Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):

I desire to lay on the Table two Orders in Council with respect to the difficulties which have occuired in the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, in the district known as District 18. One of these Orders in Council constitutes a Director of Coal Operations for that District; the other appoints Mr. W. H. Armstrong, of the city of Vancouver to that position.

STATEMENT BY MR. L. J. GAUTHIER. On the Orders of the Day:

Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER (St. Hyacinthe):

Mr. Speaker, on my arrival here this morning, I took cognizance of the remarks made by you on Friday last and reported in Hansard of that day. In deference to your wishes as there expressed, I desire to say that there was no intention in my mind to reflect on you, Sir, wrhen speaking on the amendment of the hon. member for Ber-thier (Mr. Barrette). My statement was directed against the Government. If anything in my remarks can be construed as reflecting on the Chair, I withdraw it.

Mr. T. J. STEWART:

I propose that this Bill should be amended b'y striking out sec-

tions 1 and 2, and I think that in that form it might be read the third time. I do not desire to take up the time of the committee in explaining the Bill, because I have done this once or twice already.

Mr. G. C. WILSON (Wentworth):

This

Bill affects onlv the town of Dundas and not anv other part of the country. I am opposed to the withdrawal of sections 1 ahd 2, and I take that position at the request of the Town Council of Dundas whose representatives were present at the meeting of the committee by which this Bill was considered. At the meeting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company was represented by counsel, and the town of Dundas was represented by the mayor and members of the town council. The provision of the Bill granting an extension of twenty-nine years was opposed, and the committee amended it so as to provide for an extension of five years. If the House approves of that, I have nothing to say against the Bill; but I do object to dropping clauses 1 and 2. The Bill was carefully considered by the committee and there was a large majority in favour of the amendment, and I believe that the Bill should carry as it is.

Mr. T. J. STEWART:

Considering the course the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. G. C. Wilson) has taken, it will be necessary for me to explain the Bill. This Bill arises through an agreement made between the town of Dundas and the Hamilton and Dundas Street Railway Company for the removal of freight to and from the town. Dundas is in a valley, and no steam roads go there, and it is necessary that the freight should be removed by electric railway. The agreement was for a period of twenty-one years, which was as long as it could be made, but it was provided in the agreement that the town of Dundas, if it chose, might pass a by-law, and get it approved by the Ontario Legislature, extending the term for twenty-nine years more, making a total of fifty years. This was afterwards done. The Hamilton and Dundas Street Railway Company entered into an agreement with the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company, under which the latter company was to take the freight from the former at the end of their electric track. Practically, the action of the Ontario Legislature ratified the agreement with the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company, but that legislature could not ratify it formally because the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo

Railway has a Dominion charter, while the other road has a local charter. The agreement with the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company could be ratified onl^ by this Parliament. The company has come here to ask this Parliament to confirm the rights given by the town of Dundas, and to make this agreement binding for fifty years. The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company has come here in good faith expecting that its agreement will be ratified by this Parliament. The committee saw fit to refuse that ratification. But, instead of simply refusing, they did that which, I am advised by the Law Clerk of this House, they had no right to do. The town of Dundas, and the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company were represented before the committee, but the Hamilton and Dundas Railway Company was not represented. The committee amended the Bill so as to provide that the time fixed should be five years instead of twenty-nine years. In my opinion they had the right to confirm or to refuse the agreement for twenty-nine years, but this is the only legal right that the committee had.

The committee did not follow these rules but made a new agreement in the absence of the Hamilton and Dundas Street Railway which could not be legally done under the agreement. For that reason and because of their refusing to allow us to proceed with our Bill, I made the motion today to have it withdrawn. The town of Dundas is objecting to this Bill because they say that the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company have no right to keep their cars in front of the doors of the people in Dundas. The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company were not responsible for that for the simple reason that they were using the tracks of the Hamilton and Dundas Street Railway Company and therefore they did not have control of the track or the use of the track. But the people of the town of Dundas say it is unfair to keep these freight cars in front of the people's doors and the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway company agreed to an expense of $15,000 for buying the right of way and removing the cars to some switching place in Dundas that would be suitable. That rem'oved' that objection. Then the town of Dundas said there was another objection; they did not want to be bothered by the smoke nuisance. They wanted the Toronto, Hamilton and BuSalo Company to buy two electric motors for removing freight cars that would cost the company $80,000. The interest on that

investment would be $4,800 while the total profit obtained from handling freight in Dundas is only $5,000 and some odd dollars. Therefore the company said that there was not enough in it and said they were quite willing to drop out. The authorities of the town of Dundas said: We would be very glad. The hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson) told me that they would be very glad if we would drop out of the town. The mayor of Dundas said that he . would be very glad if our company would drop out but when we asked for the privilege of having our Bill withdrawn, they said: No, I do not know what answer to make to them. They want to force us to accept a Bill that we will not accept. I do not think it is fair that the company I represent should be forced to accept a Bill they do not want. For that reason I ask this committee to allow the company to withdraw these clauses and give the Bill its third reading.

Mr. NICKLE:

When this Bill was before the Railway Committee it was well discussed. This is not a Bill that in any way touches the riding I represent, but I was in the Railway Committee when the matter was up for discussion. Shortly, the facts are these: Twenty-one years ago the town of Dundas entered into an arrangement with the street railway company. The agreement was made for a term of fifty years. By a provision of the Ontariostatutes of that time, a municipality was prevented from entering into an agreement for a term exceeding twentyone years. The municipality recognized that the agreement was illegal

beyond the 21 years, and so also did the street railway company, who went to the legislature and had the agreement ratified in so far as it .affected Dundas and the street railway company. I am a bit ahead, however, of my story in this respect. The street railway company subsequently to its entering into the agreement with the town of Dundas, made an arrangement with what I shall call the steam railway company by which the street railway company extended to the steam railway company certain privileges over the street railway company's tracks for a period of fifty years. That agreement was also ratified by the Ontario Legislature. For some reason that was not disclosed to the committee, the steam railway company, which had its incorporation from this Parliament, stood by for twenty years and never came to secure the ratification of the agreement in so far as it was

concerned. At the expiration of twenty years they come before this Parliament, and in the face of the most acute objections from the town of Dundas, who assert that the main street of their town is being destroyed, that their citizens are being annoyed by the smoke and noise incidental to railway traffic, try to force upon Dundas an agreement for twenty-nine years, which the town of Dundas does not want. I cannot understand why the street railway company were not represented before the committee. This Bill was not before the committee once, but, I think possibly twice or thrice, and if the street railway company wishes to ibe heard there is no reason why they should not have been present. The committee felt that they were confronted with this difficulty: It seemed to be an

obvious hardship to throw the Bill out altogether because that would practically deprive the town of Dundas of steam railway accommodation. It is all very well for the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Stewart) to come here and say that they are quite prepared to drop the Bill and leave the town of Dundas entirely helpless. The committee thought that Dundas was entitled to protection. As the two railway companies and the town had entered into an agreement that was at its inception illegal, it was felt that the town of Dundas should not be compelled to recognize a twenty-nine years' extension or to- submit to an agreement that was working great hardship to its citizens. At the time the agreements were made between the two railways and the town the policy of this Parliament, and the policy of the Legislature of Ontario, was against protracted agreements, because they felt that the rights of the people might not 'be adequately protected. It would be unreasonable that this Parliament should impose on the town of Dundas an agreement fc a further term of twenty-nine years when the railway company most particularly concerned stood by for twenty-one years without seeking parliamentary ratification knowing that at the expiration of twenty-one years if ratification was not obtained from this Parliament neither Dundas nor the street railway company could compel them to carry out that agreement now they have come and asked fpr a further extension of twenty years because they think it an advantageous agreement. If it had been a disadvantageous agreement they could have repudiated responsibility after twenty-one years.

Mr. STEWART:

We do not ask to be relieved of responsibility. We brought this Bill here and we ask to be allowed to withdraw these clauses. We do not create any liability. The lawyer from Kingston, being a lawyer, ought tp know that very well. He is mistaken when he says that the agreement has been in existence for less than twenty-one years. The agreement has been in existence for less than that, for about twenty years and it has another year to run. We are advised by more than half a dozen lawyers that the committee have no right whatever to pass that limitation for five years and they have no right to make a renewal pf the agreement. We ask that we be allowed to withdraw those clauses. We are not treating the town of Dundas unfairly. Furthermore the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Company is under a Dominion charter. They want to have the freight removed by electric power. One of the arguments is that the Dominion Railway Board has no power in this transaction because one portion of the road is under an Ontario charter and the other under a Dominion charter. If that be true, the town of Dundas if they have no other purpose in view, on the face of it, would not insist on what - they are doing to-day because if the Dominion Railway Commission have no authority to order these cars to be removed by electric power they could not so order them. But, we have agreed to allow such legislation to go through this House as would place the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Company entirely under the Dominion Railway Board. We have offered to do everything that was fair but we want the two clauses left out of this Bill. We are not going to accept the Bill as it is and we take the ground that the committee have no right to amend the Bill. Therefore, we should be allowed to amend these clauses.

Mr. G. C. WILSON (Wentworth):

The

remarks of the hon. gentleman for West Hamilton (Mr. Stewart) would lead one to think that we were asking that this road be electrified right away. The town of Dundas is not asking any such thing. The railway company is asking for an extension for twenty-nine years. We, in turn, in the town of Dundas, have asked that it be extended for five years only, and then, if the company comply with the regulations and do what is right by the town, there will be nothing to prevent Parliament further extending the time. Our request is a

fair and reasonable one. The matter was well threshed out in the committee. The hon. member for West Hamilton is not interested in this railway, while the town of Dundas is. I have a letter from the mayor of the town, which I shall read. It is as follows:

Dundas, Ont., Canada, June 23, 1917.

Copy of Resolution.

Whereas, Bill No. 39 respecting T. H. & B. Railway was amended by the Railway Committee of the House of Commons to provide for the termination of the agreement between T. H. & B. Ry. and H. & D. Ry. in November, 1922, and

Whereas, the T. H. & B. Ry. have notified our manufacturers that their freight service will probably be withdrawn in November, 1918, and

Whereas, Bill No. 39 has yet to be passed by the House, and the T. H. & B. have threatened to withdraw the clauses therein relating to said agrement.

Be it resolved,

That this council request our local member, G. C. Wilson, Esq., M.P., to use his best endeavours to prevent the withdrawal of the amended clauses referred to and to have the *clauses as amended by the Railway Committee adopted by the House.

And that a copy of this resolution he forwarded to G. C. Wilson, Esq., M.P., and to Richard Blain, Esq., M.P., Chairman of Railway Committee of House of Commons.

Chas. E. Dickson,

. Mayor.

Let me further say that this is a threat on the part of the railway company that they will withdraw their freight 'service. This whole matter was threshed out in the committee. The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo railway at its inception, wanted $30,000 from the town. That demand was turned down by the people and .the railway want to get their hands on our throat again, and practically strangle the town if this House gives them permission to do so. I do not think the House will. I think that the House will .agree that it is fair to give a five year extension and if the railway take their cars off the streets and put in their own sidings and so on, appropriate action ean be taken. The company do not own a mile of track or a piece of property in the town. They run over the Hamilton and Dundas railway; they do not own a siding, as all the sidings are private. Therefore it is not taking anything away from the company or interfering with their rights, and I hope the committee will agree to this clause as amended.

Mr. T. J. STEWART:

If my contentions are right, the railway committee of this Hojise had no right whatever to pass this

amendment. Then I do not think it would be wise for the House to adopt it. If there is any doubt about the night of the committee to amend the Bill in any way, then I do not suppose the House will want to pass the Bill with that amended clause in. Why should we not allow the Bill to stand over until to-night and have legal opinion on it? I have a legal opinion, and your solicitors tell me that the committee had no right to do this. I did not know that this opposition was coming up to-day. The town of Dundas did not say that they were going to oppose the Bill. Mr. Wilson has said all along that the town would be glad if the company would withdraw it, and now to-day I have no one here except myself. There were lawyers in the committee who took the ground that the committee had no right to make the amendment. Mr. Wilson never gave me any idea he would oppose the withdrawing of this clause, and so I think that, to say the least, it is playing a little sharp.

Mr. G. C. WILSON:

If there is sharp practice I am not guilty. The Bill was brought up in my absence on Friday. I have no excuse for not being here, but had I known it was coming up I would have been here. I am following the instructions of the town, the only corporation really interested in this matter. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr Stewart) is not interested, as the railway does not run through his constituency. Practically the only reason why he should take an interest in the Bill is that he must be interested in the T. H. and B. more than in the town of Dundas, and I would ask to have the Bill put through as it is.

Mr. T. J. STEWART:

I can assure you I am not interested in any way in the T. H. and B. railway. I never had any stock in it and never intend to. I am not interested except that I was asked to allow the Bill to go through in my name, and I agreed. After the Bill had been before the House for some time I was informed that the town of Dundas was going to oppose it. My hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Wilson) and I have always been exceedingly friendly, and I am very sorry that this clash has come up between us. I am interested in this just as any member is interested in a Bill which he undertakes to put through the House; it is his duty to be fair and honest to the persons in whose behalf the Bill is introduced.