Why should we ?
Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
Because the interpretation clause will make anj article what it is therein termed' no matter what it might otherwise be. Whether it be a map or a plan, you make It a plan.
On section 2, subsection U :
The expression ' railway ' means any railway which the company has authority to construct or operate, and includes all branches, sidings, stations, depots, wharfs, rolling stock, equipment, stores, property real or personal and works connected therewith, and also any railway bridge, tunnel, or other structure which the company is authorized to construct.
I would like to inquire why express companies have been| omitted from the operation of this Bill ?
We have not come to that yet.
I should have brought this point up under subsection C, which defines the meaning of the expression 1 company,' but that subsection was put through rather hurriedly.
If the hon. gentleman wants to raise, any point regarding express companies, he must do so in some other connections than this, because so far we have not dealt with any provision excluding express companies. We have not passed any clause declaring that express companies are excluded from the operation of this Bill, and have not changed the law in that respect.
When subsection C was under discussion, I did not notice that the expression ' company ' was confined to railway companies, or I would have asked that it should also include ' express companies.'
Why ' express companies ' ?
Because they are closely allied to railway companies, and this Bill should control express companies as well as railway companies.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. It would never do to say that all the provisions we are making in this Bill with regard to railway companies should apply to express companies. If the hon. gentleman wants a certain control exercised over express companies by the Railway Commission, it will be open to him to ask the committee to adopt some provisions with regard to that subject.
But should not that come properly under paragraph C, wjiich defines what the expression ' company ' means ?
Paragraph C provides that whenever the word ' company ' is used alone, it means a railway company, and that is in the law as it stands to-day. If you want to make any enactment with regard to express companies, it is quite open to you to do so, but such enactment would not be germane to the subject we are now discussing.
Is there any other place in the Act where I can bring this point to the attention of the committee ?
The present law provided that express companies should be given every facility, and that no discrimination should be exercised regarding them by the railways. We are not changing that.
Does the hon. minister Intend to take jurisdiction over the rates of express companies ?
I hope the hon. gentleman will not bring that question up now.
I am reserving the right to bring it up later on and am simply asking the hon. minister whether he has taken such jurisdiction.
When we come to that phase of the Bill, we will discuss that point.
When we come to that phase of the Bill, we will find no provisions for express companies and may overlook the matter.
My hon. friend is not likely to forget. Do not let us be drawn into a discussion as to whether the Bill should include express companies when we are dealing simply with explanatory clauses.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
This clause is different from the old Act. The present law 82$
says : * Which any company is authorized
to construct under a special Act.' You make it read : * Which the company is
authorized to construct.' You leave out the words ' under a special Act,' and change the word ' any ' to ' the.'