Mr. CEARKE.

It does not make a particle of difference, so far as the principle is concerned. Is it not reasonable to ask this House to provide that when they do fall in, should the municipality decide to operate these franchises itself, it shall be enabled to do so ? That is the effect of the amendment the committee are asked to agree to. It has been said several times that I was not present at the meeting of the committee at which this Bill was considered. Well, I am not a member of that committee, but. I had another committee meeting to attend to, or I would have been there. I do not know what was done at the committee meeting, but, of course, accept unreservedly the statement of hon. gentlemen who were present; blit I siay that these amendments were prepared by the counsel of the city of Toronto, and handed to me before he left Ottawa. If it be said that this company and all other similar companies will come under the operation of a general Act, when it is passed, that need not have a deterent effect on those who propose to put their capital into this scheme. What I assume to provide against, is discrimination, and I contend that there ought to be a clause in this Bill providing that this company shall come under the operation of any general law that may be passed in the future, dealing with this and other companies of a similar nature. Surely it is not unreasonable that we should have a provision of this kind in. the Bill ? It would be a great injustice if parliament were to pass a Bill, under the operation of which this company might hold up any municipality, by having a monopoly of electrical energy, and prevent the people getting the greatest amount of benefit out of any franchise which they desire to dispose of or to operate. There is no desire to prevent the incorporation of this company, but there is no reason why the rights of municipalities should not be protected. I hope, therefore, that the committee will agree to the amendment suggested.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. CLARKE.

Mr. CLARKE.

I beg to move that the following clause be added :

lla. The Railway Committee shall upon application of the company, or of any person, corporation or municipality have power to make an order in lieu of an agreement, under clause 11 hereof, which shall be binding upon the parties, and may determine to whom' and at what prices and within what distance such power shall be supplied under the provisions of clauses 11, 12 and 13 of this Act.

Bill reported.

Mr. CAMPBELL moved third reading of the Bill.

Mr. CLARKE.

Notwithstanding the adverse decision of the committee, I desire to take the sense of the House on this measure, and I beg, therefore, to move that the Bill be not now read the third time, but he referred to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration.

Is the amendment in order without notice being given ?

The SPEAKER.

The amendment is in order. It is that the Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Besides I think that notices have been given of the amendments.

House divided on amendment (Mr. Clarke) :

YEkS :

Messieurs

Barker, Lancaster,

Birkett, Leonard,

Blain, McIntosh,

Cargill, Monk,

Clarke, Oliver,

Earle, Osier,

Hackett, Simmons,

Kaulbach, Tolton,

Kidd, Vrooman.-18.

NAYS : Messieurs

Alcorn, Macdonald,

Angers, Mackie,

Bazinet, MacKinnon,

Beland, MacLaren

Belcourt, (Huntingdon),

Blair, McCool.

Borden (King's, N.S.), McCreary,

Boyd, McGugan,

Brunet, McLennan,

Bureau, Marcil (Bonayenture)

Calvert, Matheson,

Campbell, Maxwell,

Carroll, Meigs, ,

Champagne, Monet,

Christie, Parmelee,

Costigan, Paterson,

Cowan, Pringle,

Davis, Reid (Restigouche),

Demers (St. John), Richardson,

Douglas, Riley,

Dugas, Roche (Halifax),

Dyment, Rosamond,

Emmerson, Ross (Ontario),

Farquharson,

Flint,

Fraser,

Gibson,

Girard,

Holmes,

Hughes (King's, P.E.I.),

Johnston (Cape Breton),

Johnston (Lambton),

Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),

Lavell,

LeBlanc,

Lewis,

Logan,

Loy,

Amendment negatived.

1. No.

2. No.

This is purely an Imperial matter, the contract is for the Imperial government.

1. Are the by-laws respecting the tolls and charges to be fixed, regulated and charged by the British Yukon Railway Company, mentioned in the Order in Council published in the 'Canada Gazette' on the 1st day of March, 1902, still in force ?

2. Has any one, or more, and if so, which, of the said by-laws, or the approval thereof by the Governor in Council, been rescinded ?

3. With regard to the condition of the said Order in Council :-'That by-laws Nos. 4 and 5 be approved, subject to the express understanding and condition that no tolls deemed excessive by the Governor in Council will be charged for transport over the railway between Skagway and White Pass ; and that, if such excessive tolls are charged, the Governor in Council may rescind any Order in Council approving the tolls fixed by the said by-laws, or may reduce such tolls,' is the government aware that since the date of the said Order in Council, a charge of $31 per ton-taking class 10 as a basis-is made for hauling a ton 21 miles, from Skagway to the Summit, while from1 the Summit to White Pass, 90 miles, the charge is $14 per ton, making a total charge of $45 per ton for 110 miles ?

4. If such a charge is made, does the government consider the toll excessive, within the intention of the said Order in Council ?

5. Has the government rescinded the said Order ir. Council in whole or in part, or reduced the tolls thereby approved ?