more valuable to the Bell than the short distance connection is to themselves and to put in this section, " including compensation " and then after it the words " if any " carries with it the implication that compensation may be
168i
asked for. Compensation for what? For handing over revenues that the Bell would not otherwise get if they were not connected with the local company? I think the words " compensation if any " should be left out and that the section should read " upon such terms as the board deems just and expedient." That would be a fair clause. The question of compensation is not directly placed before the board to be dealt with.


Jacques Bureau: Do you mean that it is a suggestion to the board that might. influence them?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Yes. I think in a way it might possibly be so. It certainly would not suggest anything by way of compensation if the words were not there. Why put them in when you have the words " such terms and conditions as to the board may seem just and expedient?"


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member (Mr. Morphy) was a member of the committee and recalls the discussion we had about the very point he has raised.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Yes, I took the same
ground there.


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend took
the same ground there. We went into the question very thoroughly and the majority of the committee decided that we should have these words in the clause. I think the elause should pass as it is here because this matter is left entirely in the hands of the board and they can take up each case and do justice to all parties concerned.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to explain this clause a little bit because I have been very much mixed up with this question the last few years. When the House of Commons passed this clause in 1917 they sent it to the Senate after striking out the words "including compensation." In the old Railway Act the words "including compensation" appeared. The Senate inserted', the words "including compensation if any." They added the two little words "if any" to the words "including compensation" which had appeared in the old Act.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	They continued the
language of the old Act?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, and added the words "if any" so as to make it clear that it was not necessary to give compensation unless it was thought to be justified. Lawyers argued before the Committee that under the old Act containing the words "including compensation" the board necessarily had to give compensation because those

words implied that compensation was to be allowed, but, that the addition of the words "if any" removed the obligation to give compensation. The Bell company did not charge compensation to those rural companies who were not competitors in cities, towns and villages but they did charge compensation where rural companies were competitors, for the reason, as they say, that the rural company takes away a certain number of their subscribers. Therefore they claim they vshould have compensation. I moved in 1917 that the words "including compensation" be struck out. That was carried in the Commons Committee at that time but the Senate put the words in again and added "if any" so as to leave it to the board, which made it better than it was before in my judgment. You have to bear in mind that the Bell company impose on the rural companies a charge over and above the regular rates and that is what the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) is trying to get at by his amendment. They make a charge generally of about ten cents over and above the regular rates against the rural company connecting with them. That surcharge is generally divided half and half, but in some cases it is not so. At Ingersoll the Bell company get 7 cents and the Ingersoll company 3 cents, but they charge the Ingersoll company compensation to the extent of $300 because that company com-' petes with them in the town of Ingersoll.
That is why at that time I moved that that be struck out, because, speaking offhand, they derived from the Ingersoll company about $1,100 one year and about $1,300 another year, while the Ingersoll company only got about $189 one year and less than that the next year. For that reason the rural companies-and they were here by the flock before the Committee^, claimed that compensation should not be allowed to the Bell company, a good many of them, also claimed that they should not be charged a surcharge. That was not listened to very favourably by the Committee, I confess, because they thought the Bell company should have something for the additional expense.


An hon. MEMBER:: Some of them.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But as it passed the Committee I have nothing further to say about the matter. I moved at the time that that be struck out, I was defeated, and I am willing to take my defeat and abide by the decision of the majority. So far as Ingersoll is concerned, in 1917 the total earnings
[iMr. Nesbitt.]
on surcharges were $1,632.09, of which the Bell company got $1,T43 and the Ingersoll company $189, the latter company being charged $300 for the compensation.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: For the privilege of giving a big revenue to the Bell company.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have explained as nearly as I can the position that was taken throughout on this clause, and I repeat, having been defeated by the Committee I am wdll-ing to abide by my defeat.


Mr. THOMAS FOSTER:: I think the member for West York (Mr. Wallace) is right: There should be no compensation, there should be reciprocity in a matter of this kind. The member speaks of the Bell company feeling aggrieved because some of their business was taken away. That would not have happened had they been reasonable with those who wished to use the telephone. The Bell company virtually made it impossible for the rural population to take their telephone service. Now that company comes along and wants compensa-* tion to the extent of thousands of dollars throughout the province. It is one of the greatest monopolies and I think the Committee would be quite justified in striking this clause out. The Bell company ought to be satisfied with what it gets and encourage reciprocity with outside telephone companies.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: We had a similar fight when this Bill went through the House before, and after discussing it until two o'clock in the morning, the Committee struck the clause out. Of course, the hon. Senate saw fit to [DOT] reinstate the words. I think the Bell Company have already a sufficient monopoly without allowing them to extort this compensation. I know municipal systems with hundreds of subscribers in country districts which the Bell Company refused accommodation, and if any subscriber on those systems required to use long distance, the Bell Company insisted on payment of the regular long distance charge and ten cents extra. Why should a man outside the city of Ottawa, if he happens to be on a municipal or privately-owned system, have to pay the Bell Company ten cents more than the Bell subscriber in the city of Ottawa, or a fereigner, if you like, coming in from another country? I think it is a preposterous position. In the meantime those municipal and privately-owned rural systems are bringing in thousands of dollars

to the Bell Company, and yet that company wants to penalize these systems.


John Dowsley Reid: " Upon such terms, including compensation, if any, as the board deems just and expedient, and may order and direct how, when, where, by whom and upon what terms and conditions such use, connection or communication shall be had, constructed, installed, operated and maintained." If a rural line makes application to the Bell Company for a connection, and they cannot agree on terms, they have a right to appeal to the Board of Railway Commissioners, and the board has absolute power to compel the Bell Company to make that connection on this clause as it stands. I do not think that is where the complaint is; it is more as to compensation. I do not think that the question of compensation would arise in very many instances, but in any event a clause such as this protects all concerned, and we all have confidence in the Board of Railway Commissioners.


John Albert Sexsmith: What have the courts said?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know what the courts may have said in the past. But I understand that this clause gives the Board the final decision, with the reservation, of course, that in all cases there is a right of appeal from the Board to the Governor in Council. The Board can order that connection free of charge if it sees fit to do so, and of course the Act is framed entirely on the understanding that we have confidence in the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Will the minister explain why there should be any compensation at all?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not say there
should be compensation if, for instance, it is merely a connection with a rural line. But, if I remember rightly, in the discussion before the Committee, cases were brought to our attention where there might be compensation. For instance, the Bell Company 'have connections all through the city of Ottawa; another company might bring in an independent line at a small cost and take away a lot of the Bell subscribers if they could get connection free of charge. In the opinion of the sub-committee there might be a question of compensation in some cases, and for that reason the words were left in by the Senate. In any case, that is the way the Bill came from the Senate, and the Committee thought it wise to leave it as it was.


Donald Sutherland: I was not on the Committee which dealt with this matter, and I am not as familiar with what took place as members of the Committee are. But I have a recollection of the debate that took place on this section a year ago, when the words "without compensation," were struck out of the Bill. These words, which were inserted by the Senate in the Bill this year, are evidently designed to enable the Bell Telephone Company to penalize any company that dares to compete with them. For many years the Bell Telephone Company, to which the people granted a very valuable franchise, neglected to extend its lines into rural districts; consequently, over six hundred telephone companies have been established in various parts of the country. I am familiar with the operation of the Inger-soll Telephone Company, which has been mentioned to-night. I believe it was singled out by the Bell Telephone Company as a company that dared enter into competition with the great Bell Company, in the town of Ingersoll; therefore a clause must be put in this Act to exact compensation from them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is meant by "compensation" in this case?


Donald Sutherland: The Bell Telephone Company levies a tax of $300 a year upon outside companies for the privilege of connecting with the Bell lines. Besides, for every long distance call originating on the Ingersoll or on any other local line, ten cents additional has to be paid, of which the Bell Company takes seven cents and the local company three cents. Ten thousand calls must originate with the Ingersoll Company hefore they can get a cent of revenue out of this part of the service, because they have to pay $300 for the privilege of connecting with the Bell Telephone Company's line. As a matter of fact, these outside companies are of great service to the Bell Telephone Company; they enable it to reach the people in the rural districts. The number of longdistance calls originating on the Ingersoll line last year was 7,284; and 11,947 calls which originated on the Bell lines went over the Ingersoll lines. It seems to me that this charge of seven cents a call is ample compensation to the Bell Company. In justice to the local companies, an equal division should be made of that ten cents; the local company should get five cents and the Bell company five cents. That would be only fair, because the local -company is of as much service to the Bell company as

the Bell company is to the local company. For the life of me I cannot see why this provision should he in the Act. . In a case which came before the Railway Board some years ago and was submitted to the courts, one of the judges decided that as Parliament had not defined the matter clearly, but had put these words in the Act, they must have intended that compensation should he paid in some instances. Those instances only occur where a company is in competition with the Bell company. If you are going to encourage monopoly, if you are going to strangle initiative and enterprise on the part of weaker or smaller companies, then, I say, leave these words in. But if you are going to see that justice is done to all, regardless of whether they are weak or strong, these words should be struck out of the Bill.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: I was a member of the special committee that dealt with this Bill, and listened to most of the discussion. I voted against the section as it now stands in the Bill, so that I feel free to vote for the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Wallace). The objection I have to mentioning compensation is that by doing so we imply that there are cases in which compensation ought to be given. I cannot make up my mind that there are any cases in which a tax of three, four or five hundred dollars should be imposed on a local company. The Bell Telephone company is looking for business; the greater the number of long distance messages brought to that company the more money they will make. It is an advantage to them to have the rural connection, and they get the lion's share of the ten cents extra that is paid by the sender of the message. This compensation is really used for the purpose of keeping down competition. The member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) told us that the Bell Telephone company did not insist upon exacting compensation in all cases; they asked for it only where there was competition. If, therefore, you give them the right to a compensation they will always ask for it for the purpose of keeping down competition. Why should Parliament assist the Bell Telephone company to keep down competition? The rates of the local lines, as well as those of the main line, are under the jurisdiction of the board, and if the local lines show a tendency to cut rates unduly the board will see that nothing unfair is done in that regard. There is no reason why compensation should be given when there is competition, but not when there is no competition. The objection is that the right to compensation

is used for an ulterior purpose, and is not in the public interest. The matter is not important so far as Nova Scotia is concerned, but I understand that eight or nine hundred lines in Ontario .which connect with the Bell Telephone company will be affected by our decision in this case. I intend to vote for my hon. friend's amendment.
, Mr. STEVENS:	This is a general Act
controlling railways, telephones, telegraphs, .etc., and it is administered very creditably by the Railway Commission. This clause .refers not only to any one particular telephone company, but to the telephone companies of Canada generally; it applies just as much to the British Columbia Telephone (Company as to the Bell Telephone Company in Ontario. Whenever a company or province, municipality or corporation desires to make a connection and cannot agree .wfth the telephone company with respect ,to obtaining such use, connection or com-.munication, such first mentioned company ,or province, municipality or corporation .may apply to the Board for relief. What ,1 want to impress upon the Committee is .this. This clause is not, as many hon. .members have intimated, some protection .for the Bell Telephone Company, but really ,a restriction on such Companies as the .Bell Telephone Company. It provides that other companies not having the advantage ,of these larger concerns may apply to the ,Board for the terms of their connections, .and the convenience of the public is undoubtedly considered by the Board as of .primary importance. The clause continues:
And the Board may order the company to provide for such use, connection or communication, upon such terms, including compensation if any.
The argument here is a question of fact. All those who are opposing the words now ,in the clause do so on the ground that there (should be no compensation, but we are not in a position to decide that no case .will arise anywhere in 'Canada where compensation may be desired. This works .both ways. It does not affect only the Bell .Telephone Company, although that company has been brought up as a sample .case, and if we strike out these words, we are preventing the Board of Railway Commissioners from giving compensation where cases are clearly made out. The point I wish to make plain is this. This court has been set up for the purpose of trying these cases on their merits; this Committee and the special committee cannot possibly expect to decide these cases on their merits,

and, therefore, we should give the Board the widest possible powers. I consider that those local companies, quoted so frequently here, are safe in the hands of the Board. I think we must all admit that. If the Railway Commission is not competent to administer this Act, then our first duty would be to make that court a competent court, but I submit that that court has, by its record, proved beyond all question that the public interest and the interests of various companies are quite safe in its charge. I feel it would be a serious mistake to restrict the powers of that Board to administer this clause or other clauses of a similar character in the Bill.


John Albert Sexsmith: I quite agree with the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair). This is not a matter of want of confidence in the Railway Board at all; it is a matter for the Committee to decide. While I am not familiar with the telephone company of British Columbia, I am fairly familiar with the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, and if this Committee does not wish to say that the Bell Telephone Company, which is the great telephone company of this country, has a right to a monopoly and the right to make any other private or municipal company which wishes to use its long distance lines, pay the regular rate and to charge those people an extra ten cents, why should we not strike out those words?


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand the hon. member, he wants the clause framed so that the Bell Telephone Company cannot charge that ten cent rate for a local connection, but the striking out of the words "including compensation if any" would not do what he wants, because the clause still reads that the Board has power to order the connection on whatever terms it may deem just and fair.


John Albert Sexsmith: The private companies would be perfectly satisfied if those words were struck out because, apparently, there has been in the past some decision on those very words. But apart from that altogether, I cannot bring myself to the conclusion that the Bell Telephone Company has a right to charge any other company an extra ten cents unless we of this Committee say: Yes, because you have a monopoly now, we shall let you keep it, and we shall permit you to penalize the other private or municipal companies, some two or three hundred in number throughout Canada.


Jacques Bureau: This is not a question which affects only Ontario. As the bon.
member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has said, it affects any telephone company. Why is the Bell Telephone Company brought into this argument? Simply to becloud the issue and to endeavour to arouse sympathy. We are legislating for the whole of Canada. The Bell Telephone Company are not operating in Manitoba, and I do not know if they are operating in British Columbia. Supposing the British Columbia Telephone Company have some connection to make with any private telephone company, why should they be deprived of getting compensation before the Railway Board because there is a grievance in one or two provinces against one particular telephone company?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In one province.


Jacques Bureau: I do not think that is fair. As the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has stated, we must either accept the Board of Railway Commissioners as a fair tribunal or not trust them. We may trust them to give justice, and what this Parliament seeks to do is to enact legislation that will give justice. If we do not trust them what is the use of having a Board of Railway Commissioners and of submitting to that board all differences which may arise under the Railway Act.
If we strike out those words, we curtail the powers of the board; we give notice to that court: We are willing that you should go a certain distance, but we do not trust you to go past that distance. I do not believe in limiting the jurisdiction of any court to serve a specific purpose, when in this Bill we are legislating, for the whole of Canada and for every citizen in Canada. The deeds of the board in the past are Such as to justify the confidence I have in them, and I am willing to trust them to remedy wrongs which may be done to any individual or company. We do not want to becloud the issue the same as was done as regards another Bill when it was made to appear that because certain members did|not agree to a clause in the Bill, they, were against public ownership of railways. That, was not the question, and that is not the question here. There is a tribunal to settle all these differences, and I think we can safely leave this matter to the board.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith), the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), and the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) were excellent arguments to


John Albert Sexsmith: It is not simply a matter of the Bell Telephone company, but concerns every long-distance telephone company. The question for this committee to decide is whether the privately-owned and *the municipally-owned telephone companies [DOT]shall be compelled to pay the Bell Telephone Company, in addition to the regular rate, ten cents a message for long distance. I have confidence in the Board of Railway Commissioners, but is this committee going 'to say that every privately-owned and municipally-owned telephone company must 'apply to the Railway Board if it does not wish to pay that extra ten cents?


Peter McGibbon: I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace). The people have found it necessary to build rural telephones for themselves because large corporations like the Bell Telephone have refused to do so. They had to invest money in these telephone companies, many of which I know have never paid one cent of interest. Then they have to pay for an expensive connection in order to get a long distance message over the 'phone. I claim that that is an injustice to the public. The telephone may be called a public utility, and its ex-

tension into the rural districts is going to be one of the great factors in keeping people on the land. We should encourage these small telephone companies instead of holding a club over them in the shape of a clause like this. I think it will be in the public interest to eliminate this clause altogether. Very few of these small companies pay more than operating expenses, while the Bell Telephone is one of the richest corporations in Canada to-day. The daily papers show that they are paying dividends of about 8 per cent, and now they are increasing their share issue and allot-ing them in the proportion of one to every four held, and a shareholder of the company will be able to get them for about 12 per cent less than the market value. I do not think this corporation needs any encouragement from this Parliament. I think we should pass legislation to protect the people, and especially the rural people, so that they will stay on the farm and produce, as they must produce if we are to pay off our national debt.


Donald Sutherland: 
Edward Walter Nesbitt: There are a good many companies that receive half on every call. I belong to two such companies myself.


Donald Sutherland: By making some
private arrangement with the Bell Telephone Company. The hon. gentleman's argument goes to justify the striking out of these words. _


George Brecken Nicholson: There is a point that seems to have been overlooked in connection with the word " compensation." I believe there is a decision of the court in which it is held that when Parliament inserted the word " compensation " it was a reasonable presumption that the board must grant compensation whether they deemed it to he just or not. We can accept the judgments of the Railway Commission as being just, and our confidence in the commission would be best expressed if we omitted the word " compensation," for we would thereby leave the whole question to them. The clause without the word "compensation " will read:
the Board may order the company to provide for such use, connection or communication, upon such terms, including compensation-


William Stevens Fielding: If any.


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes. The word was struck out by this Parliament in 1917 and reinserted by the Senate this year. The Senate reinserted the words " including compensation " and added " if any " afterwards. I am not a lawyer and do not presume to argue this question from the legal standpoint, but I think the majority of lawyers will agree with me that if we put in the words " including compensation if
any " there is a reasonable presumption that we anticipate that there will be compensation, and that we are directing the Board of Railway Commissioners to find compensation. Without these words we leave the whole matter to them, the same as we would any question of rates for the carriage of freight or passengers, or any other matter that rests with them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am in an awkward
position in regard to the amendment. I can support the striking out of the words "including compensation if any " but not the rest of the amendment. I think the board should have an entirely free hand as regards rates. I understand that the Supreme Court of Ontario decided that they felt themselves bound by some meaning attaching to the word " compensation." I am in favour of leaving these words out but I would not support the rest of the amendment.


John Dowsley Reid: That decision of the
court, I believe, was in connection with the original Railway Act, which read: "Upon such terms as to compensation as the board deems just and expedient." In that case it was decided that there should be compensation according to that interpretation. The words "if any" have been added so that it is plain the board will have power to decide whether there shall be any compensation or not. If these words were struck out the Board of Railway Commissioners would not have power to allow compensation even if it were considered that compensation should be allowed. The very fact of Parliamenthaving struck out the words would be interpreted as an intention on the part of Parliament that there should be no compensation, and the board would have no jurisdiction as regards compensation. If the rest of the clause is left in, they will, of course, have the right to arrange as regards rates and tolls.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the board will have every power they can possibly require, even after you have omitted these words on line 29. If they cannot give compensation they can increase the rates and even things up in that way. They need not call it compensation. We are giving them absolute power to deal with every phase of argument that can he presented by 'both sides. I have never had the pleasure of appearing before the hoard, who, I understand, are a very democratic court and will hear everything properly presented to them, and will make a decision covering the whole ground. It

is open to parties who go before them to argue as strongly as they can from both sides, and the board will reach its conclusions on the merits of the full facts. It is unnecessary to suggest to them that they have to consider the question of compensation. If it is decided to leave them a free hand without any encumbrance, in view of the decision of the Supreme 'Court of Ontario, I am in favour of striking these words out and will vote accordingly; but if the hon. member insists upon the rest of his amendment, I cannot vote for it.


Mr. BALL:: The words "including compensation" are entirely superfluous. Their elimination would not detract from the powers of the board one iota. The matter would be fully covered if the section read:
The Board may order the company to provide for such use, connection or communication upon such terms as the Board deems just and expedient.
The word " compensation " is unnecessary, misleading and suggestive, and the board would have full power without them. The words " including compensation if any " are objected to by those who have experienced the effect of this clause. I have had communications from rural telephone companies in my riding and it is felt that these words should be eliminated.


George Brecken Nicholson: I would move that the words " including compensation if any " on line 29 toe struck out.
*


Georges Henri Boivin: That is part of the amendment.


John Dowsley Reid: If there were a connection with the Bell Telephone company in the East or the company in the West they would not get any of the extra charge which would go to the rural line. The clause would read:-
Provided however that the charge to such first-mentioned company, province, municipality or corporation for any long distance conversation or message transmitted over a line owned, controlled or operated by the company shall not be more than the established long distance rate of the company.
Therefore if connection is made with the Bell Telephone Company, or the British Columbia company, it will be made without any extra charge.


Mr. T. J. STEWART:: It does seem to me that it is our duty as representatives of the people to protect them. In putting through a clause suggesting that the board may allow compensation if they see fit, we are giving an invitation to 'the board to

make a charge against these companies. We .all have confidence in the Board of Railway Commissioners and it is unfair that we should put in the Act a provision of this kind. If we are satisfied that the clause should not be there it is our duty to strike it out. Speaking for myself I am quite satisfied that it should not be there. I think there is no bigger monopoly in Canada than the Bell Telephone Company. They have made loads of money-so much money that .they do not know what to do with it, and they had to create an insurance company in order to use it up. You are .admitting here that they should have -the privilege of charging for something for which they should not be allowed to charge. We have been neglecting our duty in the past in regard to this matter. Our duty to-night is to strike out these words. The -ten-eent charge is an outrage and it should not be tolerated for a minute.


Donald Sutherland: In view of the explanation that has been made, and the exception.-that has been taken, I think the difficulty can be overcome by moving as an amendment to .the amendment that the section be made to read "upon such terms, excluding compensation, as the board may deem just." In view of the fact that the amendment to the amendment moved by thh hon. member for-


Georges Henri Boivin: The ruling I gave a moment ago concerning the sub-amendment proposed by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) was that the ground covered by the sub-amendment was already dealt with in the amendment. If the amendment is adopted by the Committee there will be no reason for the ho.n, gentleman to move his proposed amendment but if the amendment is not adopted he will be in order in proposing ,a new amendment to strike out these words.


Thomas George Wallace: I will be very glad to agree to the cutting -out of the words in the 29th line "including compensation if any."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the hon. member wish to drop the rest of the amendffient?
(Mr. WALLACE:	I just propose to cut
out the words " including compensation if any." I therefore beg to move:
That sub-section 7 of section 376 be amended by striking out in line 25, the words "including compensation if any".
The Committee divided on the amendment (Mr. Wallace). Yeas 47, nays 9

Section as amended agreed to.
On section 380-statistics and returns:
tMr. J. D. REID: moved that the section be amended as follows:
Section 380, in the subtitle, strike out the words "To the Minister."
Subsection (1), line 4, strike out the words "and furnished", and on line 6, substitute the word "Board" for the word "Minister".
Subsection 02), line 7, strike out the word "Minister" and substitute therefor the word " Board."	-
Subsection (3), line 8, substitute the word "Board" for the word "Minister".
Subsection (4), line 3, substitute the words "Dominion Statistician" for the word "Minister," and on line E, substitute the word "Board" for the word "Minister".
Subsection (5) struck out.
(Mr. CAMPBELL:	Would the minister
explain why these clauses 380 to 384, were not struck ou't altogether as they already appear in the Statistics Act? I take it that these amendments are suggested to make these clauses conform more to the Statistics Act. I would also call the minister's attention to the fact that clause 385 seems to cover the same subject. Perhaps there is an explanation. I was not a member of the special committee and I do not know what discussion took place there.
i Mr. J. D. REID: Statistics have in the past been collected by the Minister of Railways and Canals. The Board of Railway Commissioners are collecting certain statistics and they perhaps know better what statistics should be collected. It was thought advisable that the statistics should be sent to the Board of Railway Commissioners and the Dominion Statistician.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The Department of
Railways and Canals will have nothing to do henceforth with gathering statistics?


John Dowsley Reid: No, this duty is assumed by the Board of Railway Commissioners and the Dominion Statistician. It is they who print the statistics for the public. The Board of Railway Commissioners keep their copy on their file and use it for their own purposes.
, Mr. CAMPBELL:	Does not section 385
cover very much the same ground as the preceding clauses?


John Dowsley Reid: When we get to section 385 we can deal with that.


John Archibald Campbell: I understood that has already been settled.


John Dowsley Reid: That has been passed.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 381-traffic returns:


John Dowsley Reid: moved to amend the
section as follows:
Section 381, subsection (1), line 3, substitute " Board " for ' Minister ' and on line 3, substitute "monthly " for ' weekly,' and on line 4, substitute " close ' for ' seventh,' and strike out all the words after ' inclusive ' on line 5 to the end of the subsection.
Subsection (2), line 2, strike out the words ' and furnished,' and substitute " Board " for ' Minister.'
Subsection (3), line 4, substitute "Dominion Statistician " for * Minister.'
Subsection (4), line 1, substitute " Board " for * Minister.'
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 382-annual returns of accidents :
Mr. J. D. REID moved that 'the section be amended as follows:
Section 382, subsection (1), substitute " Board " for ' Minister ' on lines 3 and 5.
Subsection (2), line 6, substitute "December " for ' June.'	.
Subsection (3), line 3, substitute "Dominion Statistician for ' Minister,' and on line 4, substitute " February '' for * August.'
Subsection (4), line 2, substitute "Board" for ' Minister.'
Subsection (5), line 1, substitute "Board" for ' Minister.'
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 383-further returns as to accidents:
, Mr. J. D. REID moved that the section be amended as follows:
Section 383, substitute " Board " for ' Minister ' on lines 1, 2, and 7, and on line 8, substitute " their " for ' his.'
[Section as amended agreed to.
On section 385-board may require returns [DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member (Mr. Campbell) was asking about section 385.


John Archibald Campbell: I would move that this section be reconsidered. I would like to have the minister's explanation regarding it.


John Dowsley Reid: Clause 385 has been in the Act for some years, and the Committee thought it wise to leave it in. I understand that on this statistical matter, which includes this clause, the Dominion Statistician, Mr. Coats, and Sir Henry Drayton, the Chief Commissioner, got together and framed clauses 380, 381, 382 and 383, which we have just passed, and this clause 385, and the amendments as I have given them were handed to me by Mr. Coats. I did not go into this particular

clause with him, but took it for granted that it must be satisfactory to him and the Board of Railway Commissioners.


John Archibald Campbell: The clause seems to be superfluous. I suppose it will not do any particular harm, but I do not see why 385, which covers practically the same matters as 380 to 384, should be left in.


John Dowsley Reid: It covers more than the others.


John Archibald Campbell: We are amending the Act and should amend it properly.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Clause 385 is the financial clause.
On section 392-limitation:
Mr. )H. A. MACKIE:	The meaning of
subsection (1) has for years been the subject of judicial disagreement and doubt, and it should be redrafted to clearly define these three distinctions: The time limit for personal actions, the time limit for actions as to land damages, and the time limit for any actions not otherwise covered. .


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 409-Walking on Track. Penalty:
John Howard Sinclair: I am afraid the language is not right. After amendment the section will read:
Every person not connected with the railway or employed by the company who trespasses upon the yard or track of the company, except where the same is laid across or along a highway, is liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding ten dollars.
What does the word "same" refer to? If it refers to the track I can understand it; but if it refers to the yard I do not see how that can be laid along or across a highway.


Jacques Bureau: There may be a street going through the yard. We have that in Three Rivers.


John Dowsley Reid: We can pass it, and I will get it redrafted.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 436-Opening package with intent ito steal contents:


John Dowsley Reid: That is amended to make the section clearer.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 444-subsection (c)-fraudulently entering train:


Jacques Bureau: Has there been any doubt expressed that a man who is under the

orders of the section foreman is liable under this section?


John Dowsley Reid: There is no reason why any person fraudulently entering a train with the intention of not paying his fare should not be punished, whether it be done with or without the knowledge of the company's employees. If with the knowledge and consent of an officer or servant of the company, he is guilty of a conspiracy to defraud, which clearly should be punishable.
Section as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. J. D. Reid the House adjourned .at 11.35 p.m.
Wednesday, May 21, 1919.