Mr. SPEAKER.

Upon the motion, yesterday, by the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River for leave to introduce a Bill intituled an Act to amend chapter 139, 4 and 5, Edward VII., intituled ' An Act respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Limited,' I stated that I would to-day give a more extensive opinion upon his right to introduce the Bill as a public measure.

Upon a careful perusal of the proposed Bill I find that it is composed entirely of amendments to sections of the Act incorporating the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Limited, the main provisions being as follows :

To compel the company to provide further plans and execute additional work and carry out any new works required by such authority as may have jurisdiction on the Rainy river at or near Fort Frances, and that if, upon the application of the town or otherwise, it appears that the company has executed any work not approved by the Governor in Council the company shall, if directed, carry out any work or make any change required, and also with regard to the flow of water through the works of the company, the supply of power and energy, and the regulation of the methods and conditions under which the same shall be furnished and the prices therefor. And, further, that the company shall deliver, in Canada, a stated proportion of the total power delivered by them, and that the town of Fort Frances may, if a resolution of its council represents that the determination of the quantity of power, prices, conditions and manner of service of electrical power and energy is important in the interests of the town, apply to the Board of Railway Commissioners, which shall determine such application.

As to whether certain portions of the Bill are, or are not, properly the subject of a public Act is not necessary for me to determine, but upon the extracts from the Bill which I have just given I would state the following opinions from authorities. It is stated by Bourinot, 3rd edition, page 706, that:

Private Bills are distinguished from public Bills in that they directly relate to the affair?

Mr. COWAN.

of private individuals or of corporate bodies, and not to matters of public policy or to the community in general.

And at page 728:

'Bills from the corporations of towns and municipal bodies, generally, are always treated as private Bills when they desire special legislation affecting their property or interests.

And on page 729, Bourinot states as follows:

As a rule, it may be stated that when Bills treat of matters of general pdlicy, such as sanitary, or police, or commercial, or fiscal regulations, they may be considered as public measures. In fact, >alll Bills affecting the general interests of the community, and involving considerations of public policy, are out of the category of private Bills dealing with the special interests of corporations or associations.

May 6th edition, page 626, says:

Every Bill for the particular interest or benefit of any person or persons, is treated as a private Bill. Whether it be for the interest of an individual, a public company or corporation, a parish, a city, a county, or other locality, it is equally distinguished from a measure of public policy, in which the whole community are interested.

Even in England the most extreme case in which a Bill affecting local interests has been admitted as a public Bill is in the case of the metropolis of London, where such Bills have frequently been held to be public Bills by reason of the large area and vast population and the variety of interests concerned, thus constituting them measures of public policy rather than of focal interest.

This cannot be'said to be the present case.

Ilbert's Legislative Methods and Forms (1901), at page 28 says:

A private Bill is a measure for the interest of some person or class of persons, whether an individual, a corporation, or the Inhabitants of a county, town, parish or other locality, and originates on the petition of the person or persons interested. A public Bill is introduced as a measure of public policy in which the whole comm unity is interested, and originates on the motion of some member of the House in which the Bill is introduced.

And on page 30:

Bills relating to particular localities only are, as a rule, treated as private Bills.

In view of the nature of the Bill proposed by the hon. member, and of the precedents (among which are those which I have already quoted) I must hold that the Bill is a private Bill, and must be introduced as such and must comply with the rules of the House respecting private Bills.

1. Has the Grand Trunk Railway Company submited to the government or to the Minister of Railways and Canals plans for the erection of a new bridge across the mouth of the Humber river at Toronto?

2. If so, is it true that such bridge is only about 19 feet above the water, and contains abutments encroaching upon the river banks, and at least one pier in the middle of the stream, 15 feet wide by 80 feet long, which is said to be more in the nature of a dam than a pier?

3. Is the government aware that such a structure would practically dam up the river and cause water and ice to back up and ruin the banks and trees, &e., thereon?

4. Is the government aware that the Humber river is now a navigable stream from Lake Ontario to Bloor street, a distance of something over 2 miles, and the valley is about to become the site of a system of parks and driveways for the city of Toronto?

5. Has the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries been called to the fact that the erection of such a structure would be placing an obstruction in a navigable stream?

^ Mr. PLGSLrA. I have not a written answer to this question, but I think I can give all the information which the hon. gentleman desires. The Grand Trunk Railway Company has applied to my department for the approval of the pians of a bridge across the Humber river, and they have also app'ied to the Board of Railway Commissioners for approval. From the fact that the company has applied to my department for approval, the application being made under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, I would assume that they are of opinion that the river is navigable. I have a communication from the city of Toronto to its solicitors and also from the solicitors of certain gentlemen who are interested in property along the banks of the Humber river, desiring to be heard. I have an application also from the company asking me to name an early date for the hearing, and I propose to do so and then to notify the city of Toronto and the solicitors for the gentlemen interested, so that all parties can have an opportunity of being heard.

1. What was the cost of printing and preparing the pamphlet entitled ' Canada's Farthest South,' as published by the Minister of the Interior?

i

2. What amount of money was paid to H. A. Kennedy, wf the London ' Times ' staff for preparing same?

1. Cost of printing, $974.57. Cost of preparation answered by No. 2.

2. $255.50.

1. On tariff schedule A, of January 26, 1911, articles free of duty, item It, which reads: ' Fish of all kinds, fresh, frozen, packed in ice, salted or preserved in any form, except sardines and other fish preserved in oil; and shell fish of all kinds, including oysters, lobsters and clams in any state, fresh or packed, and coverings of the foregoing,' does the expression ' coverings of the foregoing ' apply to and inclnde the cans, packages, cases and coverings in which all classes of fish mentioned are contained?

2. Under item 15 of said schedule, which reads ' seal, herring, whale and other fish oil, including cod oil,' are the containers in which said oils are shipped, free of duty?

3. In a former tariff treaty, made with the United States, affecting Canada, were Canadian fish allowed free admission in the United States, and the cans, packages, cases and coverings, or any of them, containing same, held to be dutiable?

4. Were fish oils allowed free admission to the United States, and the containers thereof held to he liable to duty?

1. Yes. .

2. Yes.

3. There was some difficulty in former years as to the taxation of packages when the contents thereof were free.

4. I have not been able to ascertain whether the difficulty of former years applied to fish oil.

Mr. EDWARDS:

To whom was the contract awarded for the supplying hay, straw and oats for the batteries at Kingston, and at what prices?

Mr. MURPHY.

To Charles Donoghue at: $10 per ton for hay, $6.50 per ton for straw, 45 cents per bushel for oats.

Mr. GRAHAM.

I have been asked by the Toronto ' Globe ' to make a correction in a matter which somewhat relates to my department, and the briefest way to do so is to read this despatch

The 'Globe ' has received from the Dominion government, including the Intercolonial railway, during the past three years an average of $8,500 per annum. Three papers

here report Mr. Lennox as stating in the House that we receive $80,000 per annum.

(Sgd.) JOHN F. MACK AY.

Mr. BLAIN.

I wish to ask the government whether they are now appointing the census commissioners?