Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).

I do not feel that I would he justified in allowing this clause to go through the committee at the present time without entering my protest. So far as I am aware, the city of Guelph, as a municipal corporation, has never pronounced upon this, amendment. An amendment was introduced by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) to the Bill entitled An Act respecting the Guelph Junction Railway Company. That hon. gentleman supported that amendment by a petition from the city council of Guelph purporting to be passed by the city council and attested by their seal. That amendment the hon. gentleman withdrew, and, so far as I am aware, without the consent of the corporation of the city of Guelph, and without the consent of the directors of this railway company, he has submitted another amendment which I contend ought not to receive the sanction of this House until all the parties interested have been heard from. Certainly, we have not heard from the municipal corporation of the city of Guelph. Now, I want to say a

few words in respect to this matter further, and I shall endeavour to give the committee something of the history of this legislation. A short time ago a resolution was brought down to the council by the railway committee of the city council of Guelph, in which the matter of a change in regard to the directorate of the Guelph Junction Railway was referred to. I desire to say that that report, when presented to the committee, was vouched for by the chairman of the committee, who informed his colleagues on the committee as to the nature of its contents, but carefully kept back all the salient points contained in the report, leaving them to understand that it was a matter of very minor importance. The members of this railway committee of the city council, having confidence iu the chairman of the committee, signed the report of the committee, and allowed it to pass without investigating for themselves. Just to show the truthfulness of this, I desire to refer the committee to a letter which I think fully bears out all I have said upon the matter. The letter is signed by Mr. James Anderson, alderman of the South Ward of the city of Guelph, and it is addressed to the editor of the Guelph Mercury, a paper which supports the hon. gentleman who has introduced this resolution. It says :

Dear Sir,-As I signed the report of the Railway Committee and also voted in the Council authorizing His Worship the mayor and Alderman Dunbar to proceed to Ottawa to look after our interests in the Guelph Junction Railway question, and as I subsequently signed a petition with, I understand, nine other aldermen, requesting the Committee on Railways, etc., to ignore the request of the Council, I think some explanation is necessary to the ratepayers of the Sounth Ward whose interests I represent at the Council board. When Mcl.-rmin Dunbar called the committee together to consider the question, I, as well as two others of the committee, understood, as he certainly represented to us, that it was to appoint an auditor and other matters regarding the city's interests in the Guelph Junction Railway, but not until I read Col. McCrae's letter and the Guelph Junction Railway directors' statement in the Mercury did I comprehend that the scheme was to oust the old directors of the road and appoint fresh ones in their place. Now, if Alderman Dunbar had the interests of the city and the Guelph Junction Railway at heart, as he says he has, he would have explained things a little better to the committee. I am confident there were not more than two or three in the Council understood the question they were voting on, as subsequent revelations have proved, when ten of the aldermen have since signed a petition to let things remain as they are. Now, Sir, as the poet Burns says, ' The best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft aglee,' I think Aider-man Dunbar's little schemes will meet the same fate, which it richly deserves. I spoke to Aider-men Taylor and Hamilton and they said they never understood, when signing the report, the object was to elect directors from the ratepayers of the city and throw the old ones overboard, I, for the future, will sign no report until I

am perfectly satisfied that I understand what I am doing, and will not take Alderman Dunbar's or any man's word for it.

Thanking you for inserting this explanation, I am,

Yours, etc.,

Hamilton,

W. M. Taylor.

Who I understand are also members of the committee. Now, hon. gentlemen can see the value that can be placed upon the report which was presented by the Railway Committee to the city council of Guelph to induce them to pass the resolution that came on here to the Railway Committee of the House of Commons. It was alleged at the meeting of the Railway Committee on Friday last, in support of the contention of the hon. member for South Wellington, that the present shareholders of the Guelph Junction Railway had made an offer, some twelve years ago, to assign their stock to the city of Guelph, or to hold it in trust for the city of Guelph if the city of Guelph would pass a by-law to raise $18,000 to meet the outstanding liabilities of the railway company. I desire to say, first, that a by-law was submitted before this offer was made, and that by-law was rejected, only 511 electors of the city of Guelph voting for it. In order to secure the passage of a by-law and make provision for the outstanding indebtedness of the line, or to pay off the outstanding indebtedness of this railway, a second by-law was submitted. It was on this occasion that the directors, or the shareholders, published the letter that was read in the Railway Committee on Friday last, offering to assign their stock to the city of Guelph or to hold it in trust for the city of Guelph if this by-law was passed. What was the result ? Did the electors accept this proposition ? Were they satisfied that the directors should step down and out, should assign their stock and relieve themselves of the control of the road? The question went to the people, and the letter having been published, and being in the minds of the electors of the city when the voting occurred, the electors refused to accept the proposition. They refused to accept the offer made by the shareholders of the Guelph Junction Railway Company, they refused to place that road under municipal control, and they rejected the by-law by a large majority, only 484 voting for it. Here we have the direct vote of the people of the city against the municipal control of the road, and if that was the opinion of the people of the city of Guelph at that time, it may be the opinion of the people of Guelph now. We have no evidence whatever tfiat the people of Guelph have changed their minds since Mr. HENDERSON.

1889. It is true that subsequently, that at the beginning of the following year, at the time when the municipal elections were on, at a time when it was more easy to secure votes for a scheme of this kind, when other issues were pending, that a bylaw to raise $18,000 was carried for the purpose of paying off the liabilities of the company, but we have no assurance that the letter signed by the shareholders of this company, in which they offered to assign their stock, or to hold it in trust, formed any factor in the arguments in favour of the third by-law which was passed in the beginning of January. We are rather to suppose that the case was the contrary as the electors in July had pronounced against municipal control by refusing to ratify the by-law to raise $18,000, and hand over the control to the city of Guelph. In the January following, w'hen the by-law was ratified, we have every reason to believe that the letter from the shareholders formed no factor in the arguments placed before the people.

Another evidence that the people of Guelph did not expect, or did not intend that that offer should be considered, after it had been rejected by the people ; is the fact that for twelve long years no action has been taken by the city of Guelph. The matter has just been allowed to lie where it was then, showing that without any doubt whatever, the city of Guelph did not intend to accept the offer made by the shareholders, and which the ratepayers of the city had by a large majority at the polls declared emphatically against by rejecting the bylaw in the month of July, 18S9, previous to the time that they had actually passed the by-law to raise the money. Now, Mr. Chairman, in view of all the facts, I think it is only fair that the promoter of the Bill (Mr. Guthrie) should not press the matter further. As I have said, the corporation of the city of Guelph did send a petition, and as to the value of that petition I have a word to say. They sent a petition here signed by the mayor and attested by the seal of the corporation, asking that certain things be done, but in opposition to that, after members of the city council had fully understood what had been done, ten of the members of the council, which is a majority of the aldermen, also sent a counter petition, and I will place this counter petition on ' Hansard,' in order that hon. gentlemen can study the matter for themselves. It is as follows :

To the Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines ot the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada.

The petition of the undersigned aldermen and members of the council of the city of Guelph, humbly showeth :-

1. That your petitioners have seen a report of the amendments to the Bill No. 23, intituled * An Act respecting the Guelph Junction Rail-

way Company,' proposed to your honourable committee on the 20th instant, and are informed that the said Bill has been referred back to have such amendments reconsidered.

2. That such amendments we.re never presented to or considered by the council of the city of Guelph, and that the undersigned do not approve of such amendments.

Tour petitioners, therefore, pray that such amendments be not approved, but that you will be pleased to strike the same out. [DOT]

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).

Would the hon. gentleman permit me to say that the deputation is not here to protest against government ownership. They are here to protest against government ownership of railway debts ; not of railways.

Mr. HENDERSON.

I will accept the hon. gentleman's correction, but it makes very little difference which way it is, because these gentlemen are here from Manitoba to oppose the scheme of government ownership of railways proposed by the province of

Manitoba, because they consider it would be financial ruin to that province. Are we, in the face of all these facts, and with such an example as this before us, are we going to place in the hands of the corporation of the city of Guelph a large railway corporation, because although only sixteen miles have been constructed, it is proposed to extend this road seventy miles further. Have we reached that period when we are prepared to endorse municipal ownership of railways. Are we prepared to endorse the principle of allowing municipal corporations throughout this country to engage in extensive railway construction. Are we prepared,

1 say, to permit the council of any city or county in this country, to invest its funds in the construction of railways, or the extension of railways. II think this is a very important step, and before we adopt it-because we will practically adopt it if we pass this amendment-we ought to pause. Just one other point and it is this : I appeal to the promoter of this Bill not to press this resolution further just now and for this reason ; It has been stated, and I see it referred to in the public press, that the municipal council of the city of Guelph is likely to deal with this very matter tonight. Heretofore they have not pronounced upon this amendment. They pronounced in a peculiar way on the former amendment, which has been withdrawn, but they have never been heard on the amendment which is before the House at the present time. The city council of Guelph meets to-night, and in all probability will declare either in favour of this amendment or against it. I say it would be unfair to the ratepayers of the city of Guelph to pass legislation of this kind and force municipal ownership upon them, involving them in liabilities, without their consent. Nothing will be lost by delaying the Bill for the present. There will be abundant time to pass the Bill through both Houses, if it should go that far. The Senate is now taking a recess, so that if the Bill is postponed for a few days, no delay in its final passage will result. I would prefer that the city of Guelph should be heard from, and I have no doubt we will hear from them in the form of a petition either in favour of or against the amendment. If they petition in favour of it, of course the promoter of the Bill will have strong ground upon which to appeal to the House to pass the legislation, and if they are against it, I believe he will take a wise course in asking that the amendment be withdrawn. There was a statement in the Guelph Mercury to the effect that I had stated to the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) a few days ago, after leaving the Railway Committee room, that the city council would pass a resolution on Monday night. I desire to say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) is mistaken in reporting that to the Guelph

Mercury- It was not I who made the statement ; the statement was made by a ratepayer of the city of Guelph in his presence. I do not wish to be made so prominent in this matter as to have it said that I was going to anticipate what action the city of Guelph would take. When the representatives of the city do take action, and I think their action is in the right direction, I will endeavour to carry out their vews, but I shall not anticipate what they may do. In view of the fact that the city corporation of Guelph is more than likely to deal with the matter to-night, I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) would do well to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Question. Vote.

Hon. DAVID TISDALE (South Norfolk).

In view of the circumstances that the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has stated to the House, I do think that the hon. member in charge of the Bill (Mr. Guthrie) should let it stand. While I am desirous of facilitating any reasonable legislation, yet, to my mind, it seems fair that there should be delay for consideration in this matter. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) has shown us this is a question between a municipality and certain individuals jointly interested in an arrangement that did not give the city of Guelph the control of the project, and they are proposing to take charge of it by Act of parliament. That being so, surely we do not wish a city or a town or any municipality to take charge until we are satisfied that the council, by a majority, has declared itself in favour of the legislation. I agree with the hon. gentleman that it is a new proposition. At all events, I am within the mark when I say that I know of no case in the province of Ontario in which a city or a town' has the exclusive control or ownership of a railway. This legislation will give control to the city of Guelph, and I can well understand that at the time the arrangement was made other gentlemen were associated with it. Even supposing we were willing to go that far in a special case, we have not yet had the approval of the city ; because, while it is true that at the beginning a petition was presented to us from the city vouched for by the signature of the mayor and the corporate seal, that petition has been superseded by another one in its place. The Bill that was introduced into this House and was referred to the Railway Committee in the first instance had no legislation of this sort in it, and there was no notice given of it. When the Bill went before the Railway Committee, there was no idea or notice that it was anything more than a single proposition to extend the time for the construction of the road, on which all parties would have agreed without discussion. The Bill passed the Railway Commit-M. HENDERSON.

tee on the. petition of the city. Now, two things have happened since-two things without which, for my part, I would not be willing, without a protest, to vote for it. First of all, the new amendments have not been confirmed by the city council. More than that, we have from a majority of that council since a petition asking this House to interfere and prevent being passed what the petition of the city council as presented to us asks. That is a very serious state of affairs. Two very serious propositions are involved in this legislation. First, if anybody is entitled to the legislation, it is the city ; because, mind you, we are changing an Act of Parliament. We are changing the arrangement under which the road was controlled and managed before. Secondly, there may be a question, and a serious one, whether we have power to pass this Bill, or some clauses of it, authorizing what may be only within the legislative authority of the province of Ontario. But, lastly, on the merits, we have a distinct petition by a majority of the city council. Then, here is the further responsibility : Who is it that ought to speak to us in matters of this kind ? Not the city council, but the ratepayers of Guelph. These people could not incur the ownership of this road without the approval of the ratepayers, because, under the law of the province of Ontario, as is well known, the city council cannot incur such liabilities without first submitting the question to the vote of the ratepayers, and we have not heard at all from the ratepayers, the actual owners. There will not be an hour's delay to the legislation by putting the matter off, because the Senate happens to be adjourned, and I think the action of the House and the feeling of all of us would be better for a short stay of proceedings. The hon. gentleman, I think, would do well to satisfy everybody that there was nothing in the suggestion made in the Railway Committee that this legislation was being, to a certain extent, railroaded through in the interest of certain parties. Whatever we may think of the legislation, we shall have a chance of getting a further expression of opinion, and ascertaining whether the city by a majority of the council are in favour of it.

Section agreed to : yeas, 61 ; nays, 38.

Bill reported.

On the question, that the Bill be now read the third time,

Mr. HENDERSON.

I think, Sir, that those who are opposed to this amendment have a very strong case on which to appeal to you to protect the minority in this House. The city council of Guelph, whose interests are very much at stake in this whole matter, meets to-niglit, and will in all probability pass a resolution either approving or condemning this amendment, and we ask

that the third reading be deferred until we have an opportunity of hearing from the city council.

Hon. Mr. TISDALE.

In all my recollection of private legislation, unless it could be shown that the session was so near its end that the passage of any measure would be endangered by delay, a request for the third reading to stand over has never been refused. We do not object to the passing of this Bill, but wish to hear first whether the majority of the city council of Guelph are in its favour or not. The bon. gentleman who is promoting this measure was no doubt within his rights in pressing it through its various stages, but I am surprised that he should wish to railroad the third reading through in this manner.

Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND.

I hardly think my hon. friends are fair in charging any want of courtesy to the hon. niember for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). This Bill has been dealt with in a very unusual way. It was before the committee twice, and each time had a full and long discussion, and I appeal to my hon. friend from Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) whether in his recollection any Bill of so little importance has taken up so much of the time of parliament. On both occasions when this Bill was before the committee the ablest advocates and counsel on both sides were present and laid their views before the committee.

Hon. Mr. TISDALE.

I do not think I made any charge of discourtesy against the hon. gentleman who has charge of the Bill. I said that he was quite within his rights in pressing the measure through this far, but in view of the fact that came out at the last hearing before the committee, namely, that ten aldermen were against the measure, I think we ought to let the third reading stand until we hear from the council.

Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.

This Bill was passed by the committee, but when it came before the House, the Minister of Railways suggested that, as the statement was made that there were some matters in connection with the measure perhaps not fully known, the Bill should be referred back to the committee. It went before the committee again and both sides were heard, and by an overwhelming majority the Bill was adopted in its present shape. I do not think therefore it is fair to suggest that it has not had the fullest consideration. We are simply putting the city of Guelph in the position in which it wishes to be placed. There is a little local squabble, but having heard both sides I do not think any hon. member can say this is legislation we ought not to pass in the general public interest.

Mr. HENRY CARGILL (East Bruce).

The bon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) who has just taken his seat said that if one

single good reason were given why this Bill should be postponed, he would willingly consent to the postponement. I rise for the purpose of giving him that reason-and I think it is a very good one. In the first place, this Bill was passed through the committee becatfce of a petition presented signed by a minority of the city council of Guelph, but purporting to be signed by a majority. At the next meeting of the committee a petition was presented, signed by a majority of the city council, protesting against the passing of the Bill. Now, it has been, alleged here, and by good authority, that the city council of the city of Guelph meets to-night, and it is proposed to discuss this matter on its merits. If the city council of Guelph declare themselves in favour of the passing of this Bill, I would be quite willing to vote for it; if they decide against it, I should feel it my duty to oppose it. I may say that I do not believe that the city of Guelph would have had the Guelph unction Railway, had not these ten men who are protesting against the passing of this Bill, come to the front at the time the rail-oad was proposed to be built. They were prominent business men in the city of Guelph, all of whom were anxious for a connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway for the purpose of getting competing rates. The city of Guelph alone could not have undertaken the construction of that railroad without the assistance of these men, who voluntarily came forward and subscribed stock, and enabled the city to secure the construction of the line. Now, I do think-and I believe the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) thinks with me-that it is an injustice to the city of Guelph, to take away from these ten men who assisted in the construction of that road the rights which they have in it. I do think that, in justice to these men, the city of Guelph should have their consent to the passage of this Bill-they should not be ignored. In consequence of the adjournment of the Senate for ten or twelve days and the pending meeting of the Guelph city council tonight at which they will, no doubt, reach a decision on this subject, we should not press forward the third reading of this Bill, but should leave the matter over until tomorrow. To do so will not retard the passage of the measure, as it must go through the Senate, and it will be two weeks before that can be effected. I hope that not only in the interest of the city of Guelph, but in the interest of these directors who are protesting against the passage of the Bill, the hon. member for South Wellington will not press the third reading until to-morrow. It is not an enviable position for the hon. member to put himself in-that of hostility toward these ten prominent men in his own city. I cannot believe that he desires to take that position. I think that in the interest of all concerned the hon. member should not press the third reading now.

Mr. ROBERT HOLMES (West Huron).

All tliese points have been threshed out very fully before the Railway Committee. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) is himself a resident of Guelph, and ought to know whether the people are hostile to this Bill or not as well as anybody else. I fail to see where there is any object to be gained by allowing this Bill to stand over. This House has no evidence that the city of Guelph is hostile to the measure. We have the statement of members of the council, but nothing- has been offered, although there has been plenty of time, to show that the city council is hostile to the Bill. It seems to me to be plainly in the interests of the people of Guelph that the Bill should pass.

Mr. SPEAKER.

The contention has bee made that it should remain, to a certain extent in my hands to decide whether this Bill should receive its third reading today or be left over for some future day. On reading the rules, I cannot easily reach that conclusion. Rule 47 says :

All amendments made in committee shall be reported by the chairman to the House, which shall receive the same forthwith. After report, the Bill shall be open to debate and amendment, before it is ordered for a third reading. But when a Bill is reported without amendment, it is forthwith ordered to be read a third time at such time as may be appointed by the House.

As lion, gentlemen will see, when the Bill is reported without amendment, the question as to the third reading is left entirely to the discretion of the House and not to the decision of the Speaker.

Mr. HENDERSON.

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, what has been the practice ?

Mr. SPEAKER.

The practice has been in accordance with the rule that I have laid down just now. You will find that In 1898, I think, Sir James Edgar decided a case similar to this one. Objection was raised to the third reading of a Bill, and he decided that the matter was to be left in the hands of the House. The motion that was then moved was as follows : ' Whether the Bill should be ordered for a third reading forthwith.' The motion in that instance, perhaps, is not in form similar to this, but it is the same idea. It is for the House to decide whether the Bill shall receive its third reading forthwith or whether it shall be deferred to a future day.