Mr. STEVENS:

I hope the hon. member will favour us with some explanation of the intent of this bill.

Mr. JACOBS:

The explanation is contained in the bill itself, Air. Speaker.

Mr. STEVENS': My hon. friend might elucidate it.

Mr. JACOBS:

It is drafted in very simple language.

Not legal language.

Mr. JACOBS:

No, not legal language. It is intended as an amendment to section 336 of the Railway Act, chapter 170 of the revised statutes of Canada, and reads as follows:

(4) A return ticket issued by any railway company between any two point in Canada shall be acepted by any other railway company whose line runs between the same terminals.

I do not know that any explanation is

necessary.

Mr. MANION:

Except as to why it should be so.

Mr. JACOBS:

It is intended for the convenience of the public. I think that is a good reason for bringing the bill before this house. The railway companies state it would be somewhat inconvenient as a matter of auditing for them to make this exchange. For example, a return ticket is issued, we will say, from Montreal to Toronto; the party reaches Toronto and finds it will be more convenient for him to return to Montreal on the other line; he turns in the return half to the other line and asks to be carried to his destination; this other line takes the return half, hands it over to its auditors, it passes through the clearing house, or whatever it may be called, and a refund is made by the company that issued the ticket. In England this is the rule. There they seem to have advanced a little further than we have in meeting the

Railway Act

convenience of the public. I myself have travelled from Glasgow to Edinburgh on the Caledonian railway with the return half of a ticket issued by the North British Railway.

Mr. DUNNING:

When?

Mr. JACOBS:

Not within the last week I will admit.

Mr. DUNNING:

Recently, I mean.

Mr. JACOBS:

No, not recently; but I have no reason to believe that that practice has been changed.

Mr. DUNNING:

Some years ago?

Mr. JACOBS:

Yes.

Mr. MANION:

Some years ago it was

not the practice. I remember having the return half of a ticket rejected by one railway to which I presented it, the ticket having been issued by another railway for a return trip between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Mr. JACOBS:

Perhaps they raised the

question of the character of the passenger.

Mr. MANION:

According to the immigration law they would be more likely to raise it against my hon. friend.

Mr. JACOBS:

When I presented the return half of my ticket to the North British Railway it was at once taken up and I found myself in Glasgow within an hour. If the only objection is a question of auditing between the two railway companies, I do not think it ought to weigh with this house. My hon. friend can understand that in the case of a return ticket issued to a person travelling, say, from Montreal to Toronto, he may find when he wishes to get back to Montreal that there is no sleeping accommodation on the issuing line, but that he can secure a berth on the other line. In that event why should not the return half be accepted by that other company? It can be turned in by the passenger himself when he reaches Montreal or even when he arrives in Toronto. It is only a question as to who shall collect the money, the passenger himself, who may have run short of cash after he has been in Toronto one or two days,-

Mr. STEVENS:

Not if he came from

Montreal.